Artificialization of Sapiens and the Inculcation of Neurosis

The Enlightenment discovered the central role self-esteem played in human conduct. Freud showed us how the need for self-esteem grew in the infant and how the infant learned best to obtain that self-esteem by pleasing adults. Freud showed how “self-esteem comes to be maintained by a fictional style of performance, how the human animal itself becomes the locus of the social fiction…The inculcation of conscience was the inculcation of social meanings, social conventions; in a word, the artificialization of the “Natural Man”.

Freud erroneously informed us that we were strivers after meaning as a result of our animal instincts, that “man harbored within himself the seeds of his own undoing…he was the essential animal, who carried with him the fate of his antisocial nature…man’s passion was his fate, and society was the grudgingly best of all possible worlds.”

Today we do not accept this erroneously incomplete logic of Freud’s because we reject his biological basis for human behavior. We now know that biologically induced neurosis is not our fate. Neurosis is not the result of our animal instincts “but rather the bind of symbols”.

“I am a social person because I am no longer mine: because I am yours.”--Freud

One of life’s more urgent problems is learning to set the boundaries of the ego. Such control represents true maturity of character and personality; Sounds simple enough.

Anxiety is the universal response of the organism to danger. For the child, anxiety becomes second nature when there is the slightest hint of separation from or abandonment by the mother.

Freud’s whole psychoanalytic theory of neurosis is basically a study of how children control anxiety. Human reaction to the environment is delayed and controlled by the ego. Unlike all other animals the human can take some time to analyze and choose a response. It is obvious that the first concern for the developing ego is to learn how to control this ever present and overwhelming stimulus-response that can result from anxiety. The ego does this by ‘housing’ this anxiety within the ego, thus, no longer does the human organism respond directly to anxiety but the ego controls the response by ‘taking over’ this anxiety.

A major revision of Freudian theory finds that while the child’s anxiety is based on helplessness; it is not based upon genetic instincts but is based upon the child’s life situation and in his social world.

The restriction of experience is the heaviest price an animal can pay and it is the restriction of experience that the human animal pays to control anxiety. Freud tells us that the ego staves off anxiety “only by putting restrictions on its own organization”.

The egos theoretical limits are limited from the very beginning during interaction with its parents. The mechanisms of defense thus become excellent techniques of self-deception. This is the fateful paradox we call neurosis: The child is given into humanization by giving over the aegis over himself. Freud says for the child “You no longer will have to punish me father; I will punish myself…You can approve of me as you see how well I do as you would wish me to…I am a social person because I am no longer mine; because I am yours.”

Becker says “the conclusion of Freud’s work is that the humanization process itself is the neurosis”.

Did you know that we are all neurotic to one degree or another? Can you identify that personal neurosis?

Ideas and quotes from “The Birth and Death of Meaning”—Becker

I disagree with some notions I gathered from the object post.

Anxiety disorders seem to have a base in genetics and processes in the centre of the brain that controls fears (amygdala). A family history of anxiety disorders can show the likeliness a new member of that family will exhibit anxiety disorders.

I have heard certain anxiety disorders described as being in a constant state between "Fight or Flight". This ancient "Fight or Flight" mechanism can be observed in almost all higher animals.

Therefor Seems to me not completely right. Maybe for specific social anxiety disorders it can be shown the environment and triggers play a large role, but to deny age-old genetic instincts such as "Flight or Fight" when describing a disorder is not looking in all directions.

I also find it peculiar that Freud has become such an icon and his words are taken for granted. Even if you don't know anything about Freud's work it is likely you have heard of him, instead of Wilhelm Reich or any other. I believe Freud or his P.R. man used the theories of archetypes and iconography to pave himself in the sidewalk of psychology.

If freud is Psychology is debatable, but we can say right away it isn't science and hardly academics.

Other than that - 46:1 pointed out the FFF reflex. We should also add that anger, happiness and sadness are all viable candidates for dealing with danger - not only fear.

46:1

I suspect that you are correct. Genetics certanly has some degree of causality in almost every thing that we do.

I am no expert in matters of psychology or Freud but have been studying the matter for many months and am confident that those who know psychology recognize Freud as the foundation of most of this science.

I too studied some behavioral and cognitive psychology, but the names of Freud and Jung were hardly mentioned. I just now realised this. Maybe I have been too responsed to Skinner in a very Pavlonian way.

That I have not heard much about Freud in an academical way, besides studying a specific branch of psychology, could be because the work of Freud and Jung is almost magical. The shaping of symbology, archetypes and platonic ideas, in a biological animal. The nature of thoughts, all this Freud and Jung were no doubt very versed at.

They provided intuitive concepts that in their nature are hard if not impossible to emperically verify.

