What is it you don't understand about inflation and minimum wage?

[Rule]

I have put together some rambling details of Freud's theories, but have summarized things near the end of this post.  I'd suggest skipping to the summary.

When I referred to research done on the matter, I had Freud in mind, although to be honest, some of his work is now in question by modern psychologists.  Notwithstanding, the reason his theories on human consciousness/subconsciousness have been around for so long is because they have been quite successful at predicting human behavior. 

According to Freud, we are born only with the "Id" -- a part of our subconscious that operates on the "pleasure principle":  the id is completely self-serving, without regard to others.  This sort of behavior is often conspicuously seen in babies (up to the age of 3). 

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that this is the first part of our personality to develop.  In a vulnerable state, in most cases it would hinder our chances of survival to act otherwise.  This self-centred behavior could be "selected" for.

The ego then develops which is supposedly our conscious mind (rather unimportant in this discussion).

Then the superego develops -- "the largely unconscious part of the personality responsible for moral self-control -- roughly, the 'conscience.'"  It supposedly develops from moral and ethical restraints placed on us by our caregivers, or the environment.

Supposedly the ID has the most profound effect on our personality throughout our lives.  Some more info on Freud's structural model of personality can be found here, and here.

--------------------

Although the details of Freud's theories have been put in question, there is a general trend in our development that he spotted, which is backed by modern studies.

Summary:
Intrinsically, we are all self-centred.  We seek pleasure, and receive it by fulfilling our baser needs: the need for food, sex, and so on...   In the early stages of development (e.g. mostly independent of our environment) we exclusively exhibit this sort of behavior.

I think in general, people do whatever makes them feel good -- and in some cases, it may make one feel good to help others.

The part of our subconscious that rewards us for altruistic behavior is not purely instictual, but rather is strongly influenced by our environment. 

Of course this isn't "set in stone," but it appears to be the best approximation we have for human behavior.  It also seems clear that certain people will be genetically pre-disposed to have more agreeable (nicer) personalities than others (many personality disorders (e.g. Turrets) are inherited).

[MyndFyre]

Rule...  I don't know if you've ever taken a psychology class... but pretty much Freud has been made the butt of the discipline over the last 15 or so years.  Primarily it's because he didn't practice the scientific method.

I'll come up with some research about altruistic behavior and it being a natural impulse.

[Rule]

Rule...  I don't know if you've ever taken a psychology class... but pretty much Freud has been made the butt of the discipline over the last 15 or so years.  Primarily it's because he didn't practice the scientific method.

Actually, I haven't, but I do know that his theories have hardly been the "butt of the discipline" over the last 15 years, because "he didn't practice the scientific method." First of all, hasn't the sacrosanct "scientific method" been applied in great excess of 15 years?  Why would it take so long to disregard his theories because he didn't apply this method?

Second, the study of Freud's theories are a major component of most first year psychology classes.  An emphasis is not placed on discrediting them, but learning more about them, because they have played an important role in predicting human behavior over the last 100 years.  Further, the first link I gave for a brief introduction to Freud's structural model is written as an introductory guide to psychology by Dr. Chriss Heffner (PhD in psychology, and is published in peer reviewed journals).  There is no disclaimer on his site about how Freud's theories have been the "butt of the discipline."  Clearly your implication that his ideas should be thrown away is more than a little unfounded.

Third, I clearly stated that details in Freud's theories have recently come under criticism.  You act as though I'm not aware of this.  I also pointed out that his model has survived as long as it has because of the success it has met as a predictor.  I believe that most of the criticism is directed towards his oversimplification of the human mind -- e.g. why only three divisions -- as opposed to the general ideas behind his theories.

4) I never claimed that Freud's theories were truth.  You will never find conclusive evidence that man is good or bad by nature.  All we have are models that have met various degrees of success.  It seems that the ones best able to predict our behavior suggest that we are intrinsically self-serving, and that a desire to be "altruistic" is predominantly a product of our environment.  On that note I highly doubt you'll find any acclaimed research that "altruistic behavior" is a "born-in" natural impulse. 

5) Yes, I realize that some of my claims are not as well supported as they could be.  I know support is there, as I have read serious studies suggesting that we are instinctually self-centred; this is really quite obvious from an evolutionary standpoint, as I have pointed out.  I do not have time at the moment to go on a hunt for many peer-reviewed sources, so I decided to refer to theories that have been the cornerstone of psychology, at the expense of opening myself up to a little criticism (hence the multiple disclaimers in my previous post).

[Ishbar]

RATHER than start patronizing wage prices and argumentivly pitching "cause and effect" lingo to one another...Wouldn't a significant result of all financial problems be the fact that our economy continuously distills the value of the American dollar by remaining in debt, borrowing money to pay the debt, then borrowing even more money to pay the same previous amount because of its lessening worth.