Krylov A.A. (Doctor of Psychology, Dean of the Faculty of Psychology)
Integration of scientific knowledge is a necessary condition for understanding the complex patterns and deep connections of the universe, which open the way to understanding it as unified system. Naturally, this path also presupposes a permanent transition to new, increasingly higher levels of data analysis that each specific science accumulates. In all the diversity of sciences, psychological science has a very important feature in this regard, namely: in psychology, a person appears both as a subject and as an object of knowledge.
Manifestation of man in cognition is one of the main expressions human essence. WITH cognitive activity human development is associated with his development, the formation of a worldview and understanding of his “I”, the creation of science as a form public consciousness and all the sociocultural and spiritual wealth of humanity.
Based on the above, there is reason to assume that integration processes in psychology have their own specifics. There are three most general directions psychological integration.
The first direction is related to psychology itself, to development factors psychological knowledge. In the development of psychology, if we take Wundt’s concept as the starting point, this was accompanied by a change in ideas about the very subject of psychology. As an illustration, for example, the following series can be given: pure elements of consciousness (structuralism); consciousness as adaptation mechanism, internal and external conditions (functionalism); personality and psychoenergetic balance (psychoanalysis); behavior (behaviorism); mental reflection and psyche as a property of the physiological substrate - the brain (one of the concepts most widespread up to the present time), etc. It has also gained recognition scientific direction modern psychologists, the very name of which clearly reflects its essence - cognitive psychology.
Thus, we can conclude that the first direction integration processes in psychology, associated with the immanent features of psychological knowledge, had and has very important both for cognition in general and for cognition in a specific area.
The second direction of integration in psychology is due to the fact that psychological knowledge is increasingly used in other sciences. The success of the development of many sciences and their practical applications turns out to be directly related to the data of theoretical and applied psychology. All this results in change social role and the significance of psychology. Among the Russian scientists who have given a convincing justification for this phenomenon, the name of B. G. Ananyev should be mentioned first of all.
B. G. Ananyev showed that of all the sciences one way or another connected with the study of man, only psychology can be considered as a general scientific and methodological center. Thus, psychology acquires the properties of a systemic factor, forming an extensive scientific practical area(system) of human knowledge. At the same time, psychology actively assimilates data from other sciences, primarily for the purpose of their psychological understanding and further psychologization of areas of practical application.
It is now obvious how successful the integration of psychological knowledge with technical sciences, jurisprudence, politics, clinic, etc. Apparently, there are enough reasons to assert the importance of the significance of this line of psychological integration for understanding the realities of the world and practical human activity.
The third line of psychological integration can be considered as unity, but only in a certain sense of what was discussed above. In this line of integration, in our opinion, two levels can be distinguished. The first one is compilative. In general terms, its essence is as follows.
A certain psychological phenomenon is used by some science to build its new theoretical concepts. Returning to psychology, these concepts expand knowledge about the essence human nature and being. We are talking primarily about the concepts of the noosphere (V.I. Vernadsky, P. Teilhard de Chardin), ethnogenesis (N.I. Gumilev), the unity of the Universe (A.L. Chizhevsky), etc.
The next level of the third line of psychological integration can be called, in our opinion, constructive, or creative. Its result is, firstly, the construction of a fundamentally new unified theory on the basis of seemingly difficult to harmonize theoretical concepts different sciences. Secondly, an adequate method and tool that can ensure successful practical activities. All this, of course, presupposes, to one degree or another, taking into account the historical and present experience of all schools of world psychology. That is, we're talking about about the level of integration that corresponds to a new direction in psychology, a new psychological school. Currently, these requirements are best met by the psychological school of ontopsychology, founded and developed by the Italian scientist A. Meneghetti.
Revealing the main provisions of A. Meneghetti’s ontopsychology, we note that the term “ontopsychology” itself has been known for a long time. In the concept of B. G. Ananyev, for example, it is interpreted as a branch of psychology that studies ontogenesis - the development of the individual as a set of organismic, i.e., relating only to the organism, human properties.
In the theory of A. Meneghetti, the term “ontopsychology” has a fundamentally different content - this is the development of individuality as a whole, the psychology of Being in man. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the problem of individuality in ontopsychology is not sequestered, but is brought to the fore as the most important for modern and future psychology.
The new understanding of ontopsychology is based on such basic concepts, like “Semantic field” and “In se”. The semantic field as a concept is different from that used in philology. This is the main information connection that life establishes between its individuations (“I”, acting as an active individual and personality).
“Inse” is the center of Being. In his main form Onto Inse is the regulator of the individual in the specified form of intentionality of Being. Onto Inse, on the basis of common Being, is connected with the Cosmos, the universe and life. On the basis of individual Being - with man as a historical self-revelation. Through Inse the main result of practical ontopsychology is achieved.
By citing some basic concepts and postulates of ontopsychology, we did not intend to give it a more or less sufficient description. One thing is obvious - a new thesaurus has been created, capable of serving both the integration of psychological knowledge itself, and the integration of psychological knowledge with the knowledge of other sciences.
If we turn to the work carried out by A. Meneghetti through the International Association of Ontopsychology, we cannot help but note that his theory is confirmed in practical activity. All this allows us to hope for further strengthening positions of ontopsychology in the integration of sciences.
Integration of scientific knowledge is a necessary condition for understanding the complex patterns and deep connections of the universe, which open the way to understanding it as a single system. Naturally, this path also presupposes a permanent transition to new, increasingly higher levels of data analysis that each specific science accumulates. In all the diversity of sciences, psychological science has a very important feature in this regard, namely: in psychology, a person appears both as a subject and as an object of knowledge.
The manifestation of man in cognition is one of the main expressions of human essence. Human cognitive activity is associated with his development, the formation of a worldview and understanding of his “I,” the creation of science as a form of social consciousness and the entire sociocultural and spiritual wealth of humanity.
Based on the above, there is reason to assume that integration processes in psychology have their own specifics. There are three most general areas of psychological integration.
