This blog is intended to enhance your learning experience. We can share thoughts and ideas which, I hope, will expand our perspectives on not only topics in psychology but also in our everyday lives. Good luck and have fun!
Yip the Great Website - http://www.teacherweb.com/RI/LincolnHighSchool/FrankYip/index.html
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Freud, part 3
Now that you have completed the text for all of Freud's theory, tell what part makes the most and the least sense to you. Be sure to reference the text to give your reasons.
Most of Freud’s psychosexual stages make sense to me. Out of five we have already learned three of them. The oral stage makes a lot of sense to me; I understand how many people, as they mature have these oral fixations such as biting there nails and pens. I also understand the concept of the anal stage. While, the phallic stage makes sense I find it silly. I understand how little boys would want to marry their mother because they are the only women in their life who they show love for. This is also the same for little girls with their fathers. However, I do not think this is true in all cases. Also, I think that Freud goes to the extreme with this stage. I believe that some girls want to be just like there mom when they grow up and boys just like there dad. In cases, such as these this Oedipus complex does not stand true. However, so far I understand all the stages. I find the fixation’s that every stage causes very interesting. It is fascinating how true these fixations really can be. The table located in the text really helps to explain each one of Freud’s psychosexual stages and give a simplified version of each stage. This table allowed me to understand the stages easier. It also allowed me to compare each one and make an opinion on each of the stages.
Im not exactly sure what text the prompt is referring to, but referring to Lauren, I understand the psychosexual stages. For the first stage, the oral stage, the mouth is the main source of pleasure. An example that I have from today is my baby cousin was sucking on a nook and when we took it away he started to cry, when we gave it back he was calm and fell back asleep. The second stage is the anal stage, and in this stage infants enjoy controlling their parents through potty training. They choose what to do based on what reaction they want from their parents. And the third stage we went over is the phallic stage. I agree that based on the relation ship with the parents, the child will want to marry them if they love them, but i feel that they only would want to kill the parents if they weren't treated well. I don't think a child is capable of having thoughts of killing a parent, the worst that i think happens is the child becomes jealous.
After discussing the theories in class today, I have realized that I disagree and agree with some of Freud's theories. I believe that is he is totally and completely wrong about his theory that women are inferior to men, because we shouldn't be. He says that we have penis envy and I do not agree that we are jealous abot all things that men have, although it would be nice to be equal to men or dominant to them. I like being a women, but men do have more rights and are higher in status than women. I agree with the first two theories that Freud have when we are babies, toddlers, and young children, because we are doing these things unconsciously. I can remember some of the moment in my life when I expressed these theories, and it is all coming back to me after talking about them in class. The Anal Theory makes the most sense, because babies do this all of the time. Hearing stories, and relating back to my life has led me to believe that this is very true.
Freud’s first two theories make the most sense to me. The oral stage is pretty clear in that a baby finds most of its pleasure from putting things in their mouth. The anal stage also makes some sense in that when the child is a little older it does find pleasure in going to the bathroom. Then the phallic stage comes up and that one makes the least sense to me. I find it a little hard to believe that a little boy would unconsciously decide that in order to marry his mother, he would want to kill his father. It’s a little more understandable for the girls in that they only want to get rid of their mother and not go to the extreme and killing them. The idea of the little boy wanting to marry the mom and the little girl wanting to marry the dad makes sense because that’s generally the parent that they play with the most.
While a lot of Freud's ideas about the psychosexual stages make sense, I don't think they should necessarily be considered "sexual". I can see where he was coming from with the oral and anal stages because babies are always putting things in their mouths and they eventually have to be potty trained. However, the phallic stage confuses me. I don't see how young girls can have "penis envy" or even notice the differences between males and females at such a young age. I also don't agree with the Oedipus complex because while children start to be interested in the opposite sex, I don't think they're necessarily interested in their parents or have hostile feelings toward the same-sex parent. I can't see a young boy wanting to kill his father unless there was something severely wrong with him. I also don't really see that sexual urges become repressed during the latency period, but I understand where Freud was coming from in saying that people start to mature during the genital stage.
Freud is crazy! Yes, woman do not have as much power as men but i think they are equal. Without woman, i know for a fact that every man would go crazy.
Freud also says that woman have penis envy, that they want a penis? What is he talking about, that makes no sense. He is kind of saying that woman are jealous of what men have and that they have to work extra hard to have what men have, which is kind of true, they do have to work extra hard, but its pretty wrong.
