Show me your ego

[billydkid]

I wasn't really sure where to put this.....so I put it here. It strikes me as strange the way the concept of ego has come to be accepted to the point that an ego is considered to be a literally existing thing, rather than a convenient short hand for describing certain aspects of perceived and experienced consciousness and behavior. It was Freud who came up the concepts of ego and Id and super ego and such, wasn't it? Isn't it odd how completely accepted his paradigms have become and how ingrained all the Freudian concepts have become in our collective consciousness - sort of a Freudian concept itself isn't it? We take forgranted that there is, in fact, an "unconcious" - not just a lot we are not always conscious of, but an actual secret space where mysterious processes occur. And the ego is considered, practically, an organ which could almost be removed. I don't really pay any attention to psychology, but are there other schools of thought in which notions like ego are not meaningful?

 

[Wudang]

Yes, several. I remember someone once comparing Freud's model to a steam engine, which was fairly high tech at his time and today our models are more based on IT ideas, so ....

Mercutio has on occasion posted a link to an article on radical behaviourism.

 

[Mercutio]

As I understand it, bdk, the "Bioenergetics" school of psychology (actually, calling it part of my science truly offends me--I think it is utter pseudoscience claptrap) does view the id, ego, and superego as manifested in bodily something. I say "something" because it has never been properly explained to me what virtually any bioenergetic terms mean--and I have tried for years.

But more of an answer to your OP question, most in psychology who use the term "ego" do so metaphorically. Yes, there are still those lurking in corners who do appear to mean something more by it, but there are also those (yes, like Behaviorists) who have no use for the term at all.

Wudang, there have been a few that I have posted links to, so I don't know which you refer to--but really, any good source on radical behaviorism is a good start.

 

[RandFan]

You have a point, however the word ego gives us a mental picture. It is very good at communicating a meaning concerning certain human behaviors. Why do people want the last word? Why will people argue over trivial matters? Why do we see ourselves as having a consistant self? In the end it might be nothing more than a mythical homunclus but it does do the job.

 

[Mercutio]

You have a point, however the word ego gives us a mental picture. It is very good at communicating a meaning concerning certain human behaviors. Why do people want the last word? Why will people argue over trivial matters? Why do we see ourselves as having a consistant self? In the end it might be nothing more than a mythical homunclus but it does do the job.

Well, yes and no, IMHO. It does evoke an image, but "ego" is so amorphously defined that the image is not helpful. Ego is a healthy thing...a selfish thing...a vain thing...we comment about somebody being too egotistical, but also complain when someone has no ego at all. It is just too vague. It (like most Freudian terms) explains too much, and therefore explains nothing at all.

 

[RandFan]

Well, yes and no, IMHO. It does evoke an image, but "ego" is so amorphously defined that the image is not helpful. Ego is a healthy thing...a selfish thing...a vain thing...we comment about somebody being too egotistical, but also complain when someone has no ego at all. It is just too vague. It (like most Freudian terms) explains too much, and therefore explains nothing at all.

Do you have a suggestion to replace it with? I think you and I will have to just disagree. When I use the word people know what I mean and I don't have another word anyway. So I'm afraid that like it or not we are stuck with it. Not because of any erroneous meaning but because it works to convey a real meaning pure and simple. What is the essence of humanity that causes one to be more self centered, selfish, boastful or stubborn? I'll concede for arguments sake that the self is an illusion. But do any of us truly live as though it is? Do we not correct people who mispronounce our names? Do we not seek to make our environment unique to us? Do we not enjoy flattery and seek recognition? Isn't fame far more important to many if not most people than almost anything else? Why? Can you tell me why two people will debate for days on an internet forum over the meaning of a word?

As long as people live as though the self is real or until you come up with a word that we all agree on to label that part of us that makes us think there is an us and causes us to act as though there were an us and we all know and use it then perhaps the word "ego" will truly become anachronistic. Until then the simple utility of the word will keep it alive and well whether we like it or not. Personally I like it.

