In Freud's view on psychoanalytic theory of personality, our personality is composed of three elements : the id, ego, and superego. Most everyone is familiar with this concept, but the id is the impulse in us. The id doesn't necessarily think about consequences, just about its desires and getting them. The ego is the part of us that deals with reality, and balances between the impulses and the superego (conscience; right and wrong/moral standards). There are many examples where we battle between our desires, but we scale back because our "reality" kicks in to let us make rational decisions. To me, I find it interesting that at some times we can know what we should do, but instead we do something different. Why is that?
And then when does the turning point come in our mind where we finally decide to listen to ourselves instead of act on our desires? Is it a sign of weakness that we follow our desire first before learning that we should have listened to ourselves in the first place and avoided the situation? The mind is mysterious, especially when emotions become involved. It's like emotions have a mind of their own and they start to take over us even when we know it's not for the best. Why do we let ourselves get wrapped into someone or something and find it so hard to let go?
It's like our id is trying to deceive our ego by using defense mechanisms to "trick" it into letting it do what it wants. And we can only fool ourselves for so long until we can come to terms with the reality of the matter that the ego was telling you all along. It's like having the devil and angel on your shoulder, both telling you opposite things to do and you don't know which one to follow. But there seems to be a turning point where reality takes over the desire and you see the situation for what it truly is. It doesn't make it any easier, but in your head you seem to know when it's finally right to make the good decision. But why can't we make this decision sooner to save ourselves from more hurt? I'm sure this is nothing we can do about it because sometimes our emotions do take the lead and silence the ego for a little while, trying to not come to the realization that you don't want. The id tries so hard to prove it wrong, but usually it just goes right back to where you knew you would end up from the beginning. It's hard to go through the process, but there are times when you just can't seem to go with the right thing to do until you've experienced it. Experience gives us reassurance in the future though so that hopefully we won't make the same mistakes again. A lot of the time we end up falling into the same situations as we did before... but if we really want to change it, we can. It just take the will power of the mind to do it.
Shelly, Freud always thought that his abstract ideas of the id, ego, and superego would be identified neurologically. The Id is often the Limbic system that creats intense, raw emotion and pleasure desires. The Executive Functioning is the ego, the conductor of the brain that allows us to inhibit our impulses, and use forethought to think before we act. It is the reality check and behavior control function. The pre-frontal cortex allows us to inhibit our impulses, compare it to past information on what happened in the past, and think ahead to what consequences will occur if you act on the inpulses. If the neurological pathways connecting the pre-frontal lobe and limbic system are weak, then the ability to inhibit impulses, and to use forethought to evaluate the effects of your behavior will be hampered.
ReplyDeleteNow, the laws of human behavior also explains some of your questions regarding why we act on an impulse even though future consequences may not be favorable. (Rule #1) Whether or not you engage in a behavior will be determined by the "rewards received verses costs incurred." If the rewards out way the costs, you will engage in the behavior. Now, then why do people smoke if they risk getting cancer, or eat the wrong foods if they are diabetic? Why do people act on impulse when the costs are very high? Because the "rewards" are immediate, and the "costs" later down the road. (Rule #2)The closer the consequence is to the behavior the stronger the effect it has on determining the behavior. Meaning, if the costs are down the road, and not immediate, they will not have as strong as effect. Since the rewarding effects of satisfying the impulse is immediate, and the costs incurred are far away, then we engage in high risk behavior. So, if the doctor can convience a person that he will get cancer immediately if he smokes again, the person will not smoke that cigarette.
The same thing goes for switching it around. People try hard to discipline themselves to exercise regularly to lose weight. The reward is losing weight, which can often be a slow process, and not immediate. Now, the costs is the effort and time it takes to exercise which is immediate. In this case the costs are immediate, and the rewards more remote. Consequently, people often stop exercising because the rewards are not immediate enough to out weigh the immediate costs.
So, it is helpful to combine the knowledge of what our brains neurologically do for us, with the "rules for human behavior" to understand why we do what we do.