was born in 1906 in Samara, after graduating from high school he moved to Moscow and here in 1925 he began his long career as a junior laboratory assistant in the psychotechnical laboratory of the Central Institute of Labor (CIT). In this laboratory, led by A.A. Tolchinsky, he comprehended the principles of a psychological experiment and acquired the first skills of psychodiagnostic tests aimed at checking the validity of professional tests. In 1928, he entered the pedological department of the Second Moscow University, then transferred to the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen, whose psychotechnical department he graduated in 1932.

At the Institute of Organization and Labor Protection, where Konstantin Markovich dealt with the problems of professional selection and rose to the rank of senior researcher, he was caught by the infamous Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of July 4, 1936 and the article in Izvestiya that followed it “On the so-called psychotechnics ". It argued that psychotechnics is no different from pedology, and the use of tests and questionnaires is harmful not only to the Soviet school, but to the entire national economy. As a result, psychotechnical laboratories throughout the country were closed, and K.M. Gurevich, who already had a solid reputation in the field of professional selection and psychotraining, as well as ideas for scientific research in these areas, was left without a job.

At the beginning of 1937, on the recommendation of K.K. Platonov, he got a job as a civilian specialist in the organization of training at the Kachinsk Military Flight School, where he was engaged in the analysis and classification of "flight tasks", the design of test models and simulators for testing and training flight qualities. However, repressions soon began in aviation, and in August 1937 the party control commission ordered the civilian Gurevich to leave the school at forty-eight hours.

Fortunately, the director of the Moscow Institute of Psychology, V.N. Kolbanovsky, the author of the letter "On the so-called psychotechnics", being interested in the practical experience of a young employee, invited him to enter graduate school. In September 1937 K.M. Gurevich was enrolled in graduate school (A.N. Leontiev was appointed scientific adviser), and on June 12, 1941, he defended his PhD thesis “Development of volitional actions in preschool age» at the Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. He was sent to work in Udmurtia, at the Izhevsk Pedagogical Institute, in 1943 at the request of A.A. Smirnova and M.V. Sokolova was invited to Moscow to the Pedagogical Institute. V.P. Potemkin.

January 1, 1949 K.M. Gurevich became an employee of the Research Institute of Psychology of the APN of the RSFSR (now the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education), where he worked until recently. Working in the laboratory of psychophysiology of individual differences under the guidance of B.M. Teplov, he was engaged in the study of the basic properties of the nervous system in relation to labor activity. Having based his typology of professions on psychophysiological individual characteristics, K.M. Gurevich developed his own theory of professional suitability. The result of his many years of research was a doctoral dissertation, defended in 1970, and the monograph "Professional suitability and basic properties of the nervous system", which to this day remains the most fundamental and systematic presentation of the problem of scientific analysis of professional suitability and psychophysiological foundations of labor activity.

Since 1968 K.M. Gurevich directed the laboratory of psychophysiological problems of professional suitability, in which research was carried out that developed the main provisions of the theory of professional suitability he created. Since the 1970s the main thing for K.M. Gurevich was the revival of psychodiagnostics. Understanding its practical value, K.M. Gurevich devoted much effort to creating the scientific foundations of this discipline, as well as organizational and methodological work. On his initiative and with his participation, the first (after the actual prohibition of psychodiagnostics in 1936) conferences and symposiums on psychological diagnostics were held, the first collective monograph “Psychological Diagnostics. Problems and Research” (1981), devoted to the theoretical problems of psychodiagnostics, and the translation of A. Anastasi’s fundamental work “Psychological Testing” (1982).

He devoted his last years to the development of new theoretical principles of this science. His concept of socio-psychological standards was implemented in the creation of a set of mental development tests (for secondary school students, applicants and preschoolers), which were introduced into psychological and pedagogical practice. Views and approaches of K.M. Gurevich to the problems of psychodiagnostics and differential psychology are reflected in teaching aids and textbooks on psychological diagnostics, of which he was the permanent editor and one of the authors (“Psychological Diagnostics” 1993, 1995, 1997, 2001; “Fundamentals of Psychological Diagnostics” 2003; “Psychological diagnostics" 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007). In the autumn of 2007, in the series "Masters of Psychology", published by the publishing house "Peter", a book by K.M. Gurevich "Differential psychology and psychodiagnostics", which presents his main scientific works.

What can be measured scientific contribution one scientist or another? The breadth of scientific interests, the originality and persuasiveness of the developed concept, the popularity of publications, the number official posts? Or an original and unique way of thinking, depth of feeling, his devotion to science, tireless concern for his students?

In the scientific community, people are always singled out whose authority is not related to official status. Such was Konstantin Markovich. He did not hold high positions (he was the head of the laboratory, an honorary academician of the Russian Academy of Education), but in the minds of many colleagues he was an expert on many scientific issues. Contribution of K.M. Gurevich in the development of psychological science is weighty and significant. The range of his scientific interests and research is wide: from the problems of psychophysiology, psychogenetics, differential psychology to applied aspects of the formation of a professional. The entire scientific life of Konstantin Markovich is connected with the Psychological Institute, where he worked for about 60 years. He was loved and respected by everyone who was lucky enough to communicate with him. His extraordinary mind, wisdom, broad erudition, benevolence, amazing delicacy surprised and attracted people to him throughout his long life. Many were under the spell of Konstantin Markovich, perceived him as a unique and bright personality.

The article reveals the conceptual approaches to the creation of psychodiagnostic tests developed by K.M. Gurevich. Their role and significance in the development of modern testology are shown. The main principles formulated by K.M. Gurevich, giving psychodiagnostics a proper scientific status: principles of normativity, unity of form and content, apperception, correctiveness, feedback. The concept of K.M. Gurevich about the socio-psychological standard as a system of objective requirements imposed by society on the levels of diversified development of its members. Special attention is paid to the discussion of the views of K.M. Gurevich on the connection of psychodiagnostics with the problem of individual psychological differences.

Keywords: K.M. Gurevich, modern psychological diagnostics, methodological principles of psychodiagnostics, socio-psychological standard, individual psychological differences.

In the process of revival and formation of domestic psychodiagnostics, the greatest merit belongs to Konstantin Markovich Gurevich, who determined not only the place, problems and basic methodological principles of this area of ​​psychology at the present time, but also the direction of its further development.

Psychodiagnostics did not accidentally become for K.M. Gurevich's main business of life and the object of constant scientific interest. Back in the 20s and 30s. of the last century, his psychotechnical work was directly related to the conduct of test tests and their psychological assessment. K.M. Gurevich was familiar with the literature on foreign testology, well aware of the practical issues of development, standardization and application of various categories of tests. In 1970, he included a separate chapter on tests in the monograph "Professional suitability and basic properties of the nervous system". It is not only about the characteristics of tests, used to assess the quality of the workforce, but, remarkably, this chapter is a well-organized overview of the current problems associated with the use of testing. The history of the emergence of the first tests, their classification, analysis of the experience of measuring intelligence, special skills, creativity, problems of determining the reliability and validity of test methods, characteristics of improvement techniques introduced into testing practice - this is not a complete list of issues considered by K.M. Gurevich. Many of the problems raised in this work and the methods of their scientific analysis retain their significance to this day, and the material of the chapter on the use of tests itself serves as a kind of "introduction" to psychodiagnostics.

K.M. Gurevich understood that psychodiagnostics cannot be broadcast or exported as a finished product, painstaking scientific and organizational and methodological work is needed. In the autumn of 1974, the first scientific symposium on psychodiagnostics was held in Tallinn, organized and initiated by K.M. Gurevich. The symposium makes a decision, which indicates the need for an all-round expansion and deepening of research that contributes to the creation of a methodological foundation and methodological arsenal of Soviet psychological diagnostics. The symposium fulfilled its main goal: the consolidation of psychologists working in psychodiagnostics began.

In 1981, under the editorship of K.M. Gurevich published a collective monograph “Psychological diagnostics. Research problems”. It was the first monograph in our country in which general issues designing, testing, applying and interpreting psychodiagnostic techniques.

The team of authors, working on the monograph, set itself three main tasks: to highlight the main results of psychological diagnostics based on foreign sources; to acquaint with the research on psychological diagnostics conducted in domestic educational psychology (V.V. Davydov, N.I. Nepomnyashchaya,A.K. Markova, D.B. Elkonin, I.S. Yakimanskaya and others); show the original direction that has developed in our country diagnostic studies associated with the names of B.M. Teplova and V.D. Fiction. It turned out that domestic psychology has accumulated extensive theoretical and empirical material on the study of the mental development of students, formulated original approaches regarding intellectual development, and described experimental methods for its assessment. However, psychodiagnostic methods that meet the special criteria for their development and verification have not yet been created.

The publication in 1982 in Russian of the work of the leading American psychodiagnostic Anna Anastasi "Psychological testing" received a great response. The book that K.M. Gurevich - the initiator of its translation and editor - called it "an encyclopedia of Western testology", immediately became a bibliographic rarity. It was the first foreign publication that presents an objective picture of the state of testology in the United States, reflecting its main problems and development trends, social and ethical aspects of the use of diagnostic methods. Huge psychological knowledge, methodological culture and depth of penetration into the text - that's what made the work of K.M. Gurevich and his staff in the field of dissemination of progressive experience in the theory and practice of diagnostic tests is truly exemplary.

In the framework of cooperation with scientists from the Bratislava Center "Psychodiagnostics", two tests were translated into Russian, adapted, standardized, tested for reliability and validity on domestic subjects: "Intelligence Structure Test" by R. Amthauer and "Group Intellectual Test for Younger Adolescents" ( GIT) J. Wana. At the same time, changes were made to the tests so that the tasks became understandable for domestic schoolchildren and could differentiate them according to mental development.

For all their merits, these tests did not answer, from the point of view of K.M. Gurevich, an essential requirement - correction. He puts forward the assumption that this requirement can be implemented only in diagnostic methods constructed in a new way, and above all, this concerns the process of their validation.

Validity, considered when constructing traditional tests of intellectual development, is characterized by an empirically established correspondence between the measure of the success of the subjects in the test and the measure of their success in educational or work activities. At the same time, the psychological nature of this correspondence remains beyond the awareness of the compilers of the test. If and there is a significant relationship between the test results and practical activities, then this relationship is formal, expressed in a statistical coefficient. At the same time, emphasizes K.M. Gurevich, determining which features of concepts are subject to abstraction is by no means a formal task. “This is a meaningful task, it consists in highlighting the features to be abstracted, both in new terms of their occurrence, and in old concepts that have long been known to mankind. The meaningful relevance necessary for modern diagnostic methods lies in the fact that both the concepts that are presented to the test subjects in the test, as well as those of their features that they have to isolate in order to establish the necessary logical relationships specified by the methodology, must be in semantic correspondence with the activity of the test subject.

With the name of K.M. Gurevich is connected with the most radical attempt to critically evaluate the experience of foreign testology. This critique is radical because it does not deal with particular issues of development and application of tests, but addresses the essence of what is to be measured.

K.M. Gurevich notes that when getting acquainted with the methods of assessment arising from the orientation to the statistical norm, the question first of all arises: how to identify which of the subjects has or does not have the psychological data necessary for some kind of activity. From this perspective, it would seem necessary that the assessment be based on information about these data. But traditional testology has taken a different path. In essence, the statistical norm allows you to compare the success of each test subject with how the same test is performed by a standardization sample. However, this indicator does not establish how the success of each subject correlates with the objective requirements of the activity performed by him and the environment.

Although foreign testology takes into account the facts of the dependence of the level of tested results on the degree of "affiliation" to the culture in the canons and concepts of which the test was created, however, the main attention is concentrated only on differences in ethnic cultures. At the same time, without proof, it is assumed that all subjects of the basic culture “samely perceive what constitutes the material content of the test, and, starting to complete tasks, activate the same mental algorithms” . The reasons for the emergence of such presumptions of equal awareness and identical mental algorithms K.M. Gurevich sees in the existing testological system of measurements, in which the unit is a correctly completed task. However, every psychologist who took part in the diagnostics knows that the assessment of the subject is based precisely on the fact that the latter does not, in most cases, perform all tasks with equal success. There is no set of tasks that would be performed with equal success by the subjects of one sample.

