I can't thank you enough Dr Carveth. You have democratized learning and made all these precious lectures available to all seekers of knowledge about the self. We need more people like you!
Thanks, this is the clearest definition of the superego I've found. I'm a stay at home mom studying independently to go to grad school when the kids get older. I listen to a lot of UA-cam videos while doing the cooking, cleaning, laundry, driving and all that, and I've found most videos are either inaccessible or lacking in good, sound theory. Keep them coming! The internet needs you. 😄 Looking forward to checking out your book.
Very nice to listen. Conscience as a consequence or exaptation of attachment. In the end that means that an 'ought' can come from an 'is'. To account for this we have to widen our notion of rationality. I follow John Verveake here. Rationality is not only propositional , logical and about inference, rationality as getting an optimal grip on reality, is a form of relevance realization. Relevance is grounded in care. Something can't be relevant if you don't care. So this care, wich is also implied in wanting to be rational and wanting to grow, you can't leave out and has to be included as fundemental part of rationality.
Well, in broad terms, I agree, but it’s kind of tricky when you say “an ought can come from an is“ because an ought cannot logically come from an is. In strictly logical terms Hume was right. You’re making quite a different point with this very different usage of the terms ought and is.
@@doncarveth Thanks for your prompt reply. I really appreciate it. Before I make any response I would like to say how inspiring I find, all the material that you share on UA-cam. I learned a lot and like your presentation. Thank you for this so much! For the discussion above I admit I shot a bit out of the hip. I need to have a better understanding which role you give to conscience. It interests me, so I will have a deeper look at it. Concerning your remark 'a different usage of the terms ought and is', I think the crux is that I have another understanding of rationality, which I don't want to confine to pure logic. I don't think it is posibble to deduce an ought. It is more that you have to accept an ought in order to be rational.
Don, I found this an interesting discussion about superego.... a topic I know something about as I developed the Cosgro Superego Assessment Scale for my dissertation back in the early 90's. The fact that for a long time psychoanalysts didn't discuss superego is, to me, evidence that countertransference isn't limited to the consulting room (a statement I made in my dissertation)! As with any useful psychological theory, I find it extremely relevant to understand superego in terms of it's developmental evolution and it's subsequent impact on personality functioning. Shame is at the core of superego development and has the strongest relationship to the other functions of superego. There are 6 functions of superego (as described by psychoanalytic authors starting with Freud and up through the early 90's) 1. Shame, 2. Guilt, 3. Ego Ideal, 4. Regulation, 5. Support, 6. Punishment.
Very interesting that is from where - in spite of all the possible criticism - we feel such a deep love and gratitude towards the values and the roots we are coming from.
Fascinating discussion. As someone who believes in God, the superego modification question is easy to address. It needs to be informed from a Greater outside of ourselves who communicates through scripture, natural means, the Holy Spirit or conscience. Thx for these videos!
If you need anything about the Code of Federal Regulations, you would see the effort to scale them back as no different than a minimal effort to bring order to a violently punitive super ego.
Fascinating lecture. Thanks for sharing it. A question for you: Do you locate morality in something entirely outside of both the superego and the conscience? I'm struggling to see what your belief in morality is based on. Around 31:28 you suggest morality can be be based on the principles of attachment theory. But there is a problem since you said the conscience is based on attachment theory (24:57) and reciprocity. Thus morality and conscience would be based on the exact same thing. If so, how do you not identify and equate them?
You must be a philosophy student. Because philosophers become excessively rationalistic. In my view morality is not rationally justified by anything. The morality is grounded in attachment. Studies reveal the morality of reciprocity that seem to be built into primate behavior, including human. But the fact that primates feel an act this way does not justify their feeling and acting this way. Cause is not justification.
@@doncarveth I am not a philosophy student, just trying to track this discussion for consistency and coherency. You said in a direct answer to one of your students in the video when they asked “What is conscience?” that it was “Attachment theory”. Okay, let’s say you are right. Then you are in fact saying that conscience and morality go hand-in-hand as grounded in attachment theory. And yes, I was paying attention when you said morality is not rationally based. Is there something that was unsaid on this 35 minute video that I am missing? Like some assumption that the conscience is rationally based and therefore can’t be the vehicle of morality as grounded in attachment theory? If so, how can the conscience be “attachment theory” as you said?
@@doncarvethThis is not my field of study, and so I am simply trying to understand your talk here on its own terms. It seems that you related morality and conscience by connecting them both to attachment theory. Am I crazy for thinking that is related in your own thought, or is there something you could clarify that would remove my confusion?
I associate morality with both super ego and conscience, but very different moralities. Super ego is harsh, punitive. The morality of conscience is persistent, but forgiving; it wants not to inflict pain, but to have the sinner return to the right path. This is the new testament distinction between law and gospel.