You are wrong. Many psych departments don't even teach Freud.

Can you expand on this? Anger is sensible, even standard. Sadness is a bit stranger, but I can see it. Happiness? Do you mean, like, excitement? Or do you mean a general sense of well-being? I'm interested in cases where the latter is the response to danger, and in the possible explanations for why. I can see the whole "I was raised in an unstable environment, so I feel more comfortable and secure in that kind of environment" line, but it seems awfully "convenient."

I suspect most psych departments teach specialties that can produce good job offers. Freudian psychology is most useful for those who seek to comprehend human nature. Our higher educational institutions are more oriented as trade schools rather than interest in human sciences. In fact that goes for our whole culture.

My interest in psychology is in finding answers to the questions "Why do humans behave as they do?" "Can we do better?"

Then research psychology is your answer. And that is the field tame is in. The fact is, nobody knows why humans act the way they do. We are still doing research and gathering evidence. What we do know is that many of Freud's predictions turned out to be false.

Modern Freudians have rejected science and falsifiability, falling back on claims rejected by most psychological experts. The application of Freudian ideas to clinical psychology has, furthermore, shown to be effective only for a relatively narrow range of problems, and only for minor ones. Freud certainly didn't understand human nature or the human mind, and the idea that some guy speculating based on a tiny handful of case studies in Austria at the turn of the 20th century is either naive or the height of hubris. No one guy is going to "figure out" human nature in a vacuum. We have supercomputers working full steam on this stuff, the human mind is extremely complicated. Anything that sounds too good to be true, probably is.

Id, ego, super ego -- none of those concepts correlate to any brain structures. The brain just is not organized that way. Freud is just poetry; he made it all up.

Well, he may be the father of the psychiatric profession, but not of the science, because his ideas relate to nothing real. Psychiatry was 95% quackery until roughly the past 20 years. Before, it was all pseudo-intellectual wanking. They've been finding good drugs and some cognitive therapies that are helpful, and are starting to piece together how the biology gives rise mentality, but all this stuff takes researchers away from Freud. Among most people who got their degrees in the last 15 years -- I doubt their training even bothered to debunk Freud, much less be based on him.

The only way the diehards make Freud relevant today is by stripping him down to banalities, like "the great one realized that most mental activity is subconscious." That's like saying, "the most important processes of a car take place beneath the hood." Duh, yea, but it tells us nothing about what, why, or how. A six-year-old Neanderthal could tell you that fire comes from unknown, unseen, forces beneath the flame.

They're intertwined, but generally happiness is often seen as being a sort of 'disarming' a potentially dangerous situation. You laugh to send of a signal that you are no threat and if responded in the same manner you can be somewhat certain you are not in harm's way. The modern day version may very well be the 'joke' that sort of dissolves the uncertainty of an akward social encounter.

As always with the caveat that these things are usually inductively reasoned out, so it becomes a hen/egg scenario with a conclusion. It strikes me as a reasonable theory however.

Not trying to be mean, but how could you not know something like that? How is it possible to be an adult and still be shocked or surprised by that realization?

I find those questions to be amazing. I doubt that 5% of the population knows neurosis from apple pie. I doubt that any schools teach psychology in K-12 and few people take psychology in college. I do not see how anyone could learn about neurosis from social osmosis. Many people have heard the word but I suspect that like most other things they know the word but nothing beyond that.

I'm pretty sure most high schools teach psych these days. But no, probably most people don't know the definition of the term as it applies to interrupted stages of development, but most psychologists reject that view. Psych classes do not teach neurosis or Freud, abnormal psych is defined by the DSM these days. That's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for psychiatrists and clinical psychologists alike. Where do you get your information? Even the most basic textbook covers this stuff.

Madnak

My favorite authors are Ernest Becker, Norman O. Brown, and Eric Fromm.

These authors are primarily interested in Freudian psychology because it provides insight into human nature. I suspect most
colleges and universities are teaching psychology that will help a student get a good job and have little knowledge or interest in what causes people to do the things they do.

You're reading books from a tiny subgroup of largely discredited and ancient scholars. What did you read as your overview of the field, and what was your introduction? What is your familiarity with behaviorism, the cognitive movement, and so on? You realize that psychoanalysis is only a tiny part of psychology, right? If not, frankly you've been remiss and haven't researched your subject at all.

And you have it backwards - it is the psychoanalysts who are looking for money. Research psychologists generally are very interested in learning more about people (they aren't at the top of the pay scale).

The idea of Freud, Rank, or Becker doing what they did for money is quite silly. No one who is looking for money decides to write books unless you're J.K. Rawling or Stephen King. And the 1970's (Becker) is ancient? And Becker was primarily influenced by Otto Rank rather than Freud.