 

[Mercutio]

How to replace it? Depends on context. Just as we still use the word "sunrise" after abandoning geocentrism, the word "ego" will still be understood, but inaccurate, in colloquial speech. When there is any need for accuracy, though, it makes much more sense to simply say what it is that the person is doing, rather than inferring some circularly defined dynamic ego to "explain" as well as describe the behavior.

(In addition, we will thereby lose a whole bunch of improper "explanations"--we are very good at attributing someone else's behavior to their ego, while our own is excused by circumstances. The social cognitive types call this the "fundamental attribution error". If we quit inferring ego states--at least when we are serious about examining our behavior--we may begin to see the environmental influences on others that we so easily see on ourselves.)

 

[RandFan]

When there is any need for accuracy, though, it makes much more sense to simply say what it is that the person is doing, rather than inferring some circularly defined dynamic ego to "explain" as well as describe the behavior.

I don't think so. Ego defines that part of us, the sense of self that causes us to behave the way that we do. Perhaps that "part" is actually many parts. Perhaps the sense of self might be an illusion but we sense it nonetheless. To simply describe a behavior is to not understand the underlying reasons for that behavior. Ego might have unnecessary baggage but it does a job that a simple description does not. You don't deny the behaviors, I assume you agree that they are associated. We agree that they are triggered in part by external variables, what is the underlying internal mechanism that causes one to behave in such a fashion? And it seems important at this point to note these behaviors are often irrational? So for some reason we act in often irrational and self aggrandizing ways, why? Could we group these underlying states and call them "ego"?

(In addition, we will thereby lose a whole bunch of improper "explanations"--we are very good at attributing someone else's behavior to their ego, while our own is excused by circumstances.

Assumes that a word is simply an excuse for a behavior when in fact it is a sense of self that causes us to behave in such a fashion in the first place. We should be accurate. We should understand all of the variables that cause behavior and be prepared to be equitable and consistent in the explanation regardless of whether the behavior is our own or of others. But ignoring the internal causes won't solve any problems. And understanding that there is an internal cause will. If we recognize in ourselves that we are more likely to excuse our own behaviors because of this sense of self then we are more likely to be equitable IMO.

Different people respond to various situations differently, why? Why are some possessed of more hubris than others? Could we say that some people place greater importance in their sense of self than others? If so, is there are word that could encapsulate this sense of self that would also encapsulate the potential for certain behaviors such as presumption, arrogance, hubris? I think the word ego does a very good job.

The social cognitive types call this the "fundamental attribution error". If we quit inferring ego states--at least when we are serious about examining our behavior--we may begin to see the environmental influences on others that we so easily see on ourselves.)

Environment is but one part of the equation. I don't see how we can ignore internal states to understand behavior. If one is inconsistent then one is inconsistent. I'm not sure how one can blame a word for such inconsistencies. It would seem there is an internal state that places importance to our own actions based on a sense of self that compels us to excuse or justify our actions while refusing to excuse or justify other peoples actions. What would you call this internal state?

Yes, ego carries with it unnecessary baggage. But then so do words like belief. Let's better educate in an attempt to get rid of the baggage rather than declare the word ego defunct.

 

[Underemployed]

OK, since you asked nicely, here is my ego:

Now I've shown you mine, you must show yours...

 

[billydkid]

Man

OK, since you asked nicely, here is my ego:

Now I've shown you mine, you must show yours...

Man, what an ego!

 

[Mercutio]

I don't think so. Ego defines that part of us, the sense of self that causes us to behave the way that we do. Perhaps that "part" is actually many parts. Perhaps the sense of self might be an illusion but we sense it nonetheless. To simply describe a behavior is to not understand the underlying reasons for that behavior. Ego might have unnecessary baggage but it does a job that a simple description does not. You don't deny the behaviors, I assume you agree that they are associated. We agree that they are triggered in part by external variables, what is the underlying internal mechanism that causes one to behave in such a fashion? And it seems important at this point to note these behaviors are often irrational? So for some reason we act in often irrational and self aggrandizing ways, why? Could we group these underlying states and call them "ego"?

Sure we could, if we did not mind circular reasoning. The only evidence you have for ego here is the behavior you are claiming is caused by it.

Assumes that a word is simply an excuse for a behavior when in fact it is a sense of self that causes us to behave in such a fashion in the first place. We should be accurate.

