Try again.
To say “you behave in ways you don’t approve of” is to approve of the fact that you think you behave in ways you don’t approve of, and this approval is a choice.
Nietzsche’s concept of the Will, which can be easily rendered nonsensical, was taken up by Freud, who, in his Project, attempted to reconcile neuronal inertia and hydraulic process with non-quantifiable nervous system states. What he found is that the extent of neurological activity can only be defined in binary terms, and that a behavioral response is a complex of organizations of reflex-- a synapse either fires or it does not. This is called the threshold of the nerve. This explaination is strictly empirical, and therefore there is no place for a non-empirical entity, such as a “Will”, in such a process.
The “Id,” as it is defined by Freud, is almost as ridiculous as Jung’s theory of the individuation. Neither of these “functions” signify anything in consciousness, as Sartre thoroughly explains in his Transcendence of the Ego.
Consciousness does not “emerge” from an object state such that it is produced by non-reflective instinctual response. A reflex, as in the case of flinching or blocking a punch, is not pre-reflective, and therefore not a choice of conscious thought.
Epistemological discourse, which is the process of “thinking with words,” is the limits of what you can know (Wittgenstein), and as such, a theory of the “Id” is not conclusive due to actual empirical states, but instead conscious intentions for the meaning of the terms as you see fit.
Everything you say about this “Id” is nothing you can admit to know for certain. You demonstrate this proof yourself. You speak of it as if it is a ghost in a machine.
Let me ask you this: if there is a sub-consciousness, how can you be certain there isn’t a sub-sub-consciousness, or metaconsciousness?
No, there are two elements composing reality as we know it. Being and conscious reflection. Consciousness, or what Sartre called “being-for-itself,” is not determined by the ends of object which constitute it, such as the body, but instead determines the ends of the object of consciousness.
The “Id” is however you describe it. Because of this, it isn’t anything less than your description, while what is certain is that you have chosen to define it as such.