The first direction is associated with psychology itself, with factors in the development of psychological knowledge. In the development of psychology, if we take Wundt’s concept as the starting point, this was accompanied by a change in ideas about the very subject of psychology. As an illustration, for example, the following series can be given: pure elements of consciousness (structuralism); consciousness as an adaptation mechanism, internal and external conditions (functionalism); personality and psychoenergetic balance (psychoanalysis); behavior (behaviorism); mental reflection and psyche as a property of the physiological substrate - the brain (one of the concepts most widespread up to the present time), etc. The scientific direction of modern psychology has also gained recognition, the very name of which clearly reflects its essence - cognitive psychology.
Thus, we can conclude that the first direction of integration processes in psychology, associated with the immanent features of psychological knowledge, was and is very important both for knowledge in general and for knowledge in a specific area.
The second direction of integration in psychology is due to the fact that psychological knowledge is increasingly used in other sciences. The success of the development of many sciences and their practical applications is now directly related to the data of theoretical and applied psychology. All this results in a change in the social role and significance of psychology. Among the Russian scientists who have given a convincing justification for this phenomenon, the name of B. G. Ananyev should be mentioned first of all.
B. G. Ananyev showed that of all the sciences one way or another connected with the study of man, only psychology can be considered as a general scientific and methodological center. Thus, psychology acquires the properties of a systemic factor that forms a vast scientific and practical field (system) of human knowledge. At the same time, psychology actively assimilates data from other sciences, primarily for the purpose of their psychological understanding and further psychologization of areas of practical application.
It is now obvious how successful the integration of psychological knowledge with technical sciences, law, politics, clinic, etc. can be. Apparently, there is enough reason to assert the importance of the significance of this line of psychological integration for understanding the realities of the world and practical human activity.
The third line of psychological integration can be considered as unity, but only in a certain sense of what was discussed above. In this line of integration, in our opinion, two levels can be distinguished. The first one is compilative. In general terms, its essence is as follows.
A certain psychological phenomenon is used by some science to build its new theoretical concepts. Returning to psychology, these concepts expand knowledge about the essence of human nature and existence. We are talking primarily about the concepts of the noosphere (V.I. Vernadsky, P. Teilhard de Chardin), ethnogenesis (N.I. Gumilev), the unity of the Universe (A.L. Chizhevsky), etc.
The next level of the third line of psychological integration can be called, in our opinion, constructive, or creative. Its result is, firstly, the construction of a fundamentally new unified theory on the basis of seemingly difficult to harmonize theoretical concepts of different sciences. Secondly, an adequate method and tool that can ensure successful practical activities. All this, of course, presupposes, to one degree or another, taking into account the historical and present experience of all schools of world psychology. Therefore, we are talking about a level of integration that corresponds to a new direction in psychology, a new psychological school. Currently, these requirements are best met by the psychological school of ontopsychology, founded and developed by the Italian scientist A. Meneghetti.
Revealing the main provisions of A. Meneghetti’s ontopsychology, we note that the term “ontopsychology” itself has been known for a long time. In the concept of B. G. Ananyev, for example, it is interpreted as a branch of psychology that studies ontogenesis - the development of the individual as a set of organismic, i.e., relating only to the organism, human properties.
In the theory of A. Meneghetti, the term “ontopsychology” has a fundamentally different content – this is the development of individuality as a whole, the psychology of Being in a person. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the problem of individuality in ontopsychology is not sequestered, but is brought to the fore as the most important for modern and future psychology.
The new understanding of ontopsychology is based on such basic concepts as “Semantic field” and “Inse”. The semantic field as a concept is different from that used in philology. This is the main information connection that life establishes between its individuations (“I”, acting as an active individual and personality).
“In-se” is the center of Being. In its main form, Onto In-se is the regulator of the individual in the specified form of intentionality of Being. Onto Inse, on the basis of common Being, is connected with the Cosmos, the universe and life. On the basis of individual Being - with man as a historical self-appearance. Through Inse the main result of practical ontopsychology is achieved.
By citing some basic concepts and postulates of ontopsychology, we did not intend to give it a more or less sufficient description. One thing is obvious - a new thesaurus has been created, capable of serving both the integration of psychological knowledge itself, and the integration of psychological knowledge with the knowledge of other sciences.
If we turn to the work carried out by A. Meneghetti through the International Association of Ontopsychology, we cannot help but note that his theory is confirmed in practical activity. All this allows us to hope for further strengthening of the position of ontopsychology in the integration of sciences.
The meaning of the word INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Analytical Psychology
INTEGRATION
Integration - the process by which parts are connected into a whole; at the personal level, the state of the organism when all the constituent elements of the individual, his traits or qualities act in concert as a single whole. Jung used this term in three ways: 1) as a description (or even diagnosis) of the individual’s psychological situation. It involves examining the interaction of consciousness and the unconscious, the male and female components of the personality, various pairs of opposites, the position of the ego in relation to the shadow and the dynamics of interactions between the functions and attitudes of consciousness. Diagnostically, integration is the reverse of dissociation; 2) as a subprocess of individuation (integration creates the basis for individuation). As a consequence, integration can lead to a sense of wholeness as a result of bringing together different aspects of the personality; 3) as a developmental stage typical of the second half of life, when various interactions(described in paragraph 1) achieve a certain balance (or, more correctly, the optimal level of conflict and tension) (KSAP, p. 67). Mental integration serves to organize complete personal fulfillment, adjusting individual parts of individuality to each other so as to ultimately obtain a single personality. Integration is an essential step on the path of individuation and self-realization (Selbstverwirklichung). When different aspects of personality exist independently of each other, it can lead to dissociation (separation and painful splitting) of personality. The ability to integrate is an expression of a healthy and normal ego. Particularly in the treatment of neuroses, the integration of separated and repressed contents is an essential process. In Jung’s writings, the concept of “integration” is fundamental in the following two areas: firstly, in the encounter (Auseinandersetzimg) with the “shadow” and, secondly, in the area multi-layered relationships (Interaktion) between consciousness and the unconscious. Jung often talks about the integration of the shadow, i.e. dark side personality. While many people project their shadow onto other people or onto “society,” neurosis is more likely to bring about an integration of such forces. Based on this, Jung characterized the integration of unconscious contents as the “fundamental operation” of analytic therapy.