After discussing Freud's theories in class I think that his first two theories make the most sense. The Oral stage makes sense to me because at a young age all children put everything in their mouth. The anal stage also makes sense to me because of the example of potty training and its relation to children. The only thing that doesn't really make sense to me is Freud's theory of "penis envy". I was brought up always believing that women were equal to men, i just always thought of men as the stronger gender which made me see them as more powerful physically, not just because they have more rights.
Julie Do After learning most of Sigmund Freud’s theory, I do cut him some slack and would say that his theories are right. The theories that made the most sense to me are the oral, anal, and phallic stage. After talking about it in class, I went home and thought about it and the events that I remembered or encountered was so right on. It is true that if you were to ever observe a child they are always putting everything they see in their mouths. Also, I was amaze on his theory on weaning a child. When I asked my mom if she ever gave me back the bottle each time I cried, she said yes. This truly amazed me because I am a very aggressive child, I don’t take no for an answer, and I don’t give up easily in arguments. The anal stage also made sense to me because I can see where he is coming from when he stated that kids who were potty trained early tend to be anal retentive. While kids who are potty trained later grows up to be anal expulsive. Last but not least is the phallic stage. I kind of am unsure on is one because I just think it’s weird. But the one that I agree the most is the “penis envy”. This is indeed true because I think that women do wish that they have the power that men have. I just think that it would help I Freud would’ve replaced the word penis at certain times.
Sigmund Freud’s theories are controversial but they should not be dismissed. After reading the text on Freud’s theory I have only one major problem with it. My problem is with Freud’s assertion that in the early stages of development the person is driven by a primitive sexual drive. I don’t agree with the idea that the oral stage of development is inherently sexual. In my opinion this stage is more need based. The child needs to explore the world during the oral stage in order to learn about what they can and cannot eat. This will help them survive later on by allowing them to learn about what is edible and what is not. It is a survival based drive that guides this stage not a sexual one. Other than that I don’t have problems with Freud’s theory. The part that I find to make the most sense is the concept of ego defense mechanisms. These different mechanisms are inherent in everyone’s personalities and they can be seen everywhere if you are looking for them. This is one of the parts of the theory that I find to be very reasonable.
Although some of Freud's ideas are out there, we shouldn't throw him under the bus. He grew up in a very different time. When he was writing his theories, woman had a much different place in society than they do today. Regardless of women's roll in society, Freud's ideas about the oral stage and anal stage make perfect sense. It is only the phallic stage that brings about controversy. No man in Freud's time or now wants to hear that he has castration anxiety. No woman wants to hear that she has penis envy. I believe that the theory that women have some jealousy of men's merit in society is real. However, Freud's argument that women wish they had a penis is more than rediculous. The bottom line is that Freud's theories make perfect sense until you take them too literally.
I also find it hard to agree with Freud that that all the stages of psychosexual development are in fact sexual. This is the only place in his theory that I'm going to "throw him under the bus." I believe that the libido begins to develop during the Latency period. It seems to me that becoming aware of a strange concept like sex would be unexpected and uncalled for for a 7-11-year-old so they repress their sexual thoughts. I agree with Freud about the concepts of the other stages. It makes sense that babies recieve pleasure thru their mouths and toddlers like to control people but I don't believe they could possibly contain any sexual thoughts or drives. Even in the Phallic stage, the concept of dealing with a penis whether a boy or girl is a matter of childish curiosity more than a matter of sexuality. I don't believe that the libido develops until the Latency stage where we try to repress new and unwanted (dirty) thoughts.
Other than that, I believe I can meet eye-to-eye with him on everything else. I find his theories and ideas quite insightful and enjoyable to ponder about. I don't know if other personality theories are any better but I really think that his overall personality theory involving the id, ego, and superego could very well be right on target. The whole personality system seems to work and makes sense under his theory. It just seems to make so much sense that the id contains natural biological drives which want to fufil the pleasure principle and seep into your conscious thoughts and actions in the ego and the superego which tries to fight with the id over moral principles and what your body needs/wants. The Ego Defense Mechanisms also make a lot of sense. We can all admit that we've excecuted some of these mechanisms. They are stress relievers for your conscious which our brain needs to stay in control. Everything just seems to make a ton of sense. Things that seemed a confusing mystery to me a few years ago all seem to be clear now.