Seeing conscience as something that comes from id is a very interesting point. But if we say that things get pretty weird. Wouldn't the id say "you do not have to pay him back, take what you can get from him and get away with what you can". If not, this should come from superego which makes things weirder. In that sense being more selfish than your impulses tell you to be would come from superego which twists things around. You can take that as half criticism and half question.
We often see the depiction of the good angel and the bad devil sitting on each shoulder whispering in your ears. There are your options out there in the world, what are you going to do? Freud’s id has two parts - the libido (life) drive and the ‘death’ drive, the good and bad angels could be seen as their voices whispering at you. Your conscience then should be what chooses to do the good thing - depicted in Pinocchio by Jimminy Cricket (he is a cricket, Pinocchio’s ‘grillo’ (Italian) meaning his conscience, and the superego could be full of influences from societal conditioning which can tempt or convince you either way. There are many instances where a person may think they are doing the ‘right’ thing by following certain rules but they cause much suffering by doing so.
The Statement that: extreme narcicism=psychopathy for me sounds a bit wrong. The more narcissistic you are the more obsessed are you with yourself. At a certain point there is a break where you can‘t take it anymore and break loose. But thats not self-obsessed is it? To further clarify that it would be interesting to know how much psychopaths care about their outerbappearance, possesions etc. Other than that i wanna say that the concept of narcisism sounds very interesting, because it does bot seem to be a question of the golden mean, it‘s not that one needs to find the balance between not self-obsessed and self-obsessed but instead: the fewer the better. Or would a lack of self-obsessedness lead to other psychological problems?
While milder narcissism may involve preoccupation with one’s appearance, etc., more severe narcissists just want what they want when they want it and are inclined to take it with little care for what that means for others.
Also, I do not understand your rejection of the suggestion by the person who mentioned Sam Harris, on your admittedly atheistic view, that science does not determine ethics when you mentioned the ethics of reciprocity. Sam Harris' main argument is that morality and ethics are ultimately societal constructs tied to biological survival programming (the nourishing with survival necessities like bowel movement and language, and the giving back you mentioned). Thus when you spoke of reciprocity I immediately said to myself that you were actually agreeing with Sam Harris. Am I misunderstanding your view?
@@doncarveth I will try by picking a specific example of what you said around 25:18. In response to "What is conscience?" you said attachment theory and also that the Id is the source of good (which is a moral category) and was part of "the biological inheritance" of humans. Let me note: When you say "biological", I take that to mean "science". So, are you not saying the sense of good and morality in the "animal in man" (as you put it) actually arises from biology, and thus science? That's all I'm wondering as for this question. Maybe though you are taking science to mean the observation of what already happens in biology, and thus is merely descriptive whereas biology is performative. If so, that clears things up.
Hi there. Found this fascinating but was expecting some discussion of self criticism in relation to both conscience and super ego a la Adam Phillips in his essay ‘Against Self Criticism’ m.ua-cam.com/video/a8mcaCWGFmg/v-deo.html in which conscience and super ego are discussed at length although the distinctions often coming from etymology as well as meaning. The video cuts out as the debate opens up a little more. Any chance of a part 2? Many thanks for the upload and greetings from a plagued England Pete
For those with any interest in rivalries and coincidences in the history of psychoanalysis, Dr.Carveth was years ahead of Adam in articulating an entity separate from the superego, an evolved structure. I seem to recall that Adam does the usual party line-bundling this fourth structure into the superego, thereby maintaining the three. No leap to a fourth, conscience.
Jean Hantman I wouldn’t view them as rivals per se. In fact it was some happy serendipity my coming across this video and this UA-cam channel recently as I had in fact read an article that I now suspect may have been written Carveth regarding the distinction between the super ego part of self and the voice of conscience. This was around the time I had first watched and read the ‘Against self criticism lecture’ when it came out and this was perhaps why I was researching those ideas. I think that Karen Horney in her book ‘Self Analysis’ May also discuss the overlap of terms and their differences. From this video perhaps it is more advanced in terms of needing to use phrases such as self criticism or inner critic etc
Excellent
Merci
I can't thank you enough Dr Carveth. You have democratized learning and made all these precious lectures available to all seekers of knowledge about the self.
We need more people like you!
Thank you Sarah, the university paid me for 46 years to read and learn and teach so I don’t monetize my lectures.
💪
Thanks, this is the clearest definition of the superego I've found. I'm a stay at home mom studying independently to go to grad school when the kids get older. I listen to a lot of UA-cam videos while doing the cooking, cleaning, laundry, driving and all that, and I've found most videos are either inaccessible or lacking in good, sound theory. Keep them coming! The internet needs you. 😄 Looking forward to checking out your book.