K.M. Gurevich concludes that due to the ambiguity of what the psychological content of the technique is, to study what features of the psyche it is aimed at, its diagnostic capabilities are limited to a mere statement, which, moreover, is of a formal nature. It is this circumstance that has led to the fact that in testology the diagnosis simply merges with the prognosis. At the same time, the fundamental position of modern progressive psychology is ignored: the transition to new conditions of life, inclusion in a new activity will certainly entail changes in the individual psyche. K.M. Gurevich defines as an urgent task the creation of such methods in which new approaches to understanding the individual psyche would be implemented.

Even during the preparation of the scientific edition of the translation of the book by A. Anastazi, K.M. Gurevich drew attention to criteria-oriented testing, which became widespread in Anglo-American diagnostics in the 1960s-1970s. In A. Anastasi, criteria-oriented tests (CRTs) were considered as a kind of tests used in education and applying criteria that reflect the content of the activities of the subjects, i.e. test results were described by indicating actions and operations that the subject can perform. K.M. Gurevich suggested that criteria-oriented tests contained something that was not yet in the already known methods. "They save diagnostics from norms, from the need to compare both individuals and their groups with some artificial indicators, artificial because the population is always a conglomerate of various socially determined samples" . In addition, he expected that turning to a criterion-oriented approach should lead to a refinement of the psychological requirements that a criterion imposes, and also allows one to get closer to understanding the mental activity that ensures the achievement of a criterion.

K.M. Gurevich about the special role of criterion-oriented tests needed special verification. All CRTs known from the testological literature were achievement tests and were based on the behavioral learning model. This model turned out to be unacceptable for establishing the psychological conditions for performing educational tasks. CORTS, in which the performed mental actions serve as diagnostic indicators, had to be based on a different, fundamentally new concept of the criterion - logical and psychological readiness to fulfill the content requirements of the educational program.

K.M. Gurevich establishes that this concept can be embodied in the development and application of two types of CORTs. The first of these will use a criterion such associo-psychological standard(SPN) is a set of concepts and logical skills that determine the mental inventory of a modern student necessary at a certain educational stage. COURTS of the second type will serve as tools for diagnosing the logical and psychological readiness of the subjects to perform subject-specific tasks from specific academic disciplines. Accordingly, mathematical, linguistic, biological CORTs can be developed, the criterion for which will be the subject-logical standard for the actualization of mental actions. This second type of CORTS can be especially sensitive to the establishment of forms of mental activity. It should be noted that COURTS of both the first and second types are psychologized tests.

Scientific intuition K.M. Gurevich manifested itself in the fact that he was the first to see in KORTs a means of identifying and studying individual ways of performing tasks. Indeed, the solution of any educational task (in this case, a criterion task) does not imply a linear inclusion of mental operations, such as, for example, feature selection, their ordering, logical comparison, etc. What is essential is which operation in a given task acts as a dominant, structure-forming one. It can be assumed that the subject specificity of the material from which the task is built is primarily addressed precisely to the structure, and not to a simple sequence of operations. A special study was devoted to testing this hypothesis.

The most developed and scientifically holistic embodiment of the criterion-oriented approach in diagnostics is developed by K.M. Gurevich's concept of the socio-psychological standard. According to this concept, an individual in the process of ontogenetic development, assimilating the socio-historical experience of previous generations, must be prepared for the objectively established requirements that society at the present stage imposes on its members. These requirements are objective, because are determined by the basis of the achieved level of development of a given society; they are not isolated, but cover the most essential aspects of the life and work of members of a given society, their relationship to nature, culture and other people. Finally, these requirements affect attitudes, values ​​and worldview, the content and level of mental development of people, in other words, they constitute an integral system, under the influence of which the psychological appearance of a person in a given social community is formed, his personality and individuality are formed.

The requirements that make up the content of socio-psychological standards are quite real and fixed in the form of rules, regulations, traditions, customs of everyday life; they are present in educational programs, qualification professional characteristics, public opinion of adult members of society. These requirements cover different aspects mental development - mental, moral, aesthetic. Since the standards are historical, they change along with the development of society, so the speed of their change depends on the pace of development of society. Along with this, the time of their existence is also determined by their relation to one or another sphere of mental development. Thus, the standards of mental development are the most dynamic, which is associated with the pace of scientific and technological progress, which puts forward more and more new requirements for a person, his knowledge, skills, and formation of thinking, as a result of which there is a revision curricula, qualification professional characteristics. Compared with the standards of mental development, the standards of personal development are more conservative, in particular this applies to the standards of moral development.

The theoretical significance of the concept of a socio-psychological standard is especially noticeable in the context of discussions in the 80s and 90s. of the 20th century about meaningful psychological diagnostics and its inherent function of designing and determining development prospects.

The practical application of the concept of a socio-psychological standard in the development of normative tests of mental development required a revision of both the purpose of testing and the methods of constructing, processing and interpreting test methods. Here the amazing ability of K.M. Gurevich to see the prospects of scientific and methodological work, to predict its main directions.

Further research has shown that intelligence tests do differ significantly from traditional intelligence tests. The first feature of mental development tests oriented towards a socio-psychological standard is that they are almost entirely built on the material of educational programs. From these programs, fundamental concepts and ideas are taken, in relation to which mental actions and operations should be applied, which are usually considered as an indicator of the mental development of individuals. When choosing concepts, you should be guided by the following:

• concepts should be the most general and essential for a given subject area, forming the basis for its understanding and assimilation;
• concepts should constitute the basic fund of knowledge that any person needs, regardless of their chosen profession, therefore they should not be narrowly specialized;
• the assimilation of concepts should occur precisely at the age for which the test is designed, and thus determine the specifics of the mental development of the subject of a given age.

The material that is used to create tests is expediently divided into three subject cycles: social and humanitarian, natural science, and physics and mathematics. It should not be excluded that individuals acquire knowledge and skills outside educational institutions, in a wide range of social influences. To take them into account in tests, special types of tasks for general awareness should be provided, including concepts of a general scientific-cultural, socio-political, and moral-ethical nature.

The second feature of domestic methods that distinguish them from traditional intelligence tests lies in other ways of representing and processing diagnostic results, the main among which is the rejection of the statistical norm as a criterion for evaluating individual and group data in favor of a criterion for approaching data to a socio-psychological standard. The standard can be presented as a complete set of tasks. Thus, according to the percentage of tasks completed, the degree of closeness of the student's mental development to the standard laid down in the test is judged.

The third feature - correctiveness - lies in the fact that domestic tests of mental development, built on the material of school programs, make it possible not only to assess the current level of mental development, but also to trace the prospects for immediate development under the influence of schooling and outline special measures to eliminate identified defects and reaching the standard level.

The socio-psychological standard formed the basis of several diagnostic methods aimed at measuring the level of mental development of students of different ages. The first in this series was the “School Test of Mental Development” (SMT), developed by K.M. Gurevich, M.K. Akimova, E.M. Borisova, V.G. Zarkhin, V.T. Kozlova, G.P. Loginova and designed to diagnose the level of mental development of students in grades VII-X. Work on its creation began in 1983, and the first edition appeared in 1986. The second edition of this test, in which A.M. Raevsky, published in 1997.

In 1995, the Mental Development Test for Applicants and High School Students (ASTUR) was prepared. Its authors are K.M. Gurevich, M.K. Akimova, E.M. Borisova, V.T. Kozlova, G.P. Loginova, A.M. Raevsky, N.A. Ferens. It is intended for diagnostics of eleventh grade students and high school graduates. In the late 1990s graduate students of the laboratory designed: for students of grades II-IV "Test of mental development for younger schoolchildren" - TURMSh (author - V.P. Arslanyan); for students of grades III-V "Test of mental development of younger adolescents" - TURP (author - L.I. Teplova).

Developing the concept of a socio-psychological standard, K.M. Gurevich does not disregard the problem of individual psychological differences that is significant for him. Its solution in connection with this concept receives a new direction.

So, when analyzing the process of assimilation of standards, one can single out, according to K.M. Gurevich, both “more and less adaptive or resistant to them aspects of the psyche”, which means that taking into account individual psychological characteristics sometimes becomes crucial.

No less important evidence of the natural connection between the norm and individual characteristics is the fact that the norms could neither be formed nor exist if they did not stimulate the activity naturally inherent in man with their content and mental forms. “The mental level achieved by the subject is the result of the manifestation of natural abilities in certain conditions of his life, in his ontogenesis. This level is reached in different ways: for some, this path, due to the correspondence between the properties of the mechanism and the nature of the activity, can be short and easy, for others it can be long and difficult, but in both cases a significant role belongs to teaching methods. The limits of final achievements are also different. The level of mental development is also the formed mental stereotypes, flexible or inert, it is also the degree of awareness by the subject of his capabilities and ways to implement them.

The problem of the correlation of socio-psychological standards and the individual susceptibility of the psyche required the introduction of a special term - "selectivity". By definition, K.M. Gurevich,selectivity -this is the quality of the psyche, which is determined primarily by genetic individual characteristics, but also by experience and training. Selectivity is found in activity, namely, in which activity is preferred, as well as in the choice of "technology of activity" and individual actions.

Any selectivity has its own subject. In this context, it is not some kind of thing, some kind of material object. Object selectivity expresses which internal or external activity becomes the preferred object of mental activity. Theoretical positions of K.M. Gurevich about the psychological mechanisms of subject selectivity and its conditionality by the norms of thinking found confirmation.

Appeal to the problem of selectivity for K.M. Gurevich is deeply motivated. First of all, this is an opportunity for a scientific dialogue with B.M. Thermal. Recognizing his unconditional authority in the psychology of abilities, K.M. Gurevich still believed that the problem of abilities should be considered as “a special case of individual uniqueness. Selectivity is also determined by our uniqueness. Those activities in which the realization of selectivity can find a place acquire the power of preference. How long the process of realizing one's selectivity will be depends, according to K.M. Gurevich, on the level of expressiveness of its genetic base, and on what interests and motives the subject will have in the current circumstances of his life. All this determines the individual dynamics of the development and success of mental actions specific to the activity chosen by the subject. In this regard, concludes K.M. Gurevich, abilities - directive implementation of selectivity in culturally determined activities.

To study selectivity, according to K.M. Gurevich, polyvalent methods, in which both affective components should be expressed - the experience of the significance of operating with material related to the individual, and its cognitive components - the selection and transformation of subject material through forms of mental actions adequate to it. They outlined guidelines for the creation of such methods.

The originality of K.M. Gurevich to the developed problems of diagnosing mental development, abilities, psychophysiological properties found confirmation in textbooks and textbooks on psychological diagnostics, of which he was the constant editor (1993, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003-2008). These textbooks serve as a useful guide and are a true school for future psychologists in understanding the possibilities and prospects of psychological diagnostics, the specifics various types diagnostic methods, including those developed taking into account new progressive approaches.

Psychodiagnostics always deals with measurements, so the use of mathematical statistics methods is a necessary part of diagnostic tests. K.M. Gurevich, like no one else, managed to penetrate into the psychological nature of the facts taken into account by statistics. In this regard, his methodological culture of interpreting empirical data and his commitment to research transparency and strict reliability of results are incomparable. Postgraduate students of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education will always remember Konstantin Markovich's lectures on mathematical statistics, in which scientific rigor was always combined with a clear and intelligible presentation. "The simplest methods of statistical processing of materials psychological research”, prepared by K.M. Gurevich, occupy an honorable place in textbooks on psychological diagnostics.