Most of what we have learned of Freud's theory makes sense to me. The idea of the Oedipus Complex seems slightly outrageous, but when we discussed it in class in the context of modern gender inequality, I understood it better. Women do have to work harder to achieve just as much as men, and often still do not receive the credit or recognition they deserve. In this way, women could be considered to have "penis envy" in that they would like to have the same amount of power that men have. However, I also agree with the idea that Freud puts women in an impossible position. For some reason, Freud was probably biased against women, which would have shaped his psychosexual development theory. The theory becomes questionable when Freud argues that women are literally jealous of men's penises, not just the power that the penis represents. In a modern and symbolic context, though, the idea of "penis envy" and the whole psychosexual theory is logical.
Most of Freud’s theories that we have discussed really make sense to me. With the oral stage you always see little babies putting things in their mouth. Like we discussed in class it’s how they learn about the world. The anal theory also makes a lot of sense to me too. At that age kids do a lot to see what they can and can’t do. Kids just want a reaction from their parents it’s another way of learning for them. I agree with Lauren in the fact the boy might want to marry his mom because she is the only girl in his life who he feels love for at that time. I don’t understand the fact that children both the boys and the girls have a feeling of wanting to kill one parent so they can have other for themselves because there is just that bond between a parent and their kids. It’s a hard concept to grasp.
when discussing the theories in class and when you here the names of the psychosexual stages like oral and anal right away i was thinking OMG!!! we like this up our butts and in or mouths im not gay. soo when discussing in more depth i found out that its not soo much a sexual thing as it is a fixation. like chewing gum or on a pen cap thats a oral fixation that alot of people have it not exactly sexual but Freud would consider it was. i would have to agree with Freud on the stages and how they are applied in the real world but to relate them all back to something sexual i would have to disagree because its nice to goo to the bathrooms once in a while but it doesnt mean i have a desire to have thing stuck in my backside thats just gross thinking about it
At first i just thought freud was crazy thinking we get pleasure from or anal and our mouths but as we went into more depth i realized its more of a fixation then a sexual thing. Going through all the stages you can see what he is talking about. We still have these fixations liek when people bite there nails or chew on things. I myself bite my nails and chew gum all the time. I also thought the hole "penis envy" thing was crazy at first. Girls dont want penis's but as we went into more depth i saw why he thought this. Like when we were little and said that we wanted to marry are parents. When we are little we dont know, we just know the power of the penis, and in reality the penis really does have that sence of power. Boys always are seen as having more power and girls really want to have that power, not the penis part but what a penis represents. I think that freud is a little crazy but he does have a good point. Women do have to work harder for everything and saying that we have penis envy is a good way of putting it even know we dont actually want a penis we do want the power that is has. In that phalic stage were little girls and boys are growing up we do have oral fixations were we have to suck on everything and anal fixations when we are potty training but you cant really say that we feel sexual things like we want to kill our fathers or get rid of our mothers so we can marry the other parent, i guess i can see were hes coming from but it just seems a little to far fetched.
Freud puts animal instincts into a special category. Why? Animal wants give pleasure when satisfied, pain when unsatisfied. The same is true for moral imperatives. When we break them, it pains us; obedience gives us pleasure. Why create an arbitrary category?
That moral imperatives usually compel us through negative incentives and bodily needs through positive ones does not put the two into separate groups. Humans seek maximum contentment, be it achieved by pleasure or the absence of displeasure.
Thus, the ego is a satisfaction-maximizing mechanism. If punishment for a taboo is severe enough, the obedience urge can be stronger than any elemental drive.
Humans seek to maximize contentment, but the tools provided us by evolution are poor. Though we evolved an elaborate reasoning faculty, the brain often relies on emotion to guide us to the optimum outcome. And the resolution of our emotional responses is not very fine. This is because the environment is always changing, and our brains are strewn with past adaptations - evolution cannot keep up.
So, upon encountering novel situations, we react in unpredictable ways. In an ideal world, we would rationally tailor our reactions to each situation, thus minimizing unhappiness. But we are not purely rational beings - crude passions often overwhelm. They are not tailored to life's myriad situations, so they lead us astray.
Example: The reward of having sex can loom large in a particular moment's emotion/reason calculus, even if one reasons that it will lead to a huge loss in future happiness units. Passion wins.