Analytical psychology. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what INTEGRATION is in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- INTEGRATION
ECONOMIC INTERNATIONAL - see INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION ... - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
ECONOMIC. see ECONOMIC INTEGRATION… - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
FINANCIAL - see FINANCIAL INTEGRATION… - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
REGRESSIVE - see REGRESSIVE INTEGRATION... - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
PROGRESSIVE - see PROGRESSIVE INTEGRATION… - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
HORIZONTAL - see HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION… - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
VERTICAL - see VERTICAL INTEGRATION… - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
CURRENCY - see CURRENCY INTEGRATION. ... - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
(Latin integratio - restoration, replenishment) - the process of mutual adaptation and unification into a single whole of organizations, industries, regions or countries and ... - INTEGRATION in the Dictionary of Ethnological Terms:
interethnic (from Latin integratio - restoration, renewal), a form of close interactions between those in contact ethnic communities based on shared or separate use... - INTEGRATION in the Basic terms used in A.S. Akhiezer’s book Critique of Historical Experience:
- functional and structural, cultural and organizational unity of all elements of society, requiring the development of responsibility for the whole. I. makes up with a split, ... - INTEGRATION in Medical terms:
(lat. integratio restoration, connection; integer whole, whole) in physiology, a functional unification of organs and tissues aimed at providing something useful for ... - INTEGRATION in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(Latin integratio - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole), 1) a concept meaning the state of connectedness of individual differentiated parts and functions of the system, ... - INTEGRATION V Encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Euphron.
- INTEGRATION in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- INTEGRATION
(Latin integratio - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole), a concept meaning the state of connectedness of individual differentiated parts and functions of a system in ... - INTEGRATION in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
, and, plural no, w. Combining some parts or elements into a whole; opposite disintegration. I. signs. I. farms. Integration - related... - INTEGRATION
INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGES, a process inverse to the differentiation of languages. When I.ya. language groups that previously used different languages(dialects), begin to use one language, which... - INTEGRATION in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
INTEGRATION is economic, a form of internationalization of households. life that arose after the 2nd world. wars, the objective process of interweaving national. x-in and carrying out the agreed interstate. ... - INTEGRATION in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
INTEGRATION (Latin integratiо - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole), a concept meaning a state of connectedness of a department. differential parts and functions of the system, ... - INTEGRATION in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
- INTEGRATION in the Complete Accented Paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, integration, ... - INTEGRATION in the Popular Explanatory Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language:
[te], -i, unit only. , and. 1) book. Combining individual parts and elements into a single whole. Economic integration developed countries. Integration… - INTEGRATION in the Thesaurus of Russian Business Vocabulary:
Syn: integration, union, connection, ...
integration (lat. Integratio - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole) translated from Latin means the connection of individual parts into a whole, a single [Dictionary ed. Kuznetsova, 1998].
From this definition it follows that integration is a process through which a whole is formed from individual parts, possessing new properties relative to the former parts.
The concept of integration can be considered in different aspects and now this term is used frequently, including due to the increase in the number of interdisciplinary scientific studies. As a psychologist, I am primarily interested in the aspect of human integration.
Integrative psychology deals with the issue of human integration, in which, according to V.V. Kozlov, the following aspects can be highlighted:
1) integration, as a system-forming mechanism in the process of human development and change, promoting well-being at the physical, mental and spiritual levels;
2) integration as a necessary basic mechanism for overcoming and positive transformation of crisis stages of human development;
3) integration, as a personal and transformational process aimed at consolidation, unification, and stress relief.
The possibility of correlating the concept of “integration” with the concept of “person” presupposes, in my opinion, a number of conditions:
1. Understanding that a person is already a kind of integrity and by integration of a person we mean an increase in the level of his integrity.
“Integration processes can take place both within the framework of an already established system - in this case they lead to an increase in the level of its integrity and organization, and when new system from previously unrelated elements. During the integration processes in the system, the volume and intensity of interrelations increases and the interaction between elements, in particular, new levels of management are built" (Kozlov V.V.).
2. Consideration of human integration is correct when implementing a holistic approach, i.e. viewing it as a system. “The principle of integrity postulates an understanding of man as a living, open, complex, multi-level self-organizing system that has the ability to maintain itself in a state of dynamic equilibrium and generate new structures and new situational forms of organization”.
3. Understanding the conventions of identifying subsystems and parts in the “human” system: “ Integrative psychology affirms the idea of the need for a holistic study of personality as a system, each element of which is interconnected and interdependent with each other. Therefore, both the isolation and the study of any elements separately becomes possible only in abstraction” (Kozlov V.V.)
Integration in the concept of holism, as a way to achieve integrity, is a path of evolution from simple to more complex, from imperfect to perfect, from sick to healthy. “Integration is the basis for the development of any living system, especially humans; it is a mechanism built into a complex system that ensures development, evolution, and adaptation to new conditions.”
The term integration in psychology was introduced by K.G. Jung, outlining the mechanism for achieving the Self.In psychology, integration refers primarily to the process of joining parts of the psyche that have been repressed into the unconscious to the conscious part. This is the main psychotherapeutic mechanism.
In her book “Respiratory Psychotechniques. Methodology of Integration,” Tatyana Ginzburg, describing a person as a whole, identifies subsystems in him, designated as
Body, Psyche, Intellect. Based on many years of observations of participants in breathing practices, she writes about several levels of integration that can occur during the breathing process:
- The three subsystems of an ordinary person do not function as a single whole (I think one thing, feel another, do or feel a third). There are dysfunctions, in other words, problems that can manifest themselves either through illness, or through problems in relationships with people, or through states of suffering. An illustration of this level is the selection in modern medicine individual concepts physical, mental and mental health.
- The two subsystems are interconnected. Using the example of the body and psyche: when they are completely connected, every movement and sensation in the body is accompanied by mental experiences, and any emotional experience– causes an instant response in the body. Although in this description there is already some incorrectness inherent in a linear description, since there is no sequence in this case, there is the integrity of these two systems, sensation, emotion and movement are already experienced by a person as one. He no longer moves his body as usual. It moves itself, he will say if he describes such an experience. Most often, such integrity is experienced as an ecstatic state.
- The three subsystems are connected - this is a state of a person in which the Body, Psyche, and Intellect are united and work in complete harmony. In this state, the Intelligence correctly recognizes what is happening to the body and psyche, and any thought and association affects the mental and physical state. Getting to this level instantly is usually called insight. “Insight is a sudden awareness during a strong inner experience.”