Yes, we should be accurate. We should never use the phrase "when in fact" unless we know that it is, in fact, "in fact". Again, logically, the "sense of self" you speak of here is circularly inferred. It may indeed exist, but current evidence does not require it at all.

We should understand all of the variables that cause behavior and be prepared to be equitable and consistent in the explanation regardless of whether the behavior is our own or of others. But ignoring the internal causes won't solve any problems. And understanding that there is an internal cause will. If we recognize in ourselves that we are more likely to excuse our own behaviors because of this sense of self then we are more likely to be equitable IMO.

And the cause of the internal causes? What is that? A cause-causer? Is it internal as well? And turtles all the way down?

Different people respond to various situations differently, why? Why are some possessed of more hubris than others? Could we say that some people place greater importance in their sense of self than others? If so, is there are word that could encapsulate this sense of self that would also encapsulate the potential for certain behaviors such as presumption, arrogance, hubris? I think the word ego does a very good job.

How is it you have determined that they have hubris? After they behave. This is more circularity. It is very tempting to cut off the investigation at that point, but it is an "explanatory fiction" unless there is some before-the-fact evidence for it. Why do people respond to various situations differently? Different learning histories, and different genetic makeups (of course, genetics is, because of natural selection, merely a long-term--across generations rather than across a single lifetime--reflection of the influence of the environment).

Environment is but one part of the equation. I don't see how we can ignore internal states to understand behavior. If one is inconsistent then one is inconsistent. I'm not sure how one can blame a word for such inconsistencies. It would seem there is an internal state that places importance to our own actions based on a sense of self that compels us to excuse or justify our actions while refusing to excuse or justify other peoples actions. What would you call this internal state?

What internal state? It would seem that the sun rises in the sky each morning, but seeming does not equal reality.

Yes, ego carries with it unnecessary baggage. But then so do words like belief. Let's better educate in an attempt to get rid of the baggage rather than declare the word ego defunct.

I think you would like to read the GM's thread called "the power of Will". I will try to edit this post to include a link, but the computer I am on now will crash if I open two windows.

Link to thread

 

[RandFan]

Sure we could, if we did not mind circular reasoning. The only evidence you have for ego here is the behavior you are claiming is caused by it.

Are you saying there is no cause for the behavior besides external ones? How is stating that there are internal states circular?

Yes, we should be accurate. We should never use the phrase "when in fact" unless we know that it is, in fact, "in fact".

Let me be sure I'm clear about your position. Are you saying that there is no "sense" of self?

Again, logically, the "sense of self" you speak of here is circularly inferred. It may indeed exist, but current evidence does not require it at all.

So no internal state that even seems to be a self?

And the cause of the internal causes? What is that? A cause-causer? Is it internal as well? And turtles all the way down?

No, this is not at all my point. We have internal programing. No need for a cause-causer anymore than a computer needs a cause-causer.

How is it you have determined that they have hubris? After they behave. This is more circularity. It is very tempting to cut off the investigation at that point, but it is an "explanatory fiction" unless there is some before-the-fact evidence for it. Why do people respond to various situations differently? Different learning histories, and different genetic makeups (of course, genetics is, because of natural selection, merely a long-term--across generations rather than across a single lifetime--reflection of the influence of the environment).

You clearly don't understand my point. I'm not sure if it is my fault or you are so dead set to counter every notion that seems to suggest a self that you won't listen to any opinion. I will assume for the moment the problem is mine.

I'm not arguing at the moment that there is a self. Ok? I'm arguing that each of us respond to different stimulis differently. That there are certain behaviors that we identify with the sense of self. Even if it is an illusion we do experience it. That there exists in our programing a set of states that cause some of to be more self centered than others.

What internal state?

I don't know, perhaps you could explain it to me? Why do you want me to understand your POV? Why do you keep responding? What is it that compels to to keep typing? Are you compelled? Do you feel compelled? Stop responding!

Circular Reasoning? Hmmm.... Does my proposition attempt prove itself? Possible. I struggle with logic at times.

Proposition: Humans are possed of some state that we call ego.