(Now that I think about it, animal satiation does provide the greatest bounty of happiness units. Given the chance, we will satiate ourselves without limit. But should elemental drives be grouped in their own category, or can they be explained with the superego in terms of pain and pleasure?)
After all that we have learned about Sigmund Freud, I have to admire all that he concluded about the brain and the stages of development at such an early time in psychological history. I can clearly understand and mostly agree with Freud's stages of psychosexual development, but only taken with a grain of salt. By this I mean that the fact that Freud seems to be somewhat biased against women and the fact that he lived years and years ago all have to factor into how accurate the information is. The stage that makes the most sense to me is the oral stage. Little kids have to put things in their mouths to eat which makes them satisfied and then parents use pacifiers to calm them when they are upset. This leads the children to associate items in their mouth with good feelings. Thus, the oral fixation likely to develop at this stage is incredibly understandable. Dentists see it all the time with the teeth problems that develop if a child has an oral fixation causing them to suck their thumb or use a pacifier far too long. The part that makes the least sense to me is the "penis envy" Freud talks about in the phallic stage. Yes, it's amusing to learn that children believe their fathers to have power because they "stole" mom's penis, but to say that women literally are jealous of men's genitals is a little bit of a stretch. I believe in the symbolic interpretation of this stage, that women are jealous of the ease to which certain things come to men, but you also have to remember that Freud lived at a different time. Things are changing!
Out of all of Freuds ideas, I found the first two of his developmental stages correct. I feel that as children, we have oral fixations that we need to adress. Also I agree with the anal stage. I understand how he feels that these stages can effect us as we grow older. The stages that follow, I do not agree with. I really don't feel that girls develop penis envy, nor do i believe that boys want to kill their fathers. In Freud's time, it may have made sense to him, but now everything has changed, as well as how people act.
The part that makes the most sense to me is Freuds focus on sex and the idea of the unconcious. Sex is obviously going to be the biggest driving force and the most important need we have. It is like this for all animals. The need to preserve our species is going to be greater than anything else. The unconscious is also a very logical concept, it can be proven through various psychological tests and it a widely excepted idea. But the rest of his personality theory and his stages of development are not things i agree with. They really have no proof behind them and are pure speculation. And since 97% of psychological institutes use other theories, im going to go with the majority.
Lauren Doucette
ReplyDeleteMost of Freud’s psychosexual stages make sense to me. Out of five we have already learned three of them. The oral stage makes a lot of sense to me; I understand how many people, as they mature have these oral fixations such as biting there nails and pens. I also understand the concept of the anal stage. While, the phallic stage makes sense I find it silly. I understand how little boys would want to marry their mother because they are the only women in their life who they show love for. This is also the same for little girls with their fathers. However, I do not think this is true in all cases. Also, I think that Freud goes to the extreme with this stage. I believe that some girls want to be just like there mom when they grow up and boys just like there dad. In cases, such as these this Oedipus complex does not stand true. However, so far I understand all the stages. I find the fixation’s that every stage causes very interesting. It is fascinating how true these fixations really can be. The table located in the text really helps to explain each one of Freud’s psychosexual stages and give a simplified version of each stage. This table allowed me to understand the stages easier. It also allowed me to compare each one and make an opinion on each of the stages.
Nathan Doucette
ReplyDeleteIm not exactly sure what text the prompt is referring to, but referring to Lauren, I understand the psychosexual stages. For the first stage, the oral stage, the mouth is the main source of pleasure. An example that I have from today is my baby cousin was sucking on a nook and when we took it away he started to cry, when we gave it back he was calm and fell back asleep. The second stage is the anal stage, and in this stage infants enjoy controlling their parents through potty training. They choose what to do based on what reaction they want from their parents. And the third stage we went over is the phallic stage. I agree that based on the relation ship with the parents, the child will want to marry them if they love them, but i feel that they only would want to kill the parents if they weren't treated well. I don't think a child is capable of having thoughts of killing a parent, the worst that i think happens is the child becomes jealous.
After discussing the theories in class today, I have realized that I disagree and agree with some of Freud's theories. I believe that is he is totally and completely wrong about his theory that women are inferior to men, because we shouldn't be. He says that we have penis envy and I do not agree that we are jealous abot all things that men have, although it would be nice to be equal to men or dominant to them. I like being a women, but men do have more rights and are higher in status than women. I agree with the first two theories that Freud have when we are babies, toddlers, and young children, because we are doing these things unconsciously. I can remember some of the moment in my life when I expressed these theories, and it is all coming back to me after talking about them in class. The Anal Theory makes the most sense, because babies do this all of the time. Hearing stories, and relating back to my life has led me to believe that this is very true.