The merit of K.M. Gurevich that psychological diagnostics is gradually emerging as an independent scientific and practical discipline. The immediate task for modern psychological diagnostics of K.M. Gurevich saw in the strengthening of its theoretical foundation, substantiation of its principles, system of its own concepts and methods. The need for such theorizing is dictated, as K.M. Gurevich, next. As psychological diagnostics progressed along the path of introducing quantitative data processing tools, involving more and more sophisticated methods for this purpose, other difficulties began to arise in this science that were not properly assessed. Their meaning lies in the fact that, by formalizing diagnostics, testologists gradually lost touch with psychology.

K.M. Gurevich definedbasic principles of psychodiagnostics,which should give it a proper scientific status. They have received a comprehensive justification for diagnosing mental development, which in no way excludes the possibility of their application to psychological diagnostics in general.

The principle of normativity.

His introduction "has as its goal the deepening and improvement of the concept of historicism, without which modern psychology is inconceivable." In its historical development, society creates special institutions, through which the implementation and implementation of knowledge, skills, abilities, in a word, everything that makes up their mental tools, is carried out by individuals. “This psychological information-effective complex can be called a socio-psychological standard. He is social, because it is promoted by society; it is addressed to the psyche, therefore it can be called psychological. K.M. Gurevich emphasizes that the socio-psychological standards themselves are secondary formations. With the emergence of new social relations, global changes take place in science, and then new standards are discovered, partly spontaneously, partly as socially conscious requirements and broadcast by educational programs. The standards represent the psychological nature of the environment in which new generations mature, and on “how each individual individual has mastered the standards ... depends ... and on what level in the social hierarchy an individual who has received a qualification sanctioned by society has the right to claim” .

The degree of compliance with social and regulatory requirements for different people is not the same and therefore it must be diagnosed. “No matter how peculiar individual development may be, in which area of ​​theory and practice it does not manifest itself, such development turns out to be impossible without mastering the minimum of normative content, the inevitable basis of any variant of individual creative development.”

The principle of unity of form and content.

By means of this principle, the external influence of the object of thought on the course of individual thinking, on the emergence of its forms and on the final productivity of thinking, depending on its object, is indicated. K.M. Gurevich notes that traditional testology did not solve the problem of the influence of the subject of thought on the success of solving test tasks. The only thing that was taken into account was how “ordinary”, ordinary, not elitist the term proposed in the test is, with which the subject will have to perform the mental actions provided for by the instruction. It was assumed that different subjects (some to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent) have a universal reserve of mental actions. There was no question at all about the qualitative specificity of the subject of thought, as well as about the unity of form and content in thinking.

K.M. Gurevich notes that the level of mental development recorded in the tests always expresses the inseparability of the form and content of the perceived material. The level of mental development is always specific, and this quality, on the one hand, depends on the individual psychological characteristics of the individual himself, on the other hand, on the sociocultural conditions in which his development took place.

The consequence of the specificity of the level of mental development is clearly visible, for example, at the initial stages of mastering a second, "foreign" language, other unusual mental systems, without which the acquisition of new knowledge and skills is indispensable.

The development of means and methods of mental activity of students in any subject area involves the implementation of the appropriate selectivity of thinking. Therefore, special diagnostic techniques should be developed that reveal subject preferences, which will be found in higher success in completing tasks with the appropriate content. The significance of these diagnostic tools is seen not only in the fact that they allow solving the problem associated with identifying individual differences in subject selectivity, but also in the fact that such methods are necessary to develop means of pedagogical stimulation of individual resources for the development of students' thinking in learning.

Apperception principle. The need to introduce this principle is determined by the fact that the study of the individual psyche will be unreliable and even impossible if you do not refer to how it was formed in the past. An appeal to apperception for K.M. Gurevich means something more than a simple connection with a term already known in philosophical and psychological literature (G. Leibniz, I. Herbart). Speaking about apperception, K.M. Gurevich had in mind an approach to the study of the subject's psyche in biographical, ontogenetic, and hence historical terms, since “it is impossible to artificially isolate individuality from the reality in which its formation took place ...” .

The measurement system adopted in psychological diagnostics appeared in conditions where individual past experience was not taken into account. According to the number of correctly completed tasks, a special coefficient is displayed. The same amount of correctly completed tasks is taken into account when constructing the curve for the distribution of test results. In fact, from the standpoint of the principle of apperception, both completed and unfulfilled tasks should be subject to analysis. It is necessary to find out why the same task (or the same class of tasks) causes difficulties in subjects whose development supposedly took place in similar conditions. It is quite possible that the manifestations of some features of the subject's psyche are associated with the psychological content of the task and its performance.

The creation of methods based on this principle, according to K.M. Gurevich, will cause a change in their traditional composition and the nature of the techniques themselves. He assumed that with their help “it will be possible to actualize such aspects of the psyche that are not revealed by our current tests”, and most importantly, “it will be possible to judge the individual potential of the subject not by a statistical criterion, not by determining the rank place of the answers of the subject in a numerical series, but by simply comparing the responses of the individual with the construction and conditions of the task itself.

Correction principle.

"The introduction of this principle into psychological diagnostics leads to the recognition of the mutability of the psyche, to a real convergence of the positions of psychological diagnostics with the positions of modern progressive psychology."

K.M. Gurevich outlined some features of methods built on the principle of correction.

First sign - the relevance of the activity, on the forecast of success in which it is directed. This means that, in addition to formal-statistical indicators of validity (expressed as coefficients of validity), the methodology must have content validity.

If there is only a formal correspondence between the success of the technique and the success of the predicted activity, and the degree of similarity, the psychological relevance of the nature of the predicted and test activity does not play a role (as is often observed in traditional tests), then this technique may be suitable only for ascertaining some psychological features , to select and classify individuals according to these features. But on the basis of this technique it is impossible to draw up some kind of correction plan.

As already noted, in order to achieve compliance of the diagnostic methodology with the predicted activity, the methodology should be constructed on the basis of an analysis of the content of this activity. Tests of mental development, developed by domestic psychologists, were created based on the results of the analysis of educational activities. They reflect both the composition of the mental operations that a student must master in order to assimilate the educational material, and the content of the knowledge that is included in the curricula. Thus, having revealed the nature of the violations during testing, one can either correct the disturbed mental operation with the help of a special corrective program, which will also take into account the composition of knowledge, or eliminate gaps in knowledge.

Second sign - Orientation of the methodology to the criterion of development or to the standard. Thanks to the approach from the standpoint of the socio-psychological standard, the way is opened for determining the degree of closeness of the student's logical conceptual thinking to that which is recognized as socially necessary, as well as the gaps that are revealed when comparing the components of this development with the standard. Thus, the standard, being a generalized embodiment of social requirements for the mental development of a student of a certain educational and age level, indicates the direction corrective work with him.

Third sign determines that the psychodiagnostic technique should take into account the methods of qualitative analysis of the results. Qualitative characterization of the results allows us to determine typical mistakes of an individual when performing each type of task, the least learned areas of educational content, poorly performed or not performed mental operations at all, the specifics of concepts and their functioning in each of the areas of knowledge provided for by the test. Such an analysis, which reveals the individual characteristics of the mental development of a schoolchild, is the basis for organizing individually oriented correctional and developmental work with him.

Formulating the principle of correction, K.M. Gurevich noted that much of what will be applied and tested on methods for diagnosing mental development can later be used to correct other aspects of mental development. The principle of correction, he believed, should be used differently in each of the classes of methods, and in psychophysiological methods it should be applied with significant restrictions.

Feedback principle.

In accordance with this principle, diagnostic methods should be designed and applied in such a way as to become a means of managing education as a socio-psychological system. K.M. Gurevich emphasized that the first and cardinal feature of this system manifests itself already at the “entrance”. Children who begin learning are initially not the same, and most importantly, they are not uniform in their mental potentialities. The second feature of the education system concerns teachers. The smooth operation of the system depends on their professional competence. And, finally, the third feature is the content of curricula; updating them is an indispensable function of the system.

What indicators could sufficiently fully reveal how successfully the work of the specified system is carried out? According to K.M. Gurevich, "this should be information about the features of the student's mental make-up, registered at different levels of his education" . Speaking about the mental image of the student, K.M. Gurevich has in mind the state of his mind and thinking, and the degree of mastery of the knowledge he received, and those moral and psychological traits that school graduates should have.

Traditional tests as "methods of a long, unchanging forecast" are not suitable for judging by their results a picture of constant changes in the state of mind and thinking of students. In the examination tests of achievements, moral and psychological assessments are not provided. In this situation, says K.M. Gurevich, psychologized criterion-oriented tests (CORTS) should be used.

From the point of view of the three features of the education system, KORTs fully comply with the feedback principle. First, they make it possible to judge that students do not mechanically master the content of the disciplines they study, and the key concepts of these disciplines become the subjects of their thought. The test results make it possible to outline "the student's zone of proximal development, bearing in mind the direction in which, as one might think, his mental development will take place" . With regular diagnostic tests using KORTs, sufficiently detailed data on the mental development of individual students, individual classes and parallel classes can be obtained.

Test results for classes where a particular teacher teaches will show; for example, to what extent the assimilation of the key concepts of the discipline or its individual sections is facilitated by pedagogical activity teachers.

Testing will allow you to evaluate the programs used, teaching aids in terms of the characteristics of their influence on mental development. Cases of particular success in the application of logical techniques by students may indicate the psychological effectiveness of the teaching method used by the teacher.

K.M. Gurevich drew attention to the fact that the ability of a diagnostic technique to serve as a feedback tool in the education system determines its social relevance. A society that is interested in the intellectual and personal development of its citizens expects diagnostics to fulfill important social functions— control and forecasting.

In defining the principles of psychological diagnostics, in highlighting the specific content of its basic logical concepts, K.M. Gurevich proposed to take into account the fact that by its foundations and practical results this discipline is directly related to the problem of individual psychological differences and their variants. Despite this postulated relationship, K.M. Gurevich, a certain generalizing basis for understanding individual differences in relation to the problems of diagnostic tests has not yet been outlined.

In modern testology, it is impossible to find an acceptable solution to this topical issue. Theoretical statistics only takes into account the variations of one-dimensional quantitative traits and their representation in individual individuals in order to correlate them with the statistical norm. “The most that these studies can give is to show that the probability of an association, expressed in points between various signs, is high in some cases and low in others. These studies did not pretend to reveal the origin of the trait and its quantitative changes.

During the theoretical consideration of individual psychological differences, K.M. Gurevich pointed out that, first of all, it is necessary to find their common property, which could be considered essential for them, i.e. broad enough to provide an opportunity for its graduation. As such a property, he proposed to consider plasticity, understood as the range of lifetime variability of individual differences. Considering them from the standpoint of the term "plasticity", among them one can find those whose plasticity is close to zero, or, on the contrary, is maximum (for example, mental development).

The individual plasticity limit is also different. In individuals who are highly gifted in some area, plasticity seems almost unlimited. The foregoing is most directly related to the criterion of reliability. The level of consistency between two tests carried out at a certain time interval depends on the limits within which the plasticity of the measured property manifests itself in the subject.

The inclusion in scientific circulation of such a construct as "plasticity", which, on the one hand, contains a certain psychological content, and on the other hand, makes it possible to scale individual variations in mental properties, has an important role in constructing theoretical foundations psychodiagnostics. She has to deal with the establishment of units of measure. Unfortunately, K.M. Gurevich, here “there was a curious shift in the subject of study”, and “all kinds of operations with some mythical “units” came to the fore” . The most direct relation to the problem under consideration is the question of establishing a connection between the measured phenomena. K.M. Gurevich believed that traditionally it is determined by mathematical methods, primarily by correlation coefficients. Replacing the correlation coefficients with some other methods also does not change anything without first putting forward hypotheses about how psychologically significant the indicators being compiled are. This remark is especially important in connection with the problem of personality diagnostics.

The starting point for such a diagnosis is the selection from the entire mass personality traits those that form the essence of the personality with the greatest completeness, but this selection should not be abstract and speculative, but have a diagnostic implementation.