Well, Becker is neither too ancient nor too discredited, but 70's is still very old. We're talking about a burgeoning science here, and one that didn't really get off the ground until recently. As for Freud, he raked it in hand over fist. It's likely he lied about his patients after harming them, in order to get some cash. He may have abused children and was definitely a coke addict.

I don't know about Rank, and Becker doesn't fall into that category. But coberst was talking about schools. Psychoanalytic schools are all about money, and modern practitioners are all about money. It's a con game.

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

It is unlikely that you will encounter this unorthodox suggestion ever again. You must act on this occasion or never act. The first thing is to make a change in attitude about just what is the nature of education. Then one must face the world with a critical outlook. A number of attitude changes are required as a first step. All parents, I guess, recognize the problems inherent in attitude adjustment. We just have to focus that knowledge upon our self as the object needing an attitude adjustment rather than our child.

Another often heard response is that “you are preaching to the choir”. If you conclude that this is an old familiar tune then I have failed to make clear my suggestion. I recall a story circulating many years ago when the Catholic Church was undergoing substantial changes. Catholics where no longer using Latin in the mass, they were no longer required to abstain from meat on Friday and many other changes. The story goes that one lady was complaining about all these changes and she said, “with all these changes the only thing one will need to do to be a good Catholic is love thy neighbor”.

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.

That wasn't particularly relevant. It sounds like you consider yourself some kind of prophet - you're not. And if I were looking for a prophet I'd go for Gurdjieff or Crowley, maybe the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Han, possibly Yeats or Blake, or maybe I'd be ironic and go with Gibran. Plenty of options really, and I don't think you have anything to say that they haven't said. Pull it together.

I mean, you've read three guys - three guys, that's it. And all writing from the same perspective. Part of critical thinking is to look at an issue from many different perspectives - and there are literally thousands on this issue. So why have you only read three authors? You aren't even aware that the majority of psychologists reject psychoanalysis. And you have, here on this board, a PhD in psychology, a resource waiting to be tapped, someone who really has spent his life in search of knowledge, but you brush him off because he disagrees with you.

It seems to me that you haven't earned your stripes yet as an autodidact. I've had a bad couple of days, and I'm cranky, and I don't appreciate being talked down to. You say you want to learn, to explore, well here you are - a bunch of bright people from all walks of life are willing to discuss all kinds of things with you. But it doesn't sound like you're listening, much less bothering to learn. And learning is a process of give and take - if you think you have nothing to learn from this forum, then I don't see that I can learn much from you. If that's too abrasive for you, fine, not everyone's cup of tea. Regardless, I'm not here to be lectured, and you can expect me to say what I think.

Wow that is shocking. I would have bet up to $100 that you were under 23, and taking philosophy classes in college for the first time.

Your post now is simply a matter of projection, where you attribute your stubborness of refusing to review aquired knowledge onto others as a self defence mechanism to protect the ego.

What I wrote there isn't science and it isn't academics. It is semantical drivel of a spectacular degree.

Psychoanalysis is used to say anything. On this board you usually see it, of all things, in political debate. Pretty words thrown about by laymen, and ofcourse they and you see it as valid, because it supports what the one expressing it already thinks. Psychoanalysis always does.

tame-dueces

The Oracle said "know thyself". I think that this is a very wise admonition; Freudian psychology and psychoanalysis is a very useful study for seeking this comprehension.

No it isn't.

What it will give you is a bunch of buzzwords that are meaningless. Models that will yield no predictions. Theories that have no biological basis.

The only thing it can be used for it giving an explanation after something has happened. You say you are an engineer - take an an engineer who can only explain something after it happens in dubious terms, and tell me how useful he is.

People can take some comfort in pondering about themselves using Freudian terms, especially through the collegiality of conversing with someone else.

That's fine, and of some benefit. But it ain't science.

There's never been a study showing psychoanalysis has superior results over talking with a friend, or conversing using the terminology of religion, New Age, Zen, or football.

If it is meaningful to you, that's your business. The point we are making is that the content of psychoanalysis is not science. It was wildly successful in persuading people it was science, but it was always just fanciful musing.

I recall a book, I think Called Woman, the forgotten sex, by Vance Packard and a scientist co-author. They warned women to avoid a clinical condition they termed a "malicious orgasm." It was caused by having sex while not concentrating the whole time on the desire to procreate and become a mother. Other "scientists" came up with another scientific term, "momism," which they claimed was ruining American soldiers. It was just mama's boy dressed up in psychoanalytic jargon and made to sound like an epidemic. It was all crap. (This was Fifties stuff). You are trolling in a fake sea.

What's really interesting is how they all convinced themselves and everyone else that it was science, not daydreams that got published.