Very nice to listen. Conscience as a consequence or exaptation of attachment. In the end that means that an 'ought' can come from an 'is'. To account for this we have to widen our notion of rationality. I follow John Verveake here. Rationality is not only propositional , logical and about inference, rationality as getting an optimal grip on reality, is a form of relevance realization. Relevance is grounded in care. Something can't be relevant if you don't care. So this care, wich is also implied in wanting to be rational and wanting to grow, you can't leave out and has to be included as fundemental part of rationality.
Well, in broad terms, I agree, but it’s kind of tricky when you say “an ought can come from an is“ because an ought cannot logically come from an is. In strictly logical terms Hume was right. You’re making quite a different point with this very different usage of the terms
ought and is.
@@doncarveth Thanks for your prompt reply. I really appreciate it. Before I make any response I would like to say how inspiring I find, all the material that you share on UA-cam. I learned a lot and like your presentation. Thank you for this so much!
For the discussion above I admit I shot a bit out of the hip. I need to have a better understanding which role you give to conscience. It interests me, so I will have a deeper look at it.
Concerning your remark 'a different usage of the terms ought and is', I think the crux is that I have another understanding of rationality, which I don't want to confine to pure logic. I don't think it is posibble to deduce an ought. It is more that you have to accept an ought in order to be rational.
Yes, makes sense.
Don, I found this an interesting discussion about superego.... a topic I know something about as I developed the Cosgro Superego Assessment Scale for my dissertation back in the early 90's. The fact that for a long time psychoanalysts didn't discuss superego is, to me, evidence that countertransference isn't limited to the consulting room (a statement I made in my dissertation)! As with any useful psychological theory, I find it extremely relevant to understand superego in terms of it's developmental evolution and it's subsequent impact on personality functioning. Shame is at the core of superego development and has the strongest relationship to the other functions of superego. There are 6 functions of superego (as described by psychoanalytic authors starting with Freud and up through the early 90's) 1. Shame, 2. Guilt, 3. Ego Ideal, 4. Regulation, 5. Support, 6. Punishment.
Yes. Thanks
Thanks, glad you find them helpful. Good luck with your studies.
I enjoyed the discussion ,lots to think about.
Very interesting that is from where - in spite of all the possible criticism - we feel such a deep love and gratitude towards the values and the roots we are coming from.
Fascinating discussion. As someone who believes in God, the superego modification question is easy to address. It needs to be informed from a Greater outside of ourselves who communicates through scripture, natural means, the Holy Spirit or conscience. Thx for these videos!
I basically agree: the Holy Spirit, conscience.
Don Carveth I found the idea of mental health being nurturer being stronger than persecutor very helpful.
If you need anything about the Code of Federal Regulations, you would see the effort to scale them back as no different than a minimal effort to bring order to a violently punitive super ego.
i find the idea of narcissism as a revolt against despotic and abusing Superego very helpful
Good, I think it’s a valid point. Thanks
I would love to understand more of this , should I buy your book don 😂❤
Fascinating lecture. Thanks for sharing it. A question for you: Do you locate morality in something entirely outside of both the superego and the conscience? I'm struggling to see what your belief in morality is based on.
Around 31:28 you suggest morality can be be based on the principles of attachment theory. But there is a problem since you said the conscience is based on attachment theory (24:57) and reciprocity. Thus morality and conscience would be based on the exact same thing. If so, how do you not identify and equate them?
You must be a philosophy student. Because philosophers become excessively rationalistic. In my view morality is not rationally justified by anything. The morality is grounded in attachment. Studies reveal the morality of reciprocity that seem to be built into primate behavior, including human. But the fact that primates feel an act this way does not justify their feeling and acting this way. Cause is not justification.
@@doncarveth I am not a philosophy student, just trying to track this discussion for consistency and coherency. You said in a direct answer to one of your students in the video when they asked “What is conscience?” that it was “Attachment theory”. Okay, let’s say you are right. Then you are in fact saying that conscience and morality go hand-in-hand as grounded in attachment theory. And yes, I was paying attention when you said morality is not rationally based.
Is there something that was unsaid on this 35 minute video that I am missing? Like some assumption that the conscience is rationally based and therefore can’t be the vehicle of morality as grounded in attachment theory? If so, how can the conscience be “attachment theory” as you said?
@@doncarvethThis is not my field of study, and so I am simply trying to understand your talk here on its own terms. It seems that you related morality and conscience by connecting them both to attachment theory.
Am I crazy for thinking that is related in your own thought, or is there something you could clarify that would remove my confusion?
I associate morality with both super ego and conscience, but very different moralities. Super ego is harsh, punitive. The morality of conscience is persistent, but forgiving; it wants not to inflict pain, but to have the sinner return to the right path. This is the new testament distinction between law and gospel.