According to K.M. Gurevich, this means to carry out a differentiated psychological characteristic of the internal process, thanks to which a person becomes a personality. Such a feature can be personality orientation. An important circumstance here is that it is possible to find methodological means suitable for its detection. At the same time, it should be recognized that in the psychological understanding of personality, orientation is one of its main features. Therefore, K.M. Gurevich, psychologists-diagnostics have no right to ignore the individual dynamics of maturation and restructuring of direction. It is clear that we should talk about the use of standard diagnostic methods.

K.M. Gurevich proposed to outline at least three poles of relations between regulatory requirements activities and the individual, which can be identified in the diagnosis of personal orientation. “The first pole is when an activity that is forthcoming or already being carried out becomes, even without the efforts of a person’s will, his direction, a part of his life. The norms of his social environment leave nothing for a person other than a given activity or several activities. The second pole is characterized by the fact that a person "carries out thoughtless following the rules and customs - the norms that prevail in society, or rather, to that part of it to which he belongs" . With these particular norms, he tries to replace, and, in essence, to transform the objectively set standards for specific activities. Finally, the third pole is "a deeply motivated and more or less conscious desire for a certain activity, or a group of interrelated activities" .

The orientation of the personality as a subject of diagnostic study is also important because, according to K.M. Gurevich, "integrates and modifies other mental functions and properties so that they enter it as a whole" .

The relevance of the developed by K.M. Gurevich of theoretical issues is due to the fact that he was not limited to the analysis of data modern stage development of psychodiagnostics, but as a true scientist-thinker penetrated into the realm of the possible. For Konstantin Markovich, psychodiagnostics was not a complete teaching. He saw in it a field for scientific research. Perhaps that is why he wrote not about what the truth is, but about where and how to look for it. His ideas do not lose their originality and significance and determine approaches to the future development of psychological diagnostics and directions for further scientific research.

Literature

1. Akimova M.K., Kozlova V.T.Diagnosis of mental development of children. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
2. AnastasiL. Psychological testing. In 2 books. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1982.
3. Gorbacheva E.I. Subject orientation of thinking: essence, mechanisms, conditions of development. Kaluga, 2001.
4. Gurevich K.M. Professional suitability and basic properties of the nervous system. M., 1970.
5. Gurevich KM. Psychological diagnostics and laws of psychological science // Psychological journal. 1991. V. 12, No. 2. S. 84-93.
6. Gurevich K.M. Isn't it time to evaluate the methodological apparatus of our science? // Psychological journal. 1991. V. 12, No. 4. S. 139-156.
7. Gurevich KM. Questions of the organization of psychological feedback in the education system // Psychological journal. 1997. V. 18, No. 4. S. 78-84.
8. Gurevich KM. Problems of differential psychology. Selected psychological works. M.-Voronezh, 1998. S. 344.
9. Gurevich KM. Psychological diagnostics and the problem of individual differences // Psychological journal. 1998. V. 19, No. 3. S. 84-89.
10. Gurevich KM. Prospects for the development of psychological diagnostics // Psychological diagnostics. 2003. No. 1. S. 11-22.
11. Gurevich K.M. The secret of his charm was simple: what he talked about was ... the psychology of life // Psychology at the university. 2003. No. 1-2. pp. 8-27.
12. Gurevich KM., Akimova M.K.et al. ASTUR - Test of mental development for applicants and high school students // Psychological diagnostics. 2008. No. 4. pp. 5-128.
13. Gurevich KM., Gorbacheva E.I.Mental development: criteria and standards. Moscow: Knowledge, 1992.
14. Gurevich K.M., Lubovsky V.I.Foreword by the editors of the translation // A. Anastasi "Psychological testing". Book. 1. M.: Pedagogy, 1982.
15. Gurevich KM., Raevsky A.M.Personality as an object of psychological diagnostics // Psychological journal. 2001. V. 22, No. 5. S. 29-37.
16. Psychology is a life science… (Interview with KM Gurevich is conducted by VV Bartsalkina) // World of Psychology. 1996. No. 4. S. 107-128.
17. Guide to the application of the test of the structure of intelligence R. Amthauer // Series "Psychodiagnostics and development". Issue. 4 / under total. ed. series V.G. Kolesnikov. M.-Obninsk, 1993.
18. Guide to the use of group intellectual test(GIT) for younger teenagers // Psychodiagnostics and development series. Issue. 6 / under total. ed. series V.G. Kolesnikov. M.-Obninsk, 1993.
19. Teplova L.I. Test of mental development of younger adolescents // Series "Psychodiagnostics and development". Issue. 11 / under total. ed. series V.G. Kolesnikov. M.-Obninsk, 2000.

Konstantin Markovich Gurevich- Russian psychologist, doctor psychological sciences, professor, honorary academician Russian Academy education, chief researcher of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education. An authoritative and famous specialist in the field of differential psychophysiology and psychology, who stood at the origins of Russian psychological diagnostics. He worked in the psychophysiological laboratory of B. M. Teplov, then studied the problems of differential psychology.

K. M. Gurevich was born in Samara. He received his higher education at the pedagogical faculty of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A. I. Herzen (psychotechnical department). Then he graduated from the postgraduate course of the Moscow State Institute experimental psychology. Among his teachers were the most famous Russian psychologists: S. L. Rubinshtein, A. N. Leontiev, B. M. Teplov and others.

From 1949 to this day, his life has been associated with the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education. Having started working in the laboratory of differential psychophysiology under the guidance of B. M. Teplov on the problems of individual psychophysiological differences in a person, K. M. Gurevich developed questions of professional suitability from the standpoint of the theory of the basic properties of the nervous system.

A significant contribution to the development of the problem of professional suitability was the book by K. M. Gurevich "Professional suitability and basic properties of the nervous system" (M., 1970), for which he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Psychology.

In 1968, K. M. Gurevich created a laboratory for the psychophysiological foundations of professional activity. This laboratory, which since 1983 became known as the laboratory of psychological diagnostics, he headed until 1985. Konstantin Markovich took the selection of personnel very responsibly, inviting to the laboratory mainly graduates of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University.

It is impossible not to note the ability of K. M. Gurevich to work with people, especially with young people. Each member of the laboratory was always faced with a specific, observable scientific problem, the solution of which could result in a dissertation research.

Almost all the employees hired by K. M. Gurevich defended their Ph.D. dissertations in 3-4 years, which received high marks from specialists.

Under the leadership of K. M. Gurevich, the laboratory staff prepared and published collective monographs, manuals, articles, brochures, diagnostic methods and correctional and developmental programs, which were recognized by scientists and practitioners. K. M. Gurevich himself published about 100 scientific papers.

In the 80-90s. the main scientific interests of K. M. Gurevich were concentrated in the field of psychological diagnostics. He carried out a deep and comprehensive critical analysis of the main theoretical and methodological concepts of foreign psychodiagnostics, in particular intelligence testing, posed many questions of testology in a new way (the problem of reliability and validity, the legitimacy of using a statistical norm as a criterion for comparing test results, etc.).

Constructively approaching the consideration of the problems of psychological diagnostics, K. M. Gurevich theoretically substantiated a new approach to the creation of methods, which he called normative. Its essence is that when developing psychodiagnostic methods, it is necessary to focus on the socio-psychological standard, which is a system of requirements that the community imposes on each of its members. These requirements can be enshrined in the form of rules, regulations, social norms that differ at different educational and age levels of development, and include a wide variety of aspects: mental development, moral, aesthetic, etc. This approach was implemented in the development of the School Test of Mental Development (SIT) , a test of mental development for high school students and applicants (ASTUR), a series of correctional and developmental programs, etc. On the initiative of K. M. Gurevich and under his editorship (together with V. I. Lubovsky), a translation of the book of the authoritative American testologist A. Anastasi "Psychological testing" (Moscow, 1982). This book is still considered a kind of encyclopedia on the problems of psychodiagnostics.

Under the editorship of K. M. Gurevich (together with E. M. Borisova), textbooks "Psychological Diagnostics" (Moscow-Biysk, 1993) and "Psychological Diagnostics of Children and Adolescents" (Moscow, 1995) were published.

opening speech

The reader holds in his hands a book by Konstantin Markovich Gurevich, an outstanding Russian scientist who enriched a number of branches of psychological science with his ideas. First of all, achievements in the development of problems of differential psychology and psychophysiology, labor psychology, and psychodiagnostics are associated with his name. It is equally important to note his characteristic constant focus on bringing psychological science closer to life and practice. All this is presented in this book.
The content of this edition includes the monograph "Psychological fitness and basic properties of the nervous system", first published in 1970, and separate articles published in different years. The idea of ​​combining them seems to be fruitful, since, firstly, it reveals the breadth of scientific interests and versatile erudition of the author, and secondly, all materials are interconnected and aimed at the study of differential psychological problems in the context of its practical application. It is important to note that this idea is successfully implemented with the help of the Piter publishing house in the year when K. M. Gurevich began counting the second hundred years of his life.
The structure of the book reflects the versatility of the author's scientific research. In this edition, they are divided into three parts.
The first part is “Psychophysiological foundations of professional suitability”. It presents the main provisions of the theory of professional suitability created by K. M. Gurevich - a construct that is leading in the psychology of professional work. This concept is interpreted by the author as a personality quality, which is a combination of individual psychological and psychophysiological characteristics of a person, providing the socially necessary labor efficiency and job satisfaction. Approaching the concept of professional suitability from the standpoint of the doctrine of the properties of the nervous system, he draws attention to the fact that natural data in themselves do not form suitability. With this approach, its formation coincides in its main features with the process of becoming a professional. The success and speed of the formation of professional suitability depend on three main factors - some natural data, features of professional motivation, completeness and adequacy of special knowledge and skills. That is why, according to K. M. Gurevich, it is inappropriate to be limited to professional selection based on the discovery of already formed properties of the psyche. It is much more important to pay attention to such features of the psyche that are subject to significant changes. The scientific analysis of professions carried out by K. M. Gurevich on the example of the profession of an operator, as well as the typology of professions proposed by him, allow a new approach to the issues of professional suitability, shifting the focus from selection to the development of professionally important qualities, to the creation of an individual style of activity.
The second part of the book - "Psychology and psychophysiology of individual differences" - includes works reflecting the problems of development, stability /
variability of individual psychological differences, considered through the prism of psychophysiological factors that determine the functioning of personality and individuality. Gurevich proclaims the union of general and differential psychology, proposing to study individuality in the light of laws general psychology. When analyzing the individual psyche, he draws attention to the need to address how it was formed in the past, considering it in ontogenetic, biographical and historical terms. Depth and originality distinguish Konstantin Markovich's approach to the problems of abilities, mental development, personality orientation, individual susceptibility and plasticity of the psyche. It is fundamentally important that he considers the problem of individual psychophysiological differences, which is significant for him, from the standpoint of their influence on a person's achievements, discussing the factors that affect the manifestations of the basic properties of the nervous system.
The third part of the book - "Problems of psychological diagnostics" - is devoted to the development of the theoretical foundations of psychodiagnostics - that science, at the origins of the creation and revival of which is K. M. Gurevich. It discusses the most important issues related to the theoretical foundations of psychodiagnostics, the principles for developing and testing diagnostic methods, the problems of their practical application, as well as borrowing methods created in other cultures. This part presents the concept of socio-psychological standards, created by Gurevich and found its practical implementation in the development of normative tests of mental development. This concept is a theoretical substantiation of a new diagnostic based on taking into account the content of the past experience of individuals and revealing the prospects for their further development.
In this book, first of all, those studies of the author that played a significant role in the 60-70-80s of the XX century are widely presented. They, however, cannot be regarded as facts of history, rarities that have lost their value due to the progress of science. On the contrary, these works have not lost their relevance, theoretical and practical significance to the present day. Moreover, a comparison of Gurevich's psychological works with the characteristic works of our day will be instructive, and the entire scientific path of the author demonstrates that the development of psychology is impossible without referring to one's own roots, one's own foundations.
First of all, this applies to work on the psychology of professional work, solving the problems of professional selection and professional counseling. Despite the fact that the circle of researchers and practitioners working in these areas is expanding, new types of professional activity are emerging, old professions are changing their face, the theoretical poverty and incompleteness of professionally oriented psychology are becoming more and more clearly visible. To a large extent, the reason for this situation is ignorance of what has already been done in this area. Forgetfulness and unconsciousness of past experience, attempts to start research from a "clean slate" lead to the repetition of old mistakes, the proclamation of obsolete ideas, which hinders the development of science. In this regard, there is a decrease in the level of practice-oriented work in the field of psychology of professions, when the scientific foundations for the analysis of professions are lost, the need and rules for compiling professiograms are forgotten, and the idea of ​​objectively identified professionally important qualities disappears.
The book by K. M. Gurevich demonstrates a scientific approach to solving these problems, acquaints the reader with the achievements of labor psychology and reveals its prospects. big practical value has a theoretically and experimentally substantiated conclusion of the author that only a few professions make special demands on the physical, psycho-physiological and mental characteristics of job candidates. Therefore, professional selection is needed to staff those jobs that are especially dangerous and responsible. Most professions do not impose absolute (non-compensated) requirements on employees, and professional selection is not only unnecessary for them, but often harmful, since it is focused on identifying changing, developing personality traits without taking into account its motivation. This conclusion is obvious, unfortunately, not for all psychologists working in the field of occupational psychology. Practice shows that the selection of personnel in financial corporations, banks, firms and other attractive areas of activity is quite often carried out without any scientific basis on empirically identified and, moreover, inadequately measured personality traits (or personality types), which are considered as "necessary" , "desirable". In such cases, the plasticity and variability of the psyche, the possibilities for the development of the personality, the individual-peculiar ways of performing almost any activity are not taken into account. Finally, those aspects of the personality that determine its success and creativity in most professions are actually ignored here - motivation, interests, inclinations.
Another direction of work in the field of psychology of professions seems to be focused on taking into account the variability of the personality, but almost completely denies its individual originality and freedom in finding its own ways and style of performing professional activities. This kind of work is aimed at changing the "integral characteristics" of the individual with the help of group trainings without taking into account its right to uniqueness and originality, without substantiation (not only theoretical, but also experimentally proven) of the benefits and the real possibility of such changes (not short-term, but genuine). These studies deal with issues of competence, which does not yet have a generally accepted meaning, and do not take into account strictly objective works on professional suitability and the patterns of becoming a professional; the concepts of unknown “non-specific abilities” that have a “potential form” are introduced, while the concepts of inclinations and their complex relationship with abilities are forgotten, studies of their manifestation in professional activities and the impact on the formation of a professional personality are not taken into account, as the author writes about in his works. I emphasize once again that the reliability and strength of the theoretical and empirical foundations of his research are almost exemplary.
No less relevant are the studies of K. M. Gurevich for the practice of vocational counseling and career guidance. He convincingly proves that the possibilities of these types of practical work of psychologists are limited, since it is impossible to predict in advance how much the consulted individual will correspond to the chosen profession. This is due both to the variability of the world of professions and the requirements that they place on workers, and to the variability of the latter. The personality is constantly in development, and it is impossible to predict in advance the direction of this development, as well as the success of a person in relation to the whole variety of professions.
The publication of the works of K. M. Gurevich is timely and important not only for psychological practice. They contain a huge heuristic potential of a methodological and theoretical nature, they pave new paths in psychological science, they can find answers to the most important questions related to differential psychology and psychodiagnostics, and be puzzled by new problems.
It is safe to say that this publication will be interesting for different readers: research psychologists who develop issues of differential psychology and psychodiagnostics; practicing psychologists dealing with the psychology of professions, and for students of relevant faculties starting their way in psychology.