More information about how integration occurs during a breathing session and what promotes integration can be found in the book by T. Ginzburg"Respiratory psychotechniques. Integration methodology", which can be ordered by calling one of our contact numbers.
My opinion about the connection between a person’s integration and his health and well-being can be found in the monograph: “Reflection as a tool for integration into health and well-being”
Vybornova S.G.
Integration and methodology
At the very beginning of the article “Methods for the integration of psychological knowledge,” which we will have to refer to repeatedly in this text, A.V. Yurevich ( Yurevich, 2005) writes about the specter of integrative psychology haunting psychological science. Indeed, a corresponding manifesto also appeared, and, as is well known, in a good manifesto there is always a place for a ghost - and not only in the epigraph. I would like to hope that the ghost of integration is at least as kind as his cartoon brother Casper. And his intentions are good (and, by the way, he is not going to destroy anything, not only “to the ground,” but also in principle). However, it seems to us that this ghost is nothing more than the materialization of the ever-present psychological dream of integrity or, if you like, “longing for integrity.” Jerome Bruner wrote about this in his Autobiography: “I hoped that psychology would maintain its integrity and not turn into a set of incommunicable subdisciplines. But she has transformed. I hoped that she would find a way to build bridges between the sciences and the arts. But she didn’t find it” (Quoted from Zinchenko, 2003, p. 117–118). Each new generation of psychologists comes to science with a childhood dream of rebuilding this wonderful science so that psychologists achieve at least mutual understanding. But they don't find it. And the enthusiasm of adherents of integrity is not dampened by the warnings of methodological pluralists, who believe that no integration is necessary... However, enough jokes, let’s turn to the integration itself.
Integration, as the dictionary of foreign words reports, comes from the Latin integratio (restoration, replenishment) and means “the unification of any parts or elements into a whole.” It seems that for psychology this is deeply symbolic, since ultimately integration has as its goal the restoration of the original integrity of the psyche. No one has ever seriously doubted the integrity of the psyche, it’s just that it – this integrity – and its structure were presented to different psychologists in significantly different ways.
As is well known, scientific psychology was constituted in the second half of XIX century Wilhelm Wundt. W. Wundt substantiated physiological psychology as an empirical discipline using the experimental method, which met the formal requirements of Kant’s “double program” (see about this Mazilov, 1998). The elementaryism of scientific psychology was determined precisely by Kantian criticism - Wundt created his own system physiological psychology, trying to eliminate the shortcomings of psychology recorded in the main provisions of Kantian criticism. Kant’s theses, we recall, were partially attempted to be taken into account by Wundt’s predecessors (for example, I. Herbart, who used mathematics, but believed that psychology “does not dare to experiment”). The creator of scientific psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, carried out the completely Kantian “double program”. It is important for us to note that scientific psychology was thought of by Wundt as a positivist science: it seemed to him that as soon as the requirements were met (to study the facts), the laws of psychology would “open”, and psychology would turn into a science as worthy as chemistry (remember, it served as the ideal of scientific , it was precisely on its model that the German scientist built psychology). Wundt's concept became a model of atomistic and elementalist psychology; atomism and elementalism were criticized by representatives of many trends in subsequent psychology. This is so well known that it has become " commonplace" What is much less known is that Wundt was not at all (as is often presented) an opponent of integrity. Let us give a short quote from the work of Wundt himself: “Whatever process among those that we call “psychic connections” in in a broad sense words, or - since all mental processes are complex, i.e. are compounds - no matter what mental phenomenon we take in general, everywhere and always we will come across the following bright, characteristic feature: a product arising from a certain number elements, is something more than the simple sum of these elements; something more than a product that is homogeneous with these elements and only in one way or another, qualitatively or quantitatively, differs from them in its properties: no, such a product is a new formation, completely incomparable in its most essential qualities with the factors that created it. We call this basic quality of mental processes the principle of creative synthesis" ( Wundt, b/g, s. 118). And further: “We encounter this principle in its simplest form in the formation of sensory ideas. Sound is more than the sum of its partial tones. When they merge into unity, overtones, due to their low intensity, usually disappear as independent elements, but thanks to them the main tone receives a sound coloring, making it a much richer sound formation than a simple tone. Thanks to the infinite variety of products that can be obtained from such compounds, on the basis of simple tones, differing only in height and depth, an infinitely varied world of sound colors arises" ( Wundt, b/g, s. 118). Similar phenomena take place in the process of perception: “in the processes of assimilation, connected with each process of perception, the reproduced elements become part of the newly formed product: from direct impressions and diverse fragments of previous ideas, a synthetic view is created” ( Wundt, b/g, s. 118–119). We agree that such a psychologist can hardly be considered an opponent of integrity. Let us note that when we talk about a holistic approach, methodological issues most often come to the fore. Wundt's contemporary Franz Brentano, who developed a holistic approach that defended the integrity of the mental act, criticized the creator of scientific psychology not for inattention to the whole, but for the path to comprehending the whole. According to Brentano, there are integral formations that are fundamentally irreducible to each other. You need to go in their research from the whole.
A milestone in the development of a holistic approach was the famous work of Wilhelm Dilthey, known in our country as “Descriptive Psychology” (1894). A significant part of this book is devoted to criticism of the constructive approach to psychology, an example of which is Wundtian psychology. Dilthey's solution is also widely known - psychology should develop as a descriptive, dissecting science. The whole is taken as a basis, it is divided into special rules without disturbing the most important connections.
If we talk about the development of the idea of integrity in psychology, we cannot fail to mention the research of the “quality of form” school and, of course, Gestalt psychology, for which the problem of integrity has become central. However, the scope of this publication does not allow us to dwell on the analysis of the works of this most interesting trend in psychological science. However, we note that the contribution to the development of the problem of integrity made by Gestalt psychology cannot be overestimated.