Premise: Humans exhibit behaviors that are indicitave of this state.

From another thread.

Skeptic
O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

Regnad Kcin
Really? That small?

What does skeptic mean by this and why did Regnad Kcin respond? I'm not asking to prove that there is an ego but to try and understand what you think would be a better way to communicate. How could Skeptic have better communicated what he meant? Or is Skeptic wrong to suggest that O'Relly has an ego?

Thanks

 

[Mercutio]

Are you saying there is no cause for the behavior besides external ones? How is stating that there are internal states circular?

These posts are getting bulky, so if you do not mind, I'll start small. Please feel free to redirect me to another part if I overlook something. I hope this will actually address more than just the small part I quote here.

The reason this is circular is that you are asserting that there is a causal inner state, the only evidence for which is its alleged behavioral effect. We observe a person acting, and infer an arrogant nature (to use your example). As long as this is merely a description of the actions, there is no problem. But when we take the further step of saying that he acts this way because of his arrogant nature, we are guilty of circular reasoning. (BTW, this is precisely the reason we went from speaking of "type A personality" to using the phrase "type A behavior pattern"--it is intended to be descriptive, not causal.) Note that there is exactly the same evidence (the arrogant behavior) to support the notion that the gods who control this person's behavior are making him behave arrogantly. It is just that this no longer fits our world view.

I do not deny what you call internal states--I do think it is much more practical (and, I think, accurate) to think of them as caused rather than causal. Rather than saying that your sadness (as an example) made you act in a particular way, I think it much more fruitful to say that particular environmental events (which we may investigate--note that this is an empirical question here, and the presence of these events can, in theory, be manipulated in order to establish causality rather than just assert it) caused both your actions and your feelings of sadness. We can (again, at least in theory) manipulate these environmental events--how is it that we could directly manipulate a feeling of sadness? It is quite impossible for us to experimentally manipulate your hubris (I love that word) in order to see whether it does indeed influence your behavior. The best we can do is to manipulate environmental variables which might cause your hubris, and see what effects occur. In which case, of course, Occam suggests that the whole "hubris" step is superfluous, at least causally.

I think I will cut this short here, and wait for your reaction before moving on to anything else. Please believe me, I am not merely arguing for the sake of arguing, and I greatly appreciate your helpful attitude in this discussion.

 

[RandFan]

I do not deny what you call internal states--I do think it is much more practical (and, I think, accurate) to think of them as caused rather than causal. Rather than saying that your sadness (as an example) made you act in a particular way, I think it much more fruitful to say that particular environmental events (which we may investigate--note that this is an empirical question here, and the presence of these events can, in theory, be manipulated in order to establish causality rather than just assert it) caused both your actions and your feelings of sadness. We can (again, at least in theory) manipulate these environmental events--how is it that we could directly manipulate a feeling of sadness? It is quite impossible for us to experimentally manipulate your hubris (I love that word) in order to see whether it does indeed influence your behavior. The best we can do is to manipulate environmental variables which might cause your hubris, and see what effects occur. In which case, of course, Occam suggests that the whole "hubris" step is superfluous, at least causally.

Thanks Mercutio. I think we are moving towards understanding of each other.

Please consider Phineas Gage. Phineas suffered brain damage as a result of a tamping iron that was driven through his skull. He survived but the accident left with him with a significant change in behavior and personality. Why? His environment had not necessarily changed. It was his circuitry that had changed. His wiring. You say the environment causes internal states. Why does it not cause them the same for everyone? If you and I both see a sad movie why is it possible for it to effect me differently? Could it be that my internal programming (connections of neurons via synapses including axons and dendrites) is different than yours? Why do I wake up just before 5:00 am, just in time to turn off the alarm clock before it even sounds and it is not yet sunrise? Could there be an internal clock? Could the state of the chemicals in my brain cause changes in my behavior and mood?

This is what I mean by internal. It is still physical. No little invisible man pulling levers is suggested.

 

[Mercutio]

Thanks Mercutio. I think we are moving towards understanding of each other.