Doctor of Psychology, Head of the Department of General Patterns of the Development of the Psyche, Institute of Psychology. L. S. Vygotsky RGGU
Akimova M. K.
Moscow, 2007

From the author

From the recognition of the real existence of individual psychological differences between people to the creation of such a scientific discipline as differential psychology, the path is long and difficult. That such a scientific discipline is necessary is beyond doubt. Observations show that most often people think about psychology when faced with specific situation, in which the psychological "dissimilarity" of people can become an important condition for the effectiveness of interaction. In particular, when in interpersonal communication it is necessary to foresee how those communicating will show themselves in certain changed circumstances. Sooner or later, a person realizes that for self-knowledge, too, one must proceed from an understanding of one's psychological characteristics.
It is important to note that this discipline is also essential and indisputable for the development of problems in general psychology. At the same time, we have to admit that the theoretical foundations of differential psychology have been singled out and presented in the psychological literature insufficiently. In Russian science, B. M. Teplov made a major contribution to the creation of the theoretical foundations of differential psychology in his time. In line with his ideas, research is continued by his staff and students. But this work is still far from complete.
It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the study of the individual psychological characteristics of people throughout history since the time of F. Galton and J. Cattell has been organically connected with the solution of practical problems. But, of course, differential psychology, like any branch of scientific knowledge, cannot develop without deep theoretical generalizations. And the material for such generalizations is given to her not only by logical laboratory experiments (they are necessary!), but also by systematized life observations at school, at the enterprise and in the constant communication of people with each other. By its very nature, a laboratory experiment is limited; it cannot provide knowledge about all the richness of manifestations of individuality in complex life situations It can only be revealed through observation.
The materials presented in this book should be considered, first of all, from the point of view of substantiating the premises of differential psychology. They can be divided into three parts.
The first part consists of newly edited and significantly abridged materials from the book "Professional fitness and basic properties of the nervous system", published in 1970. It, as its title indicates, is devoted to the analysis of the "eternal" problem right choice of your future.
The second part consists of works that address the issues of studying individual differences.
The third part is devoted to theoretical problems of psychodiagnostics.
Regarding the first part, the following must be said: the role of the properties of the nervous system in the development of personality should not be underestimated. But one cannot fail to see that the manifestations of these properties acquire decisive importance in the formation of behavior and activity only in certain situations that arise in a number of professions and in a number of life circumstances. The author calls such professions "professions of the first type". Manifestations of the properties of the nervous system can be seen both in ordinary life situations and in professions in which difficult situations does not occur. These manifestations are more or less regulated by the subject himself. The author calls such professions “professions of the second type”. I.P. Pavlov wrote: “... extraordinary opportunities are open for the human personality not only to change, direct and improve their habits, but also to a large extent regulate the innate strength or weakness of the nervous system” (Pavlov I.P., 1954, p. 45 ). It should be said that the issue of regulating the manifestations of the properties of the nervous system is poorly developed. In particular, it is not known to what extent the regulation of behavior and activities is due to some personality traits.
Testing has played a huge role in the study of individual psychological differences. The attentive reader will notice that in each of the parts a large place is given to the problems of psychodiagnostics and the test method. Despite the risk of semantic repetition, the author deliberately refers to these problems again and again in each part of the book and seeks to consider them in different contexts.
The scientific characterization of traditional testing is given in the first and second parts of the book. In connection with the problems of psychological diagnostics, it is considered in the third part. In all parts of the book, the author sought to draw the reader's attention to the following:
psychological diagnostics is an integral part of differential psychology;
testing as one of the main methods of psychological diagnostics is a method that has separated from psychology, it distorts the main provisions of scientific psychology;
there is no satisfactory definition of intelligence, a concept that has not found its place in psychology. But in our day, works are being published in which intelligence is given the significance of a criterion in establishing racial differences, which in itself is not only unscientific, but also criminal;
leave much to be desired statistical techniques canonized in testology. It is unlikely that any of the diagnostic psychologists doubts that in testology, as in psychological diagnostics in general, units of measurement that meet scientific requirements are not presented. At the same time, the most complex statistical methods are constantly used in testology and diagnostics.
The main content of the third part is devoted to the consideration of ways in which the flaws of modern testology can be overcome, at least in tests of cognitive processes. We are talking about two forms of criteria-based testing.
In conclusion, the author considers it his pleasant duty to state that everything of value that can be found in this book arose in the joint work of the author with colleagues. The names of the laboratory and the institute where we worked have changed, but the main staff of the team has changed very little over the course of more than 30 years.
This contributed to the uninterrupted process of maturation of creative thought. Probably, any researcher understands that this process requires that a common opinion be developed in comradely discussions, in impartial judgments. And so it happened. The names of the members of our collective are repeatedly mentioned on the pages of this book. My heartfelt thanks to them!
The formation of the author of this book as a psychologist-researcher was influenced by many psychologists, primarily by employees of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education, both living and deceased. Some of them I want to highlight in particular.
During the student years at the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute. A. I. Herzen, I was lucky to listen to a course of lectures by S. L. Rubinshtein. He left a lasting impression. Subsequently, as a teacher at the faculties of philosophy and psychology of Moscow State University. Lomonosov, I used the benevolent advice of Sergei Leonidovich more than once. My supervisor during my postgraduate studies was A. N. Leontiev. He spared neither time nor effort to deepen my psychological knowledge. And finally, for seventeen years I worked under the guidance of BM Teplov as part of his laboratory. This time was remembered as happy.
Those whom I named here were not only prominent scientists, but also extraordinary personalities. To them my deepest gratitude!
Gurevich K. M.
Moscow, May 2007

Part 1 Psychophysiological basis of professional suitability

Section 1 Professional suitability and basic properties of the nervous system

Introduction

Psychological suitability for a profession is a personality trait, which can be judged by two criteria: on successful mastery of the profession and according to the degree of satisfaction of a person with his work. Both criteria are relative, and sometimes subjective. However, only these criteria allow one to approach psychological characteristics professional suitability.
Since professional suitability is a property of a person, insofar as it, like other personal properties, is formed in the process of activity - in school, at work, etc. It is obvious that professional suitability is formed in labor itself; however, one can hardly deny the need to study the natural prerequisites for professional fitness, all its physiological, psychological and social aspects, which allows in each case to outline a forecast and ways to achieve optimal result. Both theory and practice show that there are no such people who would have access to all professions.
The period of labor activity in a person's life is limited, and unproductive, joyless activity is not only a personal misfortune, it is ultimately reflected in the whole society. Therefore, the forecasting of professional suitability and ways of its formation will never lose its relevance.
The problem of determining professional suitability is included in the range of problems of differential psychology - the science of interpersonal individual psychological differences and their physiological foundations. As B. M. Teplov wrote, a systematic study of the physiological foundations of individual psychological characteristics is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary for a truly scientific understanding of the psychological differences between people (Teplov B. M., 1961, p. 6).
Psychology must reveal the relationship between typical and individual, psycho-physiological and socio-psychological traits of a person with his life work, with his profession. And if in some cases science should help find the shortest and most fruitful ways to form fitness, then in others it should prevent possible mistakes when choosing a profession.
Numerous facts are known when a person who sincerely wants to work in a certain area and has received necessary training, nevertheless fails, does not achieve the slightest success. Such cases are especially frequent in the field of art, but something similar is often found in other types of work. How can this be explained? It is easiest to assume that every person has (probably by nature) something like a professional purpose. Is the reason for the failure that the person misunderstood him? Perhaps his failures are due to the fact that he went “not his own way”?
However, professional purpose is an unproductive and unscientific idea. Professions and their requirements for the psycho-physiological organization of a person are extremely variable, while this organization itself in its natural basis, with its inherent individual options and characteristics, has remained practically unchanged throughout human history.
On the basis of the same natural data or inclinations, there has been and is a successful mastery of the most diverse types of activity. People are not born potential doctors or drivers of vehicles, just as they were never born stargazers or gladiators; it is not always up to them which professions they have to choose.
natural features human beings have enormous, though not unlimited, plasticity. A person can actively adapt to many types of professional work, and the work will satisfy the subject himself. There are few professions that every person could not master. But this does not mean that all people, regardless of their individual characteristics, equally master the profession. Both preparation for the profession and subsequent activities proceed in different ways, depending on these features. The most important and essential element is professional orientation, positive professional motivation. It is sometimes argued that the main and even decisive condition professional self-determination must be a calling. Realize your vocation, follow it, and success in professional work, and therefore in life, is guaranteed to you!
What is meant by calling? Let's agree that in this context, by vocation we will understand an internally conscious attraction to some profession, which is accompanied by the belief that all the necessary personal data for the profession are available. But here we must not forget that such a vocation is a product of life experience, it has developed on the basis of the information that a person has about professions and about himself. Is it possible to seriously follow the vocation that a young man has developed with limited knowledge of the world of professions and no experience of testing his own abilities?
Young man in best case knows only how he was evaluated at school. But professional requirements are addressed to such personal characteristics that are not adequate to the characteristics necessary in educational activities. The school does not always create the conditions for identifying these features and their formation. A vocation, therefore, often does not have any solid foundation under it. The point is not to affirm or deny the role of the vocation; one should understand its real value in each specific case and certainly not turn it into a fetish.
At good choice profession, faith in one's vocation can save a young person from unnecessary hesitation and doubt, but this does not mean that vocation always guarantees the formation of professional suitability. It happens that failure in the profession to which the vocation "attracted" is considered by a young man and his relatives almost as a collapse of all life's hopes. But in fact, the vocation was formed due to insufficient awareness of the profession, due to a lack of understanding of the true content of labor activity and due to an incorrect assessment of one's capabilities.
It is also significant that vocation is usually understood as a profession in a generalized sense. For example, a young man has a vocation to be a doctor, that is, he strives, according to the meaning of this profession, to directly help sick people, prevent and treat their ailments, etc. But it is well known that this profession, like any other, has a number of specific work posts. Some physicians have almost no direct contact with patients, they work in laboratories, are engaged in biochemical research and similar activities that have their own specifics. In itself, the vocation “to medical practice” is an insufficiently defined vocation. The varieties of professional labor that exist in life, in other words, work posts, sometimes impose completely different requirements on a person within the boundaries of one profession. This applies to almost all professions. In some people, as it were, he creates a work post “on his own” - he organizes his work in such a way that it best suits his individual characteristics and favors his personally successful activity. A teacher, for example, can work with the greatest success in the direction of methodological creativity, or in the field of promoting the weakest, or, conversely, only with the strongest, or prove himself in organizational and pedagogical work, etc., and the choice of field of activity often depends on him himself.