Note that the most important methodological question is how to interpret the reasons for this integrity. Wundt believed that the explanation was the “law of creative synthesis” he formulated: there is special power- apperception, which can combine elements of experience in any order. The Austrian school believed that “qualities of form” are created due to factors “more high order" The merit of Gestalt psychology consisted, first of all, in the fact that they were not satisfied with fixing integral phenomena, did not limit themselves to any “pseudo-explanation” (pointing to any subjective factors), but tried to find out their nature. They tried to discover the universal laws of Gestalt, for which Köhler carried out his famous studies in colloid chemistry. Discovery Focused general laws(and reluctance to be satisfied with “quasi-explanations”) and made this school, in our opinion, a model of science in the eyes of contemporaries.
The initial stages of the development of scientific psychology, as is well known, were associated with the development of “simple” approaches: as already noted, Wundt believed that empirical study in itself will ensure the effectiveness of psychological research (Wundt revised his views and in 1913 argued that psychology cannot exist without philosophy, the separation from which he himself had justified four decades earlier). Structural, functional, procedural approaches to the study of the psyche arose quite quickly. They were complemented by level and genetic approaches.
Another line of demarcation was that various items : some schools continued to study consciousness, others began to study behavior, and others made the subject of the deep layers of the psyche, usually not realized by the person himself. As M.G. rightly noted. Yaroshevsky, various directions in psychology focused on the development individual categories: image, action, motive ( Yaroshevsky, 1974).
Many different approaches arose, which led to the emergence of the so-called “open” crisis in psychology, the fundamental meaning of which was that psychologists clearly realized: “simple” approaches are not enough for an adequate understanding of the psyche.
Let us recall that particularly intensive integrative processes occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, when “simple”, “one-dimensional” approaches did not live up to the expectations placed on them. Then these integration processes either strengthened or weakened. A powerful wave of integration movement occurred in connection with the emergence of a systems approach, which received wide use in psychology. But in general, the implementation of a systematic approach did not give the expected results (this was largely due to the “fashion” for systems approach, which led to the fact that in many studies it was used either incorrectly or was simply proclaimed, i.e. remained a declaration). Let us note, by the way, that the history of the systemic movement in psychology in in full has not yet been written, which seems to be a serious omission by historians of modern psychology.
A new wave of integration movement began quite recently. Let's look at it in a little more detail. In 2003, the journal “Bulletin of Integrative Psychology” began to be published in Yaroslavl (chief editor: Prof. V.V. Kozlov). Every year, conferences are held in Yaroslavl to discuss the problems of integrative psychology. Integration ideas were widely discussed at the last RPO congress and at the International Psychological Congress in Beijing. As rightly noted by A.V. Yurevich, integrative moods “clearly reflect not the personal feelings and intentions of certain psychologists, but the internal need of modern psychological science and the unsatisfactory nature of its long-term development along a “confrontational” path) ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 377).
A.V. Yurevich notes that in the system of integrative attitudes modern psychology Several different positions can be distinguished. According to S.D. Smirnova ( Smirnov, 2004, p. 280–281), four positions can be distinguished:
1. Methodological nihilism.
2. “Methodological rigorism” or “methodological monism”.
3. “Methodological liberalism.”
4. “Methodological pluralism.”
A.V. Yurevich, who formulated the position of methodological liberalism, interprets the differences between methodological liberalism and methodological pluralism in the following way: “The fourth position of S.D. Smirnov calls it “methodological pluralism,” noting that he himself shares it. It is that psychological theories should recognize each other (like “methodological liberalism”), but (unlike it) should not strive to “build bridges” between them, leaving psychology in its current fragmented state and recognizing its “polyparadigmality” "as inevitable" ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 380).
The position of methodological liberalism seems more constructive, because, in our opinion, the integration of psychological knowledge is one of the most important strategic tasks facing psychological science in beginning of XXI centuries.
Indeed, solving integration issues is closely related to the methodology of psychology. At the very Lately A very significant number of works on the methodology of psychology have been published, and many productive ideas have been expressed. Our views on the issue of reforming the methodology of psychological science were outlined in the first chapter.
Characterizing the prospects for integration in modern psychology, A.V. Yurevich notes that “ modern psychologists realize the need for the integration of psychological science as one of its main tasks, but are looking for “softer”, “liberal” options for integration than their monistically minded predecessors, who ignored or “ate” each other’s conceptual structures. In these conditions, the primary task becomes not only integration itself, but also the development of its model, which, firstly, would be truly “liberal”, allowing one to avoid the costs of “forced” or artificially forced integration, characteristic of previous times, secondly, it would still be a model of integration, and not the legalization of anarchy and fragmentation, which is very characteristic of postmodern programs; thirdly, it would not look like a set of unifying calls built on the principle “psychologists of all countries and directions unite” ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 381). A.V. Yurevich notes that in order to develop or at least imagine a model of integration, it is necessary to ask the natural question of what the integration of modern psychology could even be like. It is logically expedient to answer it by contradiction, that is, starting from the main types of disunity or “gaps” of psychological knowledge that impede its integration. “In the structure of psychological knowledge (more precisely, in a rather amorphous array, which can only conditionally or as a tribute to tradition be called a “structure”), three fundamental “gaps” can be seen. Firstly, the gap is “horizontal” - between the main psychological theories and the corresponding psychological “empires” - behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, etc., each of which offers its own image of psychological reality, its own rules for studying it, etc. Secondly , the gap is “vertical”: between different levels of explanation of the mental – intrapsychic (phenomenological), physiological (physical), social, etc., generating corresponding “parallelisms” – psychophysical, psychophysiological and psychosocial. Thirdly, “diagonal” - “gap” or, in the words of F. E. Vasilyuk, “schisis” between research (academic) and practical psychology» ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 381–382). According to A.V. Yurevich, it is precisely the three designated “gaps” that seem to be the main ones that give rise to the general disintegration of psychology, and accordingly, overcoming them, or at least reducing them, looks like the main directions of its integration.
Integration into modern conditions seems quite real: “the theories existing in psychology are not so irreconcilable and “incommensurable” (in T. Kuhn’s terms) with each other, the current psychological community is not divided into fanatical adherents of these theories, most of research is built on a cross-theoretical basis and pays tribute to various aspects mental. All these are manifestations natural“horizontal” integration of psychological knowledge, which, in contrast to its artificial integration by declaring unifying programs and attempts to create appropriate theories, does not look flashy, occurs unnoticed, but is determined by the internal logic of the development of psychological knowledge and produces visible results" ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 387).
