↓ Skip to main content

An evolutionary perspective on gradual formation of superego in the primal horde

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An evolutionary perspective on gradual formation of superego in the primal horde
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erdem Pulcu

Abstract

Freud proposed that the processes which occurred in the primal horde are essential for understanding superego formation and therefore, the successful dissolution of the Oedipus complex. However, Freud theorized superego formation in the primal horde as if it is an instant, all-or-none achievement. The present paper proposes an alternative model aiming to explain gradual development of superego in the primitive man. The proposed model is built on knowledge from evolutionary and neural sciences as well as anthropology, and it particularly focuses on the evolutionary significance of the acquisition of fire by hominids in the Pleistocene period in the light of up-to-date archaeological findings. Acquisition of fire is discussed as a form of sublimation which might have helped Prehistoric man to maximize the utility of limited evolutionary biological resources, potentially contributing to the rate and extent of bodily evolution. The limitations of both Freud's original conceptualization and the present model are discussed accordingly in an interdisciplinary framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 26%
Arts and Humanities 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Linguistics 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,031,021
of 25,085,910 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,057
of 33,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,048
of 318,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#90
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,085,910 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.