2. Gurevich K. M., Lubovsky V. I. Foreword by the editors of the translation // Anastasi A. Psychological testing. M., 1982. T. 1. S. 5 - 14.

3. Gurevich K. M. Psychological diagnostics and the laws of psychological science // Psikhol. magazine 1991. T. 12. N 2.

4. Gurevich K. M. "Isn't it time to evaluate the methodological apparatus of our science?"//Psychol. magazine 1991. T. 12. N 4. S. 139 - 156.

5. Gurevich K. M. Questions of the organization of psychological feedback in the education system // Psychol. magazine 1997. T. 18. N 4. S. 78 - 84.

6. Gurevich K. M. Problems of differential psychology. Selected psychological works. M. Voronezh, 1998.

7. Gurevich K. M. Psychological diagnostics and the problem of individual differences // Psikhol. magazine 1998. T. 19. N 3. S. 84 - 89.

8. Gurevich K. M., Raevsky A. M. Personality as an object of psychological diagnostics // Psikhol. magazine 2001. T. 22. N 5. S. 29 - 37.

9. Gurevich K. M. Prospects for the development of psychological diagnostics // Psychological diagnostics. 2003. N 1.S. 11 - 22.

10. Gurevich K. M. "The secret of his charm was simple: what he was talking about was ... the psychology of life" // Psychology at the university. 2003. N 1 - 2. S. 8 - 27.

11. "Psychology is a life science..." (Interview with Konstantin Markovich Gurevich is conducted by Victoria Vasilievna Bartsalkina) // World of Psychology. 1996. N 4. S. 107 - 128.

12. Akimova M. K. Formation of high-speed motor skill in connection with individual characteristics in terms of strength and lability of nervous processes // Psychophysiological issues of becoming a professional. Issue. 1. M., 1974. S. 76 - 101.

13. Akimova M. K., Kozlova V. T. Psychophysiological features of the individuality of schoolchildren: accounting and correction. M., 2002.

14. Akimova M. K., Kozlova V. T. Diagnosis of mental development of children. SPb., 2006.

15. Anastasi A. Psychological testing. M., 1982. In 2 vols.

16. Borisova E. M. Psychological content of labor and the formation of professional suitability of carpet weavers // Psychophysiological issues of becoming a professional. Issue. 1. M., 1974. S. 28 - 51.

17. Gorbacheva E. I. Subject orientation of thinking: essence, mechanisms, conditions of development. Kaluga, 2001.

18. Danilov V. A. Manifestation of the strength of the nervous system in mental processes // Psychophysiological issues of becoming a professional. Issue. 2. M., 1976. S. 163 - 180.

19. Dubrovina I.V. Psychological service of the school. M., 1991.

20. Zarkhin V. G. Manifestation of the lability of nervous processes in the skills of radiotelegraphy // Psychophysiological issues of becoming a professional. Issue. 2. M., 1976. S. 128 - 137.

21. Kozlova V. T. Methods for studying the genotypically conditioned properties of the second-signal activity // Psychological diagnostics. Problems and research. M., 1981. S. 146 - 167.

22. Psychological diagnostics: a textbook for universities / Edited by M. K. Akimova, K. M. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, 2003 (2005, 2006).

23. Elkonin D. B. Some issues of diagnosing the mental development of children (instead of a preface) // Diagnosis of educational activity and intellectual development of children. M., 1981. S. 3 - 13.

page 99

Z. FREUD - THE FOUNDER OF PSYCHOANALYSIS (ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH)

E. A. SPIRKINA, PhD in Psychology, Rector of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis, Moscow

A brief outline of the activities of Sigmund Freud is given. His contribution to the creation and development of not only psychoanalysis, but also psychotherapy in general is evaluated. The evolution of psychoanalysis is shown.

Keywords: psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, mental health treatment.

One hundred and fifty years ago, a man was born who made a revolution in understanding the nature of the psychic and showed the possibility of correcting, treating and changing the human soul by the method of "talking". The ideas about the knowledge of the human psyche and mind as a linear or progressive process were refuted, the psyche appeared as a multidimensional area, in different dimensions of which there is a different logic and a different flow of time. Human possibilities of self-knowledge through rational thinking turned out to be insufficient, and the rational principle in man is not omnipotent. From the time of Freud to the present day, psychoanalysts in theory and practice tirelessly confirm the correctness of his discoveries and the correctness of the basic ideas. Over the past years, many new things have been introduced into the theory of psychoanalysis, and the boundaries of its application in practice have been significantly expanded. The view of mental development, the causes of pathology and ways to overcome it has changed. However, the main principles of psychoanalysis as a whole remained unchanged. One of the historians of psychoanalysis has successfully drawn an analogy with the development of aircraft construction: modern aircraft differ from their ancestors as much as modern psychoanalysis differs from the psychoanalysis of Freud's time.

Of course, it would be wrong to say that Freud "discovered" the unconscious, the existence of which mankind knew long before him. But Freud, unlike his predecessors, specifically and realistically showed exactly how it works, gave explanatory principles and schemes for understanding and seeing the motivation of human life and activity. He established the presence in the human psyche of certain structures, the functioning and formation of which is still the subject of scientific research, and actually developed a tool for their treatment and explanation. And this tool, supplemented and refined by his followers, is successfully working today. Freud showed us that the inner world of a person is constructed through meanings, symbols and meanings, the destruction of which or the conflict between which causes one or another mental pathology - from neurosis to psychosis, and that a conversation between a therapist and a client, where the main subject is semantic and symbolic analysis mental content of the latter, and there is treatment, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis. He developed not only theoretical models, but also a specific method of psychotherapy, which was modified and changed, rejected and created something new, although the essence of psychotherapy as a dialogue did not change from this.

The approaches of K. Rogers, J. Moreno, F. Perls and others emerged, emphasizing in psychotherapy the aspect of the relationship between the client and the psychotherapist and rejecting the diagnostic and theoretical parts of psychoanalysis. In the post-war years, the number of psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic practices in the Western world was already so great that psychoanalysis could be considered only one of many methods of treating mental illness. However, having gone through a certain circle of development, they partly returned to their roots and had a huge impact on the development of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy.

Numerous books and articles have been written by theorists and practitioners of psychoanalysis, a number of journals have been published, thousands of conferences have been held all over the world. Several tens of thousands of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists are united in several worldwide professional associations, including the International Association for Psychoanalysis, founded by Freud himself in 1910, the European Federation

Psychoanalysis", "European Federation of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy", as well as "Association for the Scientific Study of Psychotherapy", not to mention the fact that almost every country has its own national associations of psychoanalysis. All this is evidence that psychoanalysis works and really helps people. How no matter how "wrong" or "limited" or "not far" Freud was, he was and remains the great founder of the theory of the unconscious and a unique direction of psychotherapy.

Sigmund Freud was born in 1856 in the city of Freiburg, which is currently part of the Czech Republic. His father, Jacob Freud, was a merchant. The fact that Freud's mother, Amalia Natanson, had the warmest feelings for her first-born and admired him all her life, was written by many Freud's biographers. She early believed in the brilliant future of her son, and this, undoubtedly, had a decisive influence on him in his youth. Later he wrote about this: "I was convinced, however, that the persons whom the mother singled out for some reason in childhood reveal in later life that special self-confidence and that unshakable optimism that often" seems heroic and really creates success for these subjects in life. life". This self-confidence, subject only to rare fluctuations, was one of Freud's defining features. And he is no doubt right in considering the mother's love for him as the cause of its inception.

When Freud was 4 years old, the family moved to Vienna, where the whole conscious life of the scientist passed. Parents were brought up in the spirit of Orthodox Judaism, however, moving to the center of Europe in the free bourgeois world of the Austro-Hungarian Empire posed the problem of not only social and economic, but also cultural adaptation to the family. Freud grew up "without any faith in God or immortality, and throughout his life he never felt the need for faith" [ibid., p. 29]. Freud's emotional needs "found their expression first in rather vague philosophical discourses, and then in his honest commitment to science" [ibid.].

This lasted the entire "pre-psychoanalytic" part of his life and coincided with a period of rapid development of natural science. Several prominent naturalists - Emile Dubois-Reymond and Ernst Brucke, and then Hermann Helmholtz and Karl Ludwig proclaimed that "it is necessary to prove the truth of the proposition that no other forces act in the body, except for ordinary physico-chemical ones; what is there, where is the explanation with their help is still insufficient, it is necessary either to look for their specific mode of action by means of the physicochemical method, or to assume the presence of new forces, which, being similar in importance to physicochemical ones, are inherent in matter and are always reducible to only two forces - attraction and repulsion " [ibid., p. 40].

Freud tried several possible ways for neuropathologists of that time to study the brain: he studied some cells in the notochord of fish, then cells of the acoustic nerve; introduced the method of staining preparations under a microscope with gold chloride; experimented with cocaine; examined children with cerebral palsy as a practicing neurologist. The result of his searches was the well-known "Project of Scientific Psychology" in 1895, where he tried to establish a definite connection between psychological processes, which he considered as a form of energy, with the brain substrate. As a physician and neuroscientist, a student of Brücke, it was difficult for him to abandon the idea of ​​the importance of the brain substrate in mental processes. He, like many scientists before and after him, persistently searched for this connection, which, in his opinion, could explain everything "mental".

However, this was only a desire to keep some material reality of the subject of study at the level of simple physical and chemical processes, because the growing amount of scientific knowledge about man, the methodology of cognition itself, the emerging psychology multiplied this reality and pushed researchers to expand the horizons of seeing objects of knowledge.

Freud had the role of being one of those who were called upon to change the naive positivist paradigm, in which the microscope was used as an "extension of the eyes" to understand the structure of nervous matter, to a more complex one that was not amenable to a direct rationalistic approach. This new approach, developed in psychoanalysis, was based on the fact that both the subject and the object of analysis are constructed in the head of the researcher and exist only in the process of studying.