ReplyDeleteFreud’s first two theories make the most sense to me. The oral stage is pretty clear in that a baby finds most of its pleasure from putting things in their mouth. The anal stage also makes some sense in that when the child is a little older it does find pleasure in going to the bathroom. Then the phallic stage comes up and that one makes the least sense to me. I find it a little hard to believe that a little boy would unconsciously decide that in order to marry his mother, he would want to kill his father. It’s a little more understandable for the girls in that they only want to get rid of their mother and not go to the extreme and killing them. The idea of the little boy wanting to marry the mom and the little girl wanting to marry the dad makes sense because that’s generally the parent that they play with the most.
ReplyDeleteWhile a lot of Freud's ideas about the psychosexual stages make sense, I don't think they should necessarily be considered "sexual". I can see where he was coming from with the oral and anal stages because babies are always putting things in their mouths and they eventually have to be potty trained. However, the phallic stage confuses me. I don't see how young girls can have "penis envy" or even notice the differences between males and females at such a young age. I also don't agree with the Oedipus complex because while children start to be interested in the opposite sex, I don't think they're necessarily interested in their parents or have hostile feelings toward the same-sex parent. I can't see a young boy wanting to kill his father unless there was something severely wrong with him. I also don't really see that sexual urges become repressed during the latency period, but I understand where Freud was coming from in saying that people start to mature during the genital stage.
ReplyDeleteRichard Votta
ReplyDeleteFreud is crazy! Yes, woman do not have as much power as men but i think they are equal. Without woman, i know for a fact that every man would go crazy.
Freud also says that woman have penis envy, that they want a penis? What is he talking about, that makes no sense. He is kind of saying that woman are jealous of what men have and that they have to work extra hard to have what men have, which is kind of true, they do have to work extra hard, but its pretty wrong.
Freud is a crazy minded man
After discussing Freud's theories in class I think that his first two theories make the most sense. The Oral stage makes sense to me because at a young age all children put everything in their mouth. The anal stage also makes sense to me because of the example of potty training and its relation to children. The only thing that doesn't really make sense to me is Freud's theory of "penis envy". I was brought up always believing that women were equal to men, i just always thought of men as the stronger gender which made me see them as more powerful physically, not just because they have more rights.
ReplyDeleteJulie Do
ReplyDeleteAfter learning most of Sigmund Freud’s theory, I do cut him some slack and would say that his theories are right. The theories that made the most sense to me are the oral, anal, and phallic stage. After talking about it in class, I went home and thought about it and the events that I remembered or encountered was so right on. It is true that if you were to ever observe a child they are always putting everything they see in their mouths. Also, I was amaze on his theory on weaning a child. When I asked my mom if she ever gave me back the bottle each time I cried, she said yes. This truly amazed me because I am a very aggressive child, I don’t take no for an answer, and I don’t give up easily in arguments. The anal stage also made sense to me because I can see where he is coming from when he stated that kids who were potty trained early tend to be anal retentive. While kids who are potty trained later grows up to be anal expulsive. Last but not least is the phallic stage. I kind of am unsure on is one because I just think it’s weird. But the one that I agree the most is the “penis envy”. This is indeed true because I think that women do wish that they have the power that men have. I just think that it would help I Freud would’ve replaced the word penis at certain times.
Sigmund Freud’s theories are controversial but they should not be dismissed. After reading the text on Freud’s theory I have only one major problem with it. My problem is with Freud’s assertion that in the early stages of development the person is driven by a primitive sexual drive. I don’t agree with the idea that the oral stage of development is inherently sexual. In my opinion this stage is more need based. The child needs to explore the world during the oral stage in order to learn about what they can and cannot eat. This will help them survive later on by allowing them to learn about what is edible and what is not. It is a survival based drive that guides this stage not a sexual one. Other than that I don’t have problems with Freud’s theory. The part that I find to make the most sense is the concept of ego defense mechanisms. These different mechanisms are inherent in everyone’s personalities and they can be seen everywhere if you are looking for them. This is one of the parts of the theory that I find to be very reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of Freud's ideas are out there, we shouldn't throw him under the bus. He grew up in a very different time. When he was writing his theories, woman had a much different place in society than they do today. Regardless of women's roll in society, Freud's ideas about the oral stage and anal stage make perfect sense. It is only the phallic stage that brings about controversy. No man in Freud's time or now wants to hear that he has castration anxiety. No woman wants to hear that she has penis envy. I believe that the theory that women have some jealousy of men's merit in society is real. However, Freud's argument that women wish they had a penis is more than rediculous. The bottom line is that Freud's theories make perfect sense until you take them too literally.
