Id and It are the same word, one in Latin translated by James Strachey or A.A.Brill and focusing on a medicalized approach to psychoanalysis, and the other "The It" is a translation of the same word from the German by Bruno Bettelheim. The German word is "Das Es," and it is the word that Freud uses to describe "the Id" in the Structural Model.
The same differentiation is implied in German as it is in English, if I remember my long ago and far away German. That is "I am myself, me," "It is something other and distinct from myself ; 'not me,' or foreign." Das Uber Ich, which Strachey and Brill both translate into English as the medicalized and latinate "Superego," Bettelheim renders roughly as "over-I," which renders the looming judgmental effect the word has in German. The one German award that Freud got in his lifetime was The Goethe Award, and though you wouldn't know it from the quality of the translations, that award was for the quality of his writing.
As you can see, it's unlikely that Freud would believe that the Id, which he did believe was a repository for all sorts of material—and which I do as well, by the way—would have much to do with formation of the self. He thought of the Id as Other, and foreign, certainly that's the way he deals with it that way in the Structural Model, which is his late model of the psyche. It is different in substance and intention from the hydraulic model which you mentioned earlier, and thought I was conflating with the structural model. Elements of the structural model may be conscious or not.
In my earlier posting I mentioned how the contents of the Id appear in the conscious mind as Primary Process material. This is not material that can be easily mistaken for anything that is particularly comfy, and the sort of thinking process that runs it doesn't communicate well with conscious ego material. It often gives the psychological impression of a person walking around impaled on a piece of a phone pole, that of a person invaded by foreign contents. This is called ego-dystonic symptomology. The symptoms feel foreign. Often more disturbing are symptoms which seem to have been accepted by the person as simply part of the natural course of things, and appear a happy part of the days' normal schedule, get up, grab some coffee, go to work, come home, play with the kids, dismember a girl in the park, shower, make love to your wife, get up the next day and go through the whole daily grind one more darn time.
These symptoms are ego syntonic. They aren't much basis for a self either.
At the risk of boring you, I'll repeat my opinion here, that no child is born into anything other than a social environment. The formation of a self is an interactional task, one accomplished between the child and the home environment. The child raises the parents in many ways as much as the parents raise the child, and the self is a matter of life long growth and transformation. Parents don't have to be great or even good. All they need to be is good enough.
Grinch, I'm sorry if I'm being tiresome about this stuff. I can't and won't say that you're wrong about the possibility you raise. I'm not the good Lord, nor do I play one on T.V. But what I'm saying about Freudian theory is pretty much on base. Freud covers a lot of this stuff in his book The Ego and The Id, and he covers different pieces of it in different ways throughout the collected works. He goes through three different theoretical models during his lifetime, and they're all pretty decent, but they're probably not as useful as the current theoretical models if you're looking for accuracy. The current models are usually much more interpersonal. We need to account for the fact that humans are ecological beasts in a psychological sense as much as any other, and that while much of what goes on in a person's life is personal, much also is ecological and needs to be understood from the whole of that dimension as well. This doesn't make a real self less real, it makes us need to look at what defines it more inclusively. That's my thoughts for now, at least. What about yours and others. I tried to work other people's thoughts into this response, though I haven't singled people out by name.
Regards to everybody, though in the more and more interesting discussion.
Oh, serenity, I hope I haven't revealed any real trick of the tribe? The therapist's union might hunt me down. I'm not practicing right now, my most serene one. And the informations there for all who have an interest.