Typically, historians of psychoanalysis divide Freud's scientific career into pre-psychoanalytic and psychoanalytic periods. It was once believed that he abandoned neuropathology in order to become a psychoanalyst, but later it became accepted that the first period of his scientific work was directly related to the second and that his development as a psychoanalyst looked like a slow evolution and gradual maturation of psychoanalytic views and theories.

However, in addition to the internal logic of moving towards his discoveries, there were external, more prosaic reasons in his life. He was going to get married and couldn't

to devote himself to the career of a scientist due to the lack of an appropriate place and a small amount of money, in connection with which he was forced to engage in private practice.

A further search for the nature of mental processes led Freud to the clinic of the famous J. Charcot, a French neuropathologist who developed ideas about the psychological meaning of the symptoms of hysteria and treated them with the help of hypnosis. Another factor that influenced his interest in the psychological foundations of neuroses was the case of his colleague and friend Josef Breuer, who treated his patient Anna O. The history of this treatment made a great impression on Freud, and he wrote a book about it with Breuer.

In modern literature on the history of psychoanalysis, it was the case of Anna O. that began to be considered as the starting point from which Freud began his psychoanalytic career. In the book "Studies in Hysteria", published jointly with Breuer, Freud gives the first cases of the treatment of hysterical patients using the cathartic method. He described each of his cases as fully as he could see and comprehend from the standpoint of a doctor. These first cases from Freud's practice subsequently became the subject of analysis and study of several generations of his students and followers.

The history of the occurrence of symptoms and their connection with the events of the patient's life, the scientist considered the main subject of his research. This was in keeping with Freud's idea of ​​the traumatic event and its repression from the patient's consciousness into the unconscious. He made the discovery that the stress, trauma, experience associated with the sexual life of patients, especially if this event cannot be experienced, is repressed and then returns in the form of hysterical symptoms. Accordingly, the method of treatment should have been a repressed memory of certain events. He worked long and hard to improve the methods of hypnosis, suggestion, insistence, asking questions. At first, he sought to obtain repressed experiences and memories by pressing on the patient's forehead, demanding to remember something, but he soon realized that patients should be given more freedom in self-expression. This is how the method of free association appeared, which is effectively used today.

Gradually moving away from hypnosis and the cathartic method, Freud increasingly understands the magical role of the word and the relationship between psychotherapist and client. Unnamed mental states, affects, drives, needs must be named and thus defined. Speech acts as a surrogate for an act, an opportunity to express, experience and realize something unexpressed. "It was only through the invention of this new method that Freud was able to penetrate properly into the hitherto unknown realm of the unconscious and to make his profound discoveries, with which his name is firmly associated."

In describing the history of the treatment of patients, one can see how Freud creates both a new treatment technique and the theoretical foundations of psychoanalysis. He carefully builds a causal relationship between traumatic life events and symptoms and sees his task in restoring the continuity of associative links. In a theoretical study of hysteria, Freud offers his ideas about its nature. The main conclusion he comes to is that tantrums suffer from memories.

Between 1890 and 1897 the first ideas about psychopathology are being developed. He analyzes in detail the nature of hysteria and obsessive-compulsive states, introduces the concept of protection, which is the "core of the mental mechanism" of psychoneuroses, and calls it repression; later he would develop other types of psychological defenses.

He also tries to generalize his ideas about the origin of a number of psychoneurotic diseases and show the fate of various affects in cases of hysteria, which he considers as a conflict, as well as obsessive-compulsive disorder and paranoia, as "offenses" and "sadness". The essence of the analyzed forms of psychopathology was that some traces of affect break through into consciousness and form symptoms: memories in hysteria, perverse impulses in compulsion neurosis, and defensive fantasies in paranoia.

The main provisions of psychoanalytic theory are several basic principles developed by Freud. These include ideas about the structure of the psyche, an unconscious mental event, the obligatory either external or internal determinism of all mental processes, and the desire of the mental apparatus to maintain a certain balance or homeostasis.

The theory of the mental structure of personality developed on the basis of Freud's practice and went through three stages. We find the first systematic description of psychic structure in his work The Interpretation of Dreams. Then, in the course of developing the concepts of "consciousness" and "unconsciousness", ideas about the principles of pleasure and reality, and developing the concept of narcissism, he fully develops the concept of "libido" as the energy inherent in sexual desires. The third stage begins with the publication of "I and It" (1923), which systematically outlines the structural concept

psyche, highlighted and described "I", "It" and "Super-I". Freud speaks of the well-known conventionality of this model and the impossibility of any kind of localization or connection with the brain substrate. It is assumed that this mental apparatus is in its infancy at birth and develops fully only in adulthood.

In the autumn of 1902, his students and followers began to gather at Freud's house. These meetings have been called Wednesdays by the Psychological Society. In 1908, these meetings acquired the name "Vienna Psychoanalytic Association", which still exists today. In 1904 - 1910. he publishes his main works - The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, and Dora's Case.

Many publications on the treatment of his clients have evoked and continue to evoke responses from subsequent generations of psychoanalysts. Freud's cases, detailed and carefully described by him, are examples of the first blind steps in psychoanalytic technique.

In fact, Sigmund Freud was the first person to discover psychotherapy for humanity, the treatment of the psyche and soul with the help of a specially constructed dialogue, where two people work to change the ideas and attitudes of one of them. He opened the possibility of mutual understanding, treatment through understanding, awareness and experience, leading to the integration of a person's mental experience. He humanized the human relationship to mental pathology and showed what a concrete relationship of love is.

The recognition of the child's right to strong impressions and experiences, and then to psychological trauma in general, led to a gradual change in the attitude of society towards the child. The inner world of the child, the importance of love for him on the part of parents for the success of his subsequent mental life and mental health, gradually became the cornerstone of all modern psychotherapy of mental culture and norms in general. In a sense, Freud's ideas expressed those basic necessary humanistic values ​​that were so needed by mankind in the 20th century. If we return to such an important category of psychoanalysis as trauma, then it is clear that in essence we are talking about relationships that are traumatic for the child, which is identical to the absence of love. In fact, we are faced with an alternative: on the one hand, love is the acceptance of a child as he is, i.e. not projecting onto him his unfulfilled expectations, shame and other problems. On the other hand, trauma is its use, physical or emotional.

Modern writers are not inclined to accuse Freud of being biased or failing to see his own countertransference in relation to his clients, as was evident in the case of Dora. On the contrary, growing knowledge opens up new possibilities for understanding and interpreting the material that he left us as a legacy. Freud's genius was to put the tools of inquiry into our hands and allow us to use them to study his own work.

The further development of psychoanalysis took place in line with an increasing understanding of the nature of mental disorders, the formation of an increasingly complex picture of the forms of deviations and ups and downs of the inner mental world of a person. If the psychoanalysis of Freud's time was the psychoanalysis of neurotic deviations of the personality, then modern psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in general is a vast field of knowledge and technical skills, suggesting the possibility of understanding and explaining such a circle of pathology, which includes not only neuroses and borderline states, but also psychoses.

In general, we can say that the process of psychotherapy in general and psychoanalysis in particular is aimed primarily at the development and training of a person, his adaptation to the world and society, the ability to effectively "work and love", as Freud himself said. And this is true in any society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. E. Jones. The Life and Works of Sigmund Freud. M.: Humanitarian, 1997.

2. Encyclopedia of depth psychology. Moscow: Cogito-MGM, 2002.

S. FREUD - THE FOUNDER OF PSYCHOANALYSIS (TO 150th ANNIVERSARY)

E. A. Spirkina, PhD, head of the Institute of Applied Psychology and Psychoanalysis

An essay of Sigmund Freud's activity is given. His contribution to creation and development not only psychoanalysis but psychotherapy on the whole is stated. The evolution of psychoanalysis is revealed.

key words: psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, psyche treatment.

IN MEMORY OF L. I. UMANSKY

(To the 85th birthday)

A. S. CHERNYSHEV, Doctor of Psychology, Head. Department of Psychology, Kursk State University, KurskDoctor of Psychology, professor, laureate of the Lenin Komsomol Prize Lev Ilyich Umansky was born on October 29, 1921 in Kursk in a family of employees. He was orphaned early, and his aunt was involved in his upbringing. Studying in high school, Umansky worked as a pioneer leader at a school and pioneer camps, while simultaneously studying at an flying club, a cavalry school and a sniper school. After school, he entered the Chuguev Military Flight School, after which he served in the Lend-Lease military security forces in Iran.

Demobilized from the army, Umansky entered the Kursk State Pedagogical Institute at the Faculty of History, and then was left as a teacher at the Department of Pedagogy and Psychology. The young scientist was equally devoted to science and children, to whom he gave his warm heart in full. During his vacation time, Lev Ilyich worked every year in pioneer camps. He was considered the best teacher in the region.

In the same team with Umansky, teachers from various departments and faculties went to pioneer camps for many years in a row. Under his leadership, this friendly scientific team of university teachers, together with students, teachers, pioneer leaders and other workers, created an exemplary pioneer camp named after Vera Tereshchenko (a partisan heroine, a Kuryan woman executed by the Nazis). The camp was famous for its unusually multifaceted, meaningful, creative life. At the same time, intensive experimental scientific work was carried out to study the individual psychological characteristics of children of older preschool age.

Having rich life experience behind him, Umansky enters graduate school with B. M. Teplov. After successfully defending his Ph.D. thesis on the problem of individual psychological characteristics of children of senior preschool age (1955), he proceeds to an experimental study of the problem of organizational abilities in children. The boundaries of the study are gradually expanding, and not only preschoolers, but also adults become its objects.

By 1961, L. I. Umansky prepared his doctoral dissertation on the problem of organizational abilities. But its very first discussion at the Institute of General, Developmental and Pedagogical Psychology (Moscow) in the laboratory of V.A. .

To solve this problem, V. A. Krutetsky suggested experimentally testing the hypothesis on youth leaders - Komsomol organizers. There was a task of incredible difficulty - to create a youth center outside the usual normative documents and traditions and conduct a formative experiment in it. In order to provide scientific support for the Center, L. I. Umansky in 1964 opened a postgraduate course and organized a group of postgraduate psychologists (among whom were A. S. Chernyshev, V. A. Mirgorod, I. A. Bessmertnov, A. N. Gontarenko and etc.) to work in "Komsorg". Later, other graduate students of Umansky came to Komsorg, who gave the Center a second wind, allowing it to live to this day. Currently, the Center is officially registered in the state program "Recreation and development of children and adolescents today."

An intensive study of the organizational activity of leaders in the real conditions of their functioning - in primary teams - highlighted another problem - the psychology of a small group. In the 1960s there was a revival of domestic social psychology and the concept of small groups was just emerging. Before

page 104

L. I. Umansky and his students faced large-scale problems of social psychology of those years - leadership, small groups, joint activities. In order to study them, in 1965 Umansky organized one of the first socio-psychological laboratories in the country on the basis of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy of the Kursk State Pedagogical Institute.

The laboratory had its own experimental base and was engaged in the development of the concept of leadership and a small group in a collaborative environment. Each position of the concept was experimentally tested and enriched at the Center for Youth Leaders, as well as on the basis of the historical and pedagogical faculty organized in Kursk on the initiative of Umansky and his students.

As a result of these studies, by the beginning of the 70s. a parametric concept of groups and collectives was proposed, the main provisions of which were published in the central press and collections of scientific papers of the Department of Psychology, presented in reports at conferences and congresses, presented in 11 Ph.D.

In accordance with the ideology of the concept, an adequate methodological block was developed, including questionnaires, a set of instrumental methods - models of joint activity, a program of natural experiment, and observation. To introduce scientific results into practice, Umansky published a number of books and manuals, methodological materials, etc., among which the most famous and in demand in theory and practice were "Organizational abilities and their development" (1967), "Issues of social activity of an individual and a group schoolchildren" (co-authored with L. F. Spirin, 1970), "Psychology of the work of the Komsomol organizer" (co-authored with A. N. Lutoshkin, 1972), "Psychology of organizational activity of schoolchildren" (1980).