In our opinion, it is important to distinguish between spontaneous (natural, according to A.V. Yurevich) integration, which occurs “spontaneously” in the course of the development of psychological knowledge, and purposeful, which is the result of special activities of the psychological community. The second and third sections of this chapter will be devoted to consideration of these types of psychological integration, respectively.
Spontaneous integration
It seems useful to consider in specific historical material actual strategies and techniques that psychologists have used to refine their concepts, which inevitably “bring together” different approaches. This is one of possible ways practical “spontaneous” integration in psychology. A.V. wrote well about this. Yurevich: “It is increasingly rare to find a psychologist who would consider himself (and would actually be) a “pure” behaviorist, cognitivist or supporter of psychoanalysis, as well as, say, activity theory, or any other psychological theory. Most of them are not adherents of any “one isolated” theory, but implement a comprehensive view of psychological reality, which has absorbed elements of different concepts. And this tendency, clearly manifested in psychology, is characteristic of all modern science experiencing both social and cognitive globalization" ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 386). “One of the manifestations of the social globalization of science is the “opening” of scientific schools (which T. Kuhn called “combat units of pre-paradigm science,” emphasizing that they perform not so much scientific as political functions), their merging, gradual displacement by “invisible colleges” and other, more modern than scientific schools, types of associations of scientists... Each of us can easily grasp the corresponding trend in ourselves by asking the question: “Who am I - a behaviorist, a cognitive scientist, an adept of psychoanalysis, activity theory or some other psychological concept?” Surely, most of us will choose the “other” answer characteristic of such a question, recognizing ourselves as not belonging to any of the psychological schools, but implementing a more general “above-school” perspective. (The exceptions are “hardened adherents,” which mainly include older generation scientists, as well as situations in which it is more advantageous to be identified as an adherent of one of the schools). Most of us, be it a research psychologist or a practicing psychologist, probably use in our work the knowledge obtained by behaviorists, cognitivists, and psychoanalysts, the ideas of Vygotsky, Rubinstein, Leontiev, and other outstanding domestic psychologists, relies on different concepts and applies a variety of techniques. And even in those cases when a psychologist gravitates toward a certain theory or declares himself an adept of it, he inevitably realizes a research perspective that goes far beyond the boundaries of this theory. But a “pure” behaviorist, cognitivist, representative of activity theory or psychoanalysis, who would not use the knowledge acquired within the framework of other concepts at all, can only be imagined in the abstract, and even then for this one must have a very rich and divorced from reality imagination.” ( Yurevich, 2005, p. 386–387). It seems interesting to consider (and specifically, not at the level of general declarations) the opportunities that open up with the development of a scientific school in terms of improving the original concept and leading to its convergence with other scientific directions. Let us consider such an evolution using the example of Gestalt psychology - one of the most “holistic” and “uncompromising” directions in the history of world psychology.
Gestalt psychology as an independent scientific direction took shape in Germany in 1912. Rightfully considered one of the main trends in world psychology in the first half of the 20th century, Gestalt psychology made a major contribution to solving problems of perception, thinking, and personality. By accurate assessment Paul Fress, “the Gestaltists were brilliant experimenters, their fruitful influence affected not only the study of perception, but also memory, learning and thinking. We find traces of this influence everywhere, although Gestalt psychology almost no longer exists as a school" ( Fress, 1966, p. 81). M.G. Yaroshevsky rightly noted that Gestalt psychology is “a direction in Western psychology, which arose in Germany in the first third of the 20th century. and put forward a program for studying the psyche from the point of view of holistic structures (gestalts), primary in relation to their components. Gestalt psychology opposed the principle put forward by structural psychology (W. Wundt, E.B. Titchener, etc.) of dividing consciousness into elements and constructing them according to the laws of association or creative synthesis of complex mental phenomena” ( Yaroshevsky, 2005, p. 44). Let us dwell in more detail on some points characterizing this direction in psychological science.
In our opinion, it is especially interesting to consider how this spontaneous integration was carried out in the most “holistic” direction - Gestalt psychology. In order for the analysis to be based on a specific material, it is necessary to select a specific subject area. Let us consider how ideas about thinking developed in Gestalt psychology.
In fact, thinking was the core problem of research (both theoretical and experimental) in this scientific school almost throughout its entire history. independent existence. The choice of this particular problem is not accidental: thinking, which acted as the highest manifestation human consciousness, has not received any satisfactory explanation in traditional psychology and Gestalt psychologists, with all their characteristic determination, began to study productive creative thinking. An explanation of this most complex manifestation of human consciousness was supposed to confirm the validity of the Gestaltists' claims to create a truly scientific psychology.
It would be wrong to present the matter in such a way that Gestalt psychology was unified theory, the main provisions of which would be shared by all representatives of this direction. Soon after the establishment of Gestalt psychology as an independent scientific direction, disagreements began to arise, which later deepened significantly, and individual representatives of this school (Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Köhler, Norman Mayer, Lajos Szekely, etc.) often challenged the validity of the positions put forward by their colleagues. It is significant that Gestalt psychologists’ ideas about thinking have historically undergone major changes. The works of Gestalt psychologists have been repeatedly published in Russian, theoretical and experimental studies of thinking in Gestalt psychology have been repeatedly analyzed in the domestic literature, which eliminates the need to present the concepts of Gestaltists. It seems especially interesting to record a set of initial ideas about thinking in Gestalt psychology and try to trace, at least in the most general terms, the direction of the evolution of views on thinking in this scientific school.