Please consider Phineas Gage. Phineas suffered brain damage as a result of a tamping iron that was driven through his skull. He survived but the accident left with him with a significant change in behavior and personality. Why? His environment had not necessarily changed.

Of course it had! The tamping iron did not come from within! It is certainly an extreme example, but it is absolutely an example of an environmental influence! Of course, most environmental influences are much more subtle, and their effect on us isnot called "brain damage", but rather "learning".

It was his circuitry that had changed. His wiring.

And to a lesser extent, each learning experience "changes our wiring", by creating synaptic connections between neurons. Again, though, the cause is external. The learning takes place as a response to environmental stimuli.

You say the environment causes internal states. Why does it not cause them the same for everyone? If you and I both see a sad movie why is it possible for it to effect me differently? Could it be that my internal programming (connections of neurons via synapses including axons and dendrites) is different than yours?

Yes. Why is it? Because your learning history is different from mine. (This is not mere supposition--studies in goldfish show that learning results in an increase in number of synapses. Learning--changing your behavior as a response to experience--changes your wiring.) To say "it is individual differences" is not the end of the story, but the beginning!

Why do I wake up just before 5:00 am, just in time to turn off the alarm clock before it even sounds and it is not yet sunrise? Could there be an internal clock? Could the state of the chemicals in my brain cause changes in my behavior and mood?

Well, yes. Sorta. Studies on classical conditioning have addressed exactly this question--temporal conditioning, both in the presence and the absence of specific stimuli. Again, though, the key is learning. Waking at 5AM is something you have learned to do, through interaction with your environment.

This is what I mean by internal. It is still physical. No little invisible man pulling levers is suggested.

Whether there is a homunculus involved or not, your explanation stops too early. You see individual differences, but you don't take the next step of seeing where they come from. The evidence suggests that these individual differences are the result of different (environmental) learning histories.

 

[RandFan]

Wow, that was pretty damn quick. Thanks Mercutio, I'll think on it.

RandFan

 

[Mercutio]

Wow, that was pretty damn quick. Thanks Mercutio, I'll think on it.

RandFan

Quick? Took me over 20 years...

 

[RandFan]

Quick? Took me over 20 years...

BTW,

You never answered a question I had asked earlier that I was interested in.

Skeptic
O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

Regnad Kcin
Really? That small?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does skeptic mean by this and why did Regnad Kcin respond?

Ego to me is not a ghost in the maching but the programing, the snipped and pruned synapses mine being diffrent than yours that cause us to respond differently to different situations. And you didn't answer if you felt compelled to respond to my posts or are your reponses all just arbitrary?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Regnad Kcin?
Wasn't he a Pisces who worked for scale?
In any case, not a fire sign.

 

[Mercutio]

BTW,

You never answered a question I had asked earlier that I was interested in.

Skeptic
O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

Regnad Kcin
Really? That small?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does skeptic mean by this and why did Regnad Kcin respond?

I admit that you and I both understand what they were saying--at least, well enough for the context in which it was used. Take someone who was not familiar with O'Reilly, though, and what sort of behavior does that person envision him engaging in? I can imagine the same sentence being said about, say, George W. Bush (or Bill Clinton, not to be partisan) or John Elway, or John Edward, or Prince, or Tom Cruise...and the behavior that leads to the label is different in each instance. Colloquial use is one thing, but accurate use is quite another.

Ego to me is not a ghost in the maching but the programing, the snipped and pruned synapses mine being diffrent than yours that cause us to respond differently to different situations. And you didn't answer if you felt compelled to respond to my posts or are your reponses all just arbitrary?

I believe that my behavior is determined. No "free will" left in the machine, as it were. I cannot prove this, because there are too many possibly environmental influences...but I can (and there is a substantial literature to back this up) demonstrate that we readily deny real influences on us, and often attribute our behavior to influence that are not, in fact, the cause of those behaviors. In other words, we are quite ignorant of the causes of our own behavior. We can demonstrate that even small environmental changes have real effects on our behavior, though, and for me, I am convinced that my behavior is determined. The fact that it does not feel forced--that it feels like I freely choose my behavior--is not a problem; experiments have shown plenty of instances where we feel this way and are wrong.

I hope this answers it completely enough.