In 1973, L. I. Umansky moved to the Kostroma State Pedagogical Institute and, together with A. N. Lutoshkin, V. S. Saporovsky and others, successfully developed the provisions of the parametric concept created in Kursk, while maintaining other Kursk traditions - Kostroma is being created " Komsomol, methodological tools are being developed, etc.

L. I. Umansky is the author of about 200 scientific papers published in the domestic and foreign press, the main ideas of which are still relevant today. In many modern textbooks on social psychology for universities, the provisions of his parametric concept are used.

It is noteworthy that for more than 30 years psychologists from Kursk and Kostroma State Universities have been implementing and developing the ideas of Professor Umansky in a creative community, thereby preserving the bright memory of their Teacher.

page 105

P. N. SHIKHIREV: SCIENTIST AND MENTOR

(To the 70th birthday)

M. A. KRASNIKOV,head of the sector of socio-psychological problems Research Center for Development Strategies, Moscow

N. M. LEBEDEVA, Doctor of Psychology, Head of the Sector of Cross-Cultural Psychology Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

T. A. NESTIK, Candidate of Philosophy, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

V. A. SOSNIN, PhD in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

L. M. SOSNIN, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Researcher, Head of the Scientific Archive of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

In December 2006, the prominent domestic scientist, Doctor of Psychology, Professor Petr Nikolaevich Shikhirev would have turned 70. P. N. Shikhirev is known to the Russian and world scientific community as a methodologist, theorist of social psychology, research scientist and practicing psychologist, who took an active part in the development of domestic social psychology. The scope of his professional interests was exceptionally extensive. For more than 30 years of service to science, the scientist has made a huge contribution to the theory and methodology of social psychology, as well as to the development of its areas - the history of social psychology, the psychology of intergroup relations, ethnic, economic, organizational psychology, the psychology of negotiation and conflict resolution, the psychology of deviant behavior , social psychology and business ethics.

When meeting with Shikhirev, his truly encyclopedic knowledge amazed him. And not only in psychology, but also in philosophy, history,

page 105

philology, literature, art and other areas of culture. He knew and remembered the authors of the main works on the problem under discussion at the moment, the essence of their ideas and all the information that could be useful. He generously and disinterestedly shared this knowledge with those around him, "feeding" his graduate students and students with it, leading a scientific discussion or substantiating some new idea. It was always bright, lively, optimistic and witty.

The sparkle of his mind and sense of humor, combined with the depth and breadth of consideration of theoretical positions and empirical facts, created an atmosphere of free creative search, "brainstorming" and confidential communication between a venerable scientist and his interlocutor, regardless of age, social status and scientific merits of the latter.

Shikhirev's professional "strategy" is to always be at the forefront of new beginnings in the development of psychological science, where the foundation of new directions was laid, the most promising and complex tasks were set and solved. As a scientist and a person, he was distinguished by exceptional creative capacity for work, an inquisitive mind, an innovative spirit and devotion to science, to which he devoted his entire conscious life.

P. N. Shikhirev was born on December 14, 1936 in the city of Lomonosov, Leningrad Region, into a family of teachers. His father, Nikolai Petrovich, was a linguist, teacher of English and German, served as a military translator during the Great Patriotic War. Mother, Antonina Petrovna, a mechanical engineer by education, worked as a drawing teacher at a technical school. There were seven children in their family. It is necessary to note the special family traditions on which the future scientist was brought up, and the great influence that his parents, highly educated cultured people and patriots of their homeland had on the formation of his personality. Recalling them, Pyotr Nikolaevich said that he owed all the worthy deeds that he managed to accomplish to his parents, these surprisingly strong, wise and pure-hearted people.

According to Shikhirev himself, the moral law of their family was impeccable respect and reverence for their ancestors, knowledge of the pedigree both on the paternal and maternal lines. He proudly recalled that his grandfather on his father's side, Pyotr Pavlovich, in 1904 - 1916. served as an inspector of public schools in the Nizhny Novgorod province, and his maternal grandfather, Peter Lavrentievich, was a church warden. His parents grew up in large families, and from an early age they formed respect for the elders, exceptional diligence, vitality, discipline in deeds and actions, and a benevolent attitude towards people as the main life values. In such a moral and psychologically healthy atmosphere, the children of the Shikhirevs grew up as independent and responsible people, learned to love and respect honest work, and not be afraid of difficulties. According to Petr Nikolaevich, the father instilled in all the children the habit of a healthy lifestyle and the desire for achievements: they were all good athletes, studied at school only "good" and "excellent" and received a higher education.

This paternal attitude lasted a long time. Suffice it to say that Shikhirev, being an excellent tennis player and swimmer, ran a marathon for the first time at the age of 50. He was also distinguished by outstanding intellectual abilities. This is evidenced by the fact that at the age of 16, having graduated from high school with a gold medal, he came to Moscow from the Far East, where their family then lived, and in 1953, without any outside help, he entered the MGIMO of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Over the years of his studies at the institute, Shikhirev, unlike most of his classmates, mastered not two foreign languages, but six - French, Italian, English, German, Romanian and Spanish. After graduating from MGIMO in 1959 and becoming a specialist in international relations with the countries of the West, he began working as a senior assistant to the Committee of International Organizations and from 1959 to 1966. visited such countries as the USA, England, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, France, Italy as an interpreter and a member of Russian delegations.

Actually, Shikhirev's scientific activity begins in 1966, when he became a researcher in the Department of Problems of Public Conscience at the Institute of the International Labor Movement of the USSR Academy of Sciences. By this time, under the influence of accumulated life experience, he had already formed a persistent and, as his subsequent scientific activity showed, a deep interest in psychology as a field of professional activity. This is evidenced by the publication in 1971 in the journal "Problems of Philosophy" of his first article on social psychology, "A Study of the Stereotype in American Psychology."

As you know, in the 1960s - 1970s. In our country, the intensive development of many branches of psychological science begins. Therefore, it is not surprising that Shikhirev, as an inquisitive and far-sighted researcher, immediately took up the development of such an urgent problem at that time as the psychology of a social attitude. The need to introduce this category into the conceptual and terminological apparatus of social psychology was determined by the desire of psychologists for a universal explanation of all social

page 106

human behavior. And the psychology of social attitude was perceived at that time as a kind of breakthrough in the theory and methodology of science. Shikhirev's choice of this scientific problem confirms his focus on the study and solution of fundamental problems of psychological science.

In 1972 - 1974 while working as a senior lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Shikhirev prepared and in 1974 defended his Ph.D. The dissertation research immediately put P. N. Shikhirev on a par with such well-known researchers in the theory of social attitudes as D. N. Uznadze, A. S. Prangishvili, V. A. Yadov and others. He made a significant contribution to the development of this area of ​​social psychology and is rightfully considered one of the creators of the modern concept of social attitude.

From 1974 to 1992 Shikhirev's scientific and pedagogical activity was closely connected with the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (RAS), where he worked as a senior researcher in the laboratory of social psychology under the guidance and in collaboration with such well-known scientists as B. F. Lomov, E. V. Shorokhova, K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya and others. This period was marked by the rise of his creative abilities both in scientific and pedagogical, mentoring activities. The main scientific results of this stage were two fundamental monographs: "Modern Social Psychology in the USA" (1980), "Modern Social Psychology in Western Europe"(1985). Until now, these works are fundamental scientific works for domestic social psychologists, analyzing current trends in world and domestic social psychology.

The result of Shikhirev's creative work on the theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology was his doctoral dissertation "The Evolution of the Paradigm in Modern Social Psychology" defended by him in 1993. This work made an exceptionally great contribution to the development of modern social psychology and stimulated the formation of such areas of psychological science as the psychology of conflicts, lies, justice, social identity, ethnic psychology, which later began to be developed by his students and followers.

In the late 1980s Shikhirev, one of the first domestic scientists, began to intensively deal with ethnic psychology and the psychology of intergroup relations: since with the change in the socio-political situation in the country and in the world, the role of ethnic factor in the regulation of intergroup relations, it became necessary to develop this issue both in theoretical and applied aspects. At this time, Shikhirev performed not only scientific, but also large practical work as an expert in many projects of the government of the USSR and the UN; his students also acted as specialists in the settlement of interethnic conflicts in many regions of the post-Soviet space.

Shikhirev led a great pedagogical activity, being, by the recognition of all students, a brilliant lecturer and popularizer of psychological knowledge. He lectured not only in Russia, but also at many universities and research centers in the USA and Europe: in 1992 he taught as a visiting professor at the University of California (Irvine, USA), and in 1995 - at Georgetown University (Washington , USA). He was closely acquainted and maintained close cooperation with many foreign scientists, such as C. R. Mills, S. Moscovici, A. Mindell, A. Vitale, J. Cole and others.

One more hot topic Shikhirev's research was the problem of the psychopathology of alcoholism, which by the nineties of the XX century began to acquire particular urgency. He publishes a series of articles and a monographic work on the psychotherapy of alcoholism: "Alcoholism: the experience of psychological research in the USSR" ("Psychological Journal", 1987); "To influence the spiritual sphere" (in the collection of materials of the scientific-practical conference "For a healthy lifestyle", 1989); "Live without alcohol?: socio-psychological problems of drunkenness and alcoholism" (1988).

Since 1992, Shikhirev has been in charge of the Center for Social and Psychological Research at the Graduate School of International Business of the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation. Along with the problems of cross-cultural psychology, his main scientific interests are the psychology of organizational behavior and business ethics. And again, he is one of the leading psychologists who actively respond to the problems and current demands of society.

P. N. Shikhirev can rightly be called one of the first domestic social psychologists who turned to the study of the psychology of morality. In his books "Sharks and Dolphins: The Psychology and Ethics of Russian-American Business Partnership" (co-authored with R. Anderson, USA (1994)), "Ethical Principles of Doing Business in Russia" (1999), "Introduction to Russian Business Culture" (1999), as well as numerous articles (more than 90), he reveals the meaning of these

page 107

ical values ​​and trust for interpersonal, intergroup and intercultural relations. His focus is on the socio-psychological aspects of reputation, trust in organizations, resolving ethical dilemmas, social capital, and the informal economy. In his works, he sought to show that economic behavior is based on relationships of mutual trust and is regulated by moral norms. The public activity of the last years of his life is connected with the upholding of this scientific and civic position. Since 1996, Petr Nikolayevich has been vice-president of the National Fund "Russian Business Culture" of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.

This period of scientific activity of the scientist was marked by the publication of the work "Modern Social Psychology" (1999), which was the result of his many years of work as a theorist, methodologist and practitioner of social psychology, summarizing ideas and considerations on the prospects for the development of psychological science in general.

As promising areas of socio-psychological research identified in this work, one can name group psychology, the shift to which from individual psychology is singled out as one of the main theoretical problems of social psychology; the psychology of social identity, which was first posed and studied in Russian science in its entirety by Shikhirev; the psychology of social representations, including its cross-cultural aspects.

Pyotr Nikolaevich Shikhirev was a wonderful family man, he raised and raised three children, always following the principle of searching and fearless research of truth in his life, putting spiritual and moral improvement at the forefront, and not material gain. His wife Larisa Dmitrievna, children and relatives honor his memory with respect and love.

P. N. Shikhirev died on January 9, 2004 at the age of 68. His fate is a typical fate of a talented Russian scientist and intellectual. He left on his desktop manuscripts of unfinished books, letters to colleagues and scientists, a large scientific heritage and a library, transferred by his relatives to the scientific archive of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

One cannot fail to note a very important function of Shikhirev's scientific and pedagogical activity, to which he treated with extreme attention, responsibility and selfless dedication and performed until the last days of his life - the function of a mentor and teacher of young scientists. Among his students are Doctors of Science N. M. Lebedeva and G. U. Soldatova, leading