As is well known, the first object of study in Gestalt psychology was perception, but quite soon thinking also came into the scope of study. Having emerged as a reaction to associationism and functionalism, protesting against the approach to the study of thinking that developed in formal logic and used by many psychologists to describe thought process, continuing the traditions of phenomenology (primarily E. Husserl), in the early stages Gestalt psychology developed in sharp polemics with the Würzburg school and behaviorism. Traditionally, the main features of Gestalt psychology are integrity (the Gestalt principle) and physicalism, which is certainly true. It is also true that the novelty of this theory is not so much in the declaration of the principle of integrity and its experimental justification, but in a different explanation of the nature of this integrity. The main result of M. Wertheimer's classic study of the stroboscopic effect (1912) was the experimental substantiation of the reality of the phenomenal field, which served as the basis for the formation of the Gestalt theory. Considering physics as a model of genuine science, Gestalt psychologists attempted to build psychology “as a strict science.” Using the concept of a phenomenal field (in which the “fusion” of subject and object should occur), they tried to remove the opposition between subject and object, which made it possible to escape from the arbitrariness that inevitably follows from the activity of the subject. Let us repeat, the pathos of Gestalt psychology was to create a truly scientific psychology. To be fair, it should be noted that Gestalt psychology was perceived exactly this way by contemporaries: as a direction that met the canons of science. It is no coincidence that L.S. Vygotsky, developing his own concepts, constantly “competed” with the research of Gestaltists ( Mazilov, 2005).
Phenomenological traditions, methodological guidelines and the main oppositions of the school (primarily W. Wundt, the Würzburg school, O. Seltz, formal logic and behaviorism) determined the initial ideas about thinking. In basic terms they can be reduced to the following:
1. Thinking is a productive, creative process.
2. “Asubjectivity” of thinking, resulting from the idea of a phenomenal field (as a protest against hypothetical tendencies that arise in the subject and are capable of directing the thinking process), refusal to recognize the action of “higher order” factors to explain the selective and directed nature of thinking.
3. Thinking is a transformation, restructuring of a situation (in accordance with the phenomenological tradition, thinking can be revealed through its content).
4. The transition from one structuring of a situation to another (from one gestalt to another) is achieved with the help of insight (contrasted with behaviorists, who affirmed the gradual solution of a problem through trial and error as the main method).
5. Situational thinking and denial of the role of past experience (contrasting associative psychology, the Wurzburg school and behaviorism).
6. “Visuality” of thinking (the influence of phenomenological traditions and previous studies of perception, a reaction to “ugly” thinking and logicism).
7. Independence of thinking from culture, non-verbal nature of thinking (traditions of phenomenology, reaction to logicism).
8. “Consciousness” of thinking, its separation from real behavior, limitation to the sphere of consciousness (tradition of phenomenology, psychology of consciousness in general).
9. “Non-reflexivity” of thinking – thinking is a fundamentally one-level process that takes place in the mental field.
So, according to the original ideas of Gestalt psychologists, thinking was considered exclusively from its content side as a restructuring of the situation through insight, as a transition from one Gestalt to another.
As already noted, Gestalt ideas about thinking in historical development schools have undergone significant changes. Conventionally, in the evolution of the Gestalt theory of thinking one can see three stages:
I. “Classical” Gestalt theory of thinking (works by M. Wertheimer, K. Kofka, W. Köhler and others, carried out in the 20s).
II. “Neo-Gestalt theory” of thinking (research by K. Duncker, L. Szekely, N. Mayer, etc., posthumously published work by M. Wertheimer “Productive Thinking”, 30s - 40s).
III. “Post-Gestalt theory” of thinking (subsequent works by L. Székely, N. Mayer, A. Lachins and others, 50–70s).
If at the first stage most of the initial characteristics of thinking are accepted, then at the second there is a clear departure from a number of fundamental provisions. The third stage generally represents attempts to form “hybrid” theories, synthesis with other scientific directions.
If the first and second stages of the development of Gestalt ideas about thinking in Russian literature received sufficiently detailed coverage, the third was practically not reflected. Therefore, let us dwell on some points characterizing the second and third stages.
The development of the Gestalt psychological concept of thinking went in the direction of abandoning the original restrictions and accepting provisions that contradicted the original guidelines. (Here we do not have the opportunity to analyze two extremely important interrelated issues: 1) the reasons that led to the adoption of certain provisions; 2) changing views on methods, techniques and strategies for studying thinking. Any detailed coverage of this issue requires a special article).
Already in the works of K. Duncker (1926, 1935) there is a clear recognition of the role of past experience in thinking and problem solving (which, in particular, gave impetus to a whole series of special studies aimed at studying the phenomenon of functional fixation in solving mental problems), they find reflection of operating and motivational characteristics thinking.
Characterizing the book by M. Wertheimer (1945), V.P. Zinchenko notes that “the author goes beyond the boundaries of Gestalt theory” ( Zinchenko, 1987, p. 11), “Wertheimer significantly transformed the original concepts of Gestalt psychology” ( Zinchenko, 1987, p. 22), uses “a conceptual apparatus, unusual for classical Gestalt psychology, related to the description of activities and actions. Here are the concepts (or their analogues) of objective meanings or objective generalizations, functional or operational meanings, here is also a prototype of the description functional structure actions and even its model, expressed in abstract logical concepts» ( Zinchenko, 1987, p. 23).
Thus, the work of the second stage of development of the Gestalt theory of thinking is very different from the initial ideas about this process. Let us dwell on the concept of Lajos Székely, one of the most interesting representatives of Gestalt psychology, since his works (especially the latest) are little known in our country. The first study by L. Szekely (1940) is devoted to the central point in solving a problem, which was especially interesting to Gestalt psychologists - the emergence of an idea. Szekely notes that most important achievement modern psychology of thinking is the recognition that the solution to a problem consists in restructuring the material ( Szekely, 1940, s. 79). L. Székely's approach to the study of thinking clearly follows the tradition laid down by K. Duncker (1926, 1935). This should be specially emphasized, because appears to be a completely unjustified opinion (probably based on the circumstances life path scientist), expressed by some foreign historians of psychology, according to which Székely is not considered to belong to this scientific school. Székely, following Duncker, believes that the solution to a problem is a series of successive phases that naturally follow from one another. He identifies (first described by Duncker) heuristic methods of thinking: analysis of the situation and analysis of the goal, reveals the role of the direction that thinking takes (depending on whether it goes as an analysis of the goal - “what do I need to achieve?” or as an analysis of the situation - “What needs to be changed in this?”), in solving (or not solving) the problem. It is important to note that, according to Székely, thinking is not a “uniform” process in all cases: the restructuring of mental material does not always occur; moreover, this reorganization is not necessary in every mental process. There is another extremely important point in this work by Székely, which poses the problem of the role of past experience in problem solving. “The objects around us have specific value and a number of properties assigned to them" ( Szekely, 1940, s. 87). “The subject in our understanding (at our level of culture, in our society) is assigned certain functions, but depending on special requirements, new properties and possibilities for its application may be discovered. Discovering new application opportunities in different ways is difficult in different situations. It depends on the various factors, of which only a few are now known" ( Szekely, 1940, s. 88). To solve a problem, it is often necessary to discover precisely a new, implicit, latent property of an object. How is it possible to discover this new latent property? According to Székely, restructuring is associated with the unconscious: “This type of restructuring... belongs actually to the arsenal of unconscious and preconscious mechanisms” ( Szekely, 1940, s. 94). Note that in the cited article there are references to Freud’s publications, in particular, to the well-known work on wit and its relationship to the unconscious, which, however, have a purely auxiliary significance, but, as we will see, this circumstance turns out to be important for understanding the logic of the development of the concept scientist.
