Question about psychology

[BPRJam]

Is traditional "faculty psychology" compatible with Freud's id/ego/superego framework?

It seems to me that Freud's scheme is just a glorified version of faculty psychology, but I don't know whether or not Freud had things that clearly distinguished his psychology.

Does anyone have any input on this?

BPRJam

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPRJam Is traditional "faculty psychology" compatible with Freud's id/ego/superego framework? It seems to me that Freud's scheme is just a glorified version of faculty psychology, but I don't know whether or not Freud had things that clearly distinguished his psychology. Does anyone have any input on this? BPRJam

Dont see that the connection is that strong myself - except that both have 3 main elements. I have two degrees in psychology - though I do not consider myself a psychologist and we never even discussed faculty psychology - though it was neraly 30 years ago so we may have dedicated 1/2 a lecture to it. Freud is principally remembred for psychoanalysis. The Id, ego and superego represent increasingly higher levels of awareness, identity and morality. The ID is the base level of selfishness, though unlike paiget the child already has a sense of self - the ego represents "reality testing" and the superego represents moral reasoning. Faculty psychology looks dualist - Freud was a didactive materialist, morality and intellect are not equivalent. While freud's model is developmental with different stages emerging faculty psychology appears to have all 3 elements naturally embedded. Of course I could be completely wrong - it has been a while...

I am not a freudian by the way - thanks for the thought provoking post.

 

[BPRJam]

Quote:

Faculty psychology looks dualist - Freud was a didactive materialist, morality and intellect are not equivalent

That's a start, I suppose. I reason I bring this up is that I am well into a graduate program in ethics, and one of the visiting lecturers is staunchly against the "evils of faculty psychology", opting instead for a neurobiological view of how personal anxiety is expressed in either moral or non-moral ways.

However, he uses the concept of the ID, Ego, and SuperEgo freely, as if they have nothing to do with faculty pyschology, in order to bolster some of his arguments. To me, it seems that Freud has only rearranged the faculty idea of will, intellect, and flesh in a new way, and his arrangement could be considered a neo-faculty psychology, if you will.

The reality, though, is that psychology is not my area of expertise, so I'm looking to figure out how to separate the idea of faculties from the Freudian view of the decision-making process. Piaget may have a better model (indeed, it seems that his model of development is one of the most widely adpoted - even for ethicists), but Piaget is beyond the scope of my question.

BPRJam

 

[YamiTenshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPRJam That's a start, I suppose. I reason I bring this up is that I am well into a graduate program in ethics, and one of the visiting lecturers is staunchly against the "evils of faculty psychology", opting instead for a neurobiological view of how personal anxiety is expressed in either moral or non-moral ways.

I just got my degree in psychology last year and while I am nowhere near understanding the entire field, I can tell you that very few of my professors (and I would assume a very small number of practicing psychologists) believe only in faculty psychology or Freud. Most of psychologist now use many different beliefs. And at least in my experiences thus far there is a larger emphasis in biological/social psychology.