ReplyDeleteI also find it hard to agree with Freud that that all the stages of psychosexual development are in fact sexual. This is the only place in his theory that I'm going to "throw him under the bus." I believe that the libido begins to develop during the Latency period. It seems to me that becoming aware of a strange concept like sex would be unexpected and uncalled for for a 7-11-year-old so they repress their sexual thoughts. I agree with Freud about the concepts of the other stages. It makes sense that babies recieve pleasure thru their mouths and toddlers like to control people but I don't believe they could possibly contain any sexual thoughts or drives. Even in the Phallic stage, the concept of dealing with a penis whether a boy or girl is a matter of childish curiosity more than a matter of sexuality. I don't believe that the libido develops until the Latency stage where we try to repress new and unwanted (dirty) thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I believe I can meet eye-to-eye with him on everything else. I find his theories and ideas quite insightful and enjoyable to ponder about. I don't know if other personality theories are any better but I really think that his overall personality theory involving the id, ego, and superego could very well be right on target. The whole personality system seems to work and makes sense under his theory. It just seems to make so much sense that the id contains natural biological drives which want to fufil the pleasure principle and seep into your conscious thoughts and actions in the ego and the superego which tries to fight with the id over moral principles and what your body needs/wants. The Ego Defense Mechanisms also make a lot of sense. We can all admit that we've excecuted some of these mechanisms. They are stress relievers for your conscious which our brain needs to stay in control. Everything just seems to make a ton of sense. Things that seemed a confusing mystery to me a few years ago all seem to be clear now.
Molly Savard
ReplyDeleteMost of what we have learned of Freud's theory makes sense to me. The idea of the Oedipus Complex seems slightly outrageous, but when we discussed it in class in the context of modern gender inequality, I understood it better. Women do have to work harder to achieve just as much as men, and often still do not receive the credit or recognition they deserve. In this way, women could be considered to have "penis envy" in that they would like to have the same amount of power that men have. However, I also agree with the idea that Freud puts women in an impossible position. For some reason, Freud was probably biased against women, which would have shaped his psychosexual development theory. The theory becomes questionable when Freud argues that women are literally jealous of men's penises, not just the power that the penis represents. In a modern and symbolic context, though, the idea of "penis envy" and the whole psychosexual theory is logical.
Most of Freud’s theories that we have discussed really make sense to me. With the oral stage you always see little babies putting things in their mouth. Like we discussed in class it’s how they learn about the world. The anal theory also makes a lot of sense to me too. At that age kids do a lot to see what they can and can’t do. Kids just want a reaction from their parents it’s another way of learning for them. I agree with Lauren in the fact the boy might want to marry his mom because she is the only girl in his life who he feels love for at that time. I don’t understand the fact that children both the boys and the girls have a feeling of wanting to kill one parent so they can have other for themselves because there is just that bond between a parent and their kids. It’s a hard concept to grasp.
ReplyDeletejohn tangherlini
ReplyDeletewhen discussing the theories in class and when you here the names of the psychosexual stages like oral and anal right away i was thinking OMG!!! we like this up our butts and in or mouths im not gay. soo when discussing in more depth i found out that its not soo much a sexual thing as it is a fixation. like chewing gum or on a pen cap thats a oral fixation that alot of people have it not exactly sexual but Freud would consider it was. i would have to agree with Freud on the stages and how they are applied in the real world but to relate them all back to something sexual i would have to disagree because its nice to goo to the bathrooms once in a while but it doesnt mean i have a desire to have thing stuck in my backside thats just gross thinking about it
-Shirley Pouliot
ReplyDeleteAt first i just thought freud was crazy thinking we get pleasure from or anal and our mouths but as we went into more depth i realized its more of a fixation then a sexual thing. Going through all the stages you can see what he is talking about. We still have these fixations liek when people bite there nails or chew on things. I myself bite my nails and chew gum all the time. I also thought the hole "penis envy" thing was crazy at first. Girls dont want penis's but as we went into more depth i saw why he thought this. Like when we were little and said that we wanted to marry are parents. When we are little we dont know, we just know the power of the penis, and in reality the penis really does have that sence of power. Boys always are seen as having more power and girls really want to have that power, not the penis part but what a penis represents. I think that freud is a little crazy but he does have a good point. Women do have to work harder for everything and saying that we have penis envy is a good way of putting it even know we dont actually want a penis we do want the power that is has. In that phalic stage were little girls and boys are growing up we do have oral fixations were we have to suck on everything and anal fixations when we are potty training but you cant really say that we feel sexual things like we want to kill our fathers or get rid of our mothers so we can marry the other parent, i guess i can see were hes coming from but it just seems a little to far fetched.