Let us analyze the main provisions of this work in the context of interest to us. There is no doubt that Székely comes from the traditions of Gestalt psychology, directly continuing the research of K. Duncker. Initial position, according to which thinking is a productive process, which is a restructuring, is preserved. But on the remaining “positions” there is a very radical change in views:
The role of past experience is recognized, and experience is not only a necessary moment in thinking, but, in turn, is determined by culture and social experience;
The role of the subject’s actions is recognized (heuristic techniques, situation analysis, goal analysis);
Thinking acts as a service to real behavior and is a means of solving, among other things, life and practical problems;
There is a rejection of the concept of a phenomenal field (in the work we are talking about mental images objects in which new properties should be revealed);
There is a clear identification of different levels of the thought process (conscious and unconscious).
Thus, it can be seen that most of the identified initial characteristics of thinking have been subject to revision. In the cycle of subsequent works by Székely (40s - early 50s), the problems posed in the first experimental studies: the relationship between knowledge and thinking, the influence of the teaching method on the possibilities of productive application of acquired knowledge, etc. These are studies corresponding to the second stage of the Gestalt theory of thinking.
At the third stage (50s - 70s), the theory of thinking is transformed by borrowing explanatory concepts developed in other scientific schools. L. Székely makes an attempt to combine the traditions of Gestalt psychology with the provisions of psychoanalysis and the genetic concepts of Jean Piaget and Jerome Bruner. At the same time, the traditional problems of Gestalt psychology are preserved. The task is set to explain the restructuring of mental content, as a result of which a solution to the problem is achieved. The most interesting is the work of L. Székely “Creative Pause” (1968) ( Szekely, 1976), dedicated to clarifying the central point in creative thinking - the emergence of a new idea, leading to the discovery and finding of a solution to a problem. In fact, this work is on the same topic as the 1940 paper discussed above. These studies are separated by almost thirty years. What are the main differences in the conceptual apparatus and approach to the study of thinking?
In the last article, L. Székely distinguishes the following characteristics in solving a problem: 1) the content of thinking, 2) the phases (stages) of thinking, 3) the mechanisms of thinking, in which manipulations and operations are distinguished (abstraction, analogy, generalization, negation, etc. ), 4) levels of organization of thinking (tolerance or intolerance of contradictions, unrealistic assumptions, etc.) ( Szekely, 1976, s. 142). According to Székely, during a creative pause, various experiences are updated and analyzed in a common thought field; thoughts and impressions that are not related to each other in time and meaning are brought into contact) ( Szekely, 1976, s. 149). The thinking process during a creative pause occurs at a different level of organization than the conscious process. Instead of the insufficiently defined concept of past experience, the concept of representation, borrowed from Jerome Bruner, is used. Representation, according to Székely, is a hypothetical structure with the help of which a person organizes experience for future use. These are structures that are organized and built in early childhood based on impressions of the surrounding world and somatic sensations. During conscious work with a problem, the zone for searching for a solution is determined through knowledge about the cause-and-effect structures of reality; during a pause, consideration of rational possibilities recedes into the background, the search zone changes to infantile areas of representation ( Szekely, 1976, s. 167). The study of the thought process during a creative pause occurs through psychoanalysis sessions, in which, in particular, analytical interpretation of dreams is carried out.
In the case (which is analyzed in detail in the cited article) of the Teta engineer working on a crystallographic problem, infantile conflicts prevent the finding of a solution. Thinking finds itself drawn into the sphere of infantile conflicts, and only psychoanalytic elaboration of the conflict leads to the fact that thinking is freed and becomes able to move on ( Szekely, 1976, s. 166).
Thus, creative thinking, according to Székely, not only includes the actions and operations of the subject, but is an intimate and personal process directly related to the resolution of personal conflicts, having conscious and unconscious phases and occurring at various levels. Note that, in fact, thinking, according to Székely, also includes reflexive components (although the author does not use the term itself). It can probably be considered that Gestalt psychology (represented by L. Szekely), having assimilated the achievements of psychoanalysis and the genetic concepts of J. Piaget and J. Bruner, ceased to exist as an independent scientific direction. It is significant that Székely himself, in recent works, considers himself a supporter of cognitive psychology ( Szekely, 1976, s. 141). Let us note by the way that in the book by Norman R.F. Mayer, another representative of “post-Gestalt psychology,” published in 1970, presents the results of research into the process of group problem solving, which is completely alien to the Gestalt traditions in the study of thinking ( Maier, 1970).
Changes in the views of Gestalt psychologists on the thinking process are natural. Being at the beginning of its development a “pure” direction that did not recognize the influence of “extraneous” factors, Gestalt psychology encountered significant difficulties in explaining the selective and directed flow of the thought process. Our own experimental material turned out to be much richer than the original schemes, which forced us to make adjustments to the concepts. The turn to practice, primarily to issues of learning, also led to a change in ideas about thinking and its main characteristics. The direction of evolution of Gestalt ideas about thinking indicates, in our opinion, a tendency towards spontaneous integration: towards the use complex descriptions, involving borrowing and close “interaction”, cooperation, communication with others research approaches. This spontaneous integration leads to the fact that psychological concept goes beyond the “framework” of the scientific school. This is inevitable, because comprehension of the psyche in all its real complexity comes into conflict with “narrow” theoretical guidelines. In our opinion, this is one of the ways to develop psychological knowledge.