Seeing conscience as something that comes from id is a very interesting point. But if we say that things get pretty weird. Wouldn't the id say "you do not have to pay him back, take what you can get from him and get away with what you can". If not, this should come from superego which makes things weirder. In that sense being more selfish than your impulses tell you to be would come from superego which twists things around. You can take that as half criticism and half question.
We often see the depiction of the good angel and the bad devil sitting on each shoulder whispering in your ears. There are your options out there in the world, what are you going to do? Freud’s id has two parts - the libido (life) drive and the ‘death’ drive, the good and bad angels could be seen as their voices whispering at you. Your conscience then should be what chooses to do the good thing - depicted in Pinocchio by Jimminy Cricket (he is a cricket, Pinocchio’s ‘grillo’ (Italian) meaning his conscience, and the superego could be full of influences from societal conditioning which can tempt or convince you either way. There are many instances where a person may think they are doing the ‘right’ thing by following certain rules but they cause much suffering by doing so.
The Statement that: extreme narcicism=psychopathy for me sounds a bit wrong. The more narcissistic you are the more obsessed are you with yourself. At a certain point there is a break where you can‘t take it anymore and break loose. But thats not self-obsessed is it?
To further clarify that it would be interesting to know how much psychopaths care about their outerbappearance, possesions etc.
Other than that i wanna say that the concept of narcisism sounds very interesting, because it does bot seem to be a question of the golden mean, it‘s not that one needs to find the balance between not self-obsessed and self-obsessed but instead: the fewer the better. Or would a lack of self-obsessedness lead to other psychological problems?
While milder narcissism may involve preoccupation with one’s appearance, etc., more severe narcissists just want what they want when they want it and are inclined to take it with little care for what that means for others.
2:14 when narcissism kicks in
If psychopaths are born what is the solution ? If any?.
They say it is only 50% heritability so that means 50% environmental. So smart cops and good therapists.
I think some of the “healthy patriotic men“ were psychopaths well many of those who could not shoot were “healthy men.“
Agree fully. The "healthy patriotic men" was irony:)
Also, I do not understand your rejection of the suggestion by the person who mentioned Sam Harris, on your admittedly atheistic view, that science does not determine ethics when you mentioned the ethics of reciprocity.
Sam Harris' main argument is that morality and ethics are ultimately societal constructs tied to biological survival programming (the nourishing with survival necessities like bowel movement and language, and the giving back you mentioned). Thus when you spoke of reciprocity I immediately said to myself that you were actually agreeing with Sam Harris.
Am I misunderstanding your view?
Yes, you are. Norms are derived from society because they cannot be derived from science. Science can describe norms, but it cannot authorize them.
@@doncarveth I agree science cannot authorize norms. I have no more clarity on how your view differs from Harris' though.
Can you formulate your question as clearly as possible, please?
@@doncarveth I will try by picking a specific example of what you said around 25:18. In response to "What is conscience?" you said attachment theory and also that the Id is the source of good (which is a moral category) and was part of "the biological inheritance" of humans.
Let me note: When you say "biological", I take that to mean "science". So, are you not saying the sense of good and morality in the "animal in man" (as you put it) actually arises from biology, and thus science? That's all I'm wondering as for this question.
Maybe though you are taking science to mean the observation of what already happens in biology, and thus is merely descriptive whereas biology is performative. If so, that clears things up.
Yes
9
Hi there. Found this fascinating but was expecting some discussion of self criticism in relation to both conscience and super ego a la Adam Phillips in his essay ‘Against Self Criticism’ m.ua-cam.com/video/a8mcaCWGFmg/v-deo.html in which conscience and super ego are discussed at length although the distinctions often coming from etymology as well as meaning.
The video cuts out as the debate opens up a little more. Any chance of a part 2?
Many thanks for the upload and greetings from a plagued England
Pete
For those with any interest in rivalries and coincidences in the history of psychoanalysis, Dr.Carveth was years ahead of Adam in articulating an entity separate from the superego, an evolved structure. I seem to recall that Adam does the usual party line-bundling this fourth structure into the superego, thereby maintaining the three. No leap to a fourth, conscience.
Jean Hantman I wouldn’t view them as rivals per se. In fact it was some happy serendipity my coming across this video and this UA-cam channel recently as I had in fact read an article that I now suspect may have been written Carveth regarding the distinction between the super ego part of self and the voice of conscience. This was around the time I had first watched and read the ‘Against self criticism lecture’ when it came out and this was perhaps why I was researching those ideas. I think that Karen Horney in her book ‘Self Analysis’ May also discuss the overlap of terms and their differences. From this video perhaps it is more advanced in terms of needing to use phrases such as self criticism or inner critic etc
Who’s that annoying guy that constantly disturbs the lecture …