Freud puts animal instincts into a special category. Why? Animal wants give pleasure when satisfied, pain when unsatisfied. The same is true for moral imperatives. When we break them, it pains us; obedience gives us pleasure. Why create an arbitrary category?
ReplyDeleteThat moral imperatives usually compel us through negative incentives and bodily needs through positive ones does not put the two into separate groups. Humans seek maximum contentment, be it achieved by pleasure or the absence of displeasure.
Thus, the ego is a satisfaction-maximizing mechanism. If punishment for a taboo is severe enough, the obedience urge can be stronger than any elemental drive.
Humans seek to maximize contentment, but the tools provided us by evolution are poor. Though we evolved an elaborate reasoning faculty, the brain often relies on emotion to guide us to the optimum outcome. And the resolution of our emotional responses is not very fine. This is because the environment is always changing, and our brains are strewn with past adaptations - evolution cannot keep up.
So, upon encountering novel situations, we react in unpredictable ways. In an ideal world, we would rationally tailor our reactions to each situation, thus minimizing unhappiness. But we are not purely rational beings - crude passions often overwhelm. They are not tailored to life's myriad situations, so they lead us astray.
Example: The reward of having sex can loom large in a particular moment's emotion/reason calculus, even if one reasons that it will lead to a huge loss in future happiness units. Passion wins.
(Now that I think about it, animal satiation does provide the greatest bounty of happiness units. Given the chance, we will satiate ourselves without limit. But should elemental drives be grouped in their own category, or can they be explained with the superego in terms of pain and pleasure?)
After all that we have learned about Sigmund Freud, I have to admire all that he concluded about the brain and the stages of development at such an early time in psychological history. I can clearly understand and mostly agree with Freud's stages of psychosexual development, but only taken with a grain of salt. By this I mean that the fact that Freud seems to be somewhat biased against women and the fact that he lived years and years ago all have to factor into how accurate the information is. The stage that makes the most sense to me is the oral stage. Little kids have to put things in their mouths to eat which makes them satisfied and then parents use pacifiers to calm them when they are upset. This leads the children to associate items in their mouth with good feelings. Thus, the oral fixation likely to develop at this stage is incredibly understandable. Dentists see it all the time with the teeth problems that develop if a child has an oral fixation causing them to suck their thumb or use a pacifier far too long. The part that makes the least sense to me is the "penis envy" Freud talks about in the phallic stage. Yes, it's amusing to learn that children believe their fathers to have power because they "stole" mom's penis, but to say that women literally are jealous of men's genitals is a little bit of a stretch. I believe in the symbolic interpretation of this stage, that women are jealous of the ease to which certain things come to men, but you also have to remember that Freud lived at a different time. Things are changing!
ReplyDeleteOut of all of Freuds ideas, I found the first two of his developmental stages correct. I feel that as children, we have oral fixations that we need to adress. Also I agree with the anal stage. I understand how he feels that these stages can effect us as we grow older. The stages that follow, I do not agree with. I really don't feel that girls develop penis envy, nor do i believe that boys want to kill their fathers. In Freud's time, it may have made sense to him, but now everything has changed, as well as how people act.
ReplyDeleteThe part that makes the most sense to me is Freuds focus on sex and the idea of the unconcious. Sex is obviously going to be the biggest driving force and the most important need we have. It is like this for all animals. The need to preserve our species is going to be greater than anything else. The unconscious is also a very logical concept, it can be proven through various psychological tests and it a widely excepted idea. But the rest of his personality theory and his stages of development are not things i agree with. They really have no proof behind them and are pure speculation. And since 97% of psychological institutes use other theories, im going to go with the majority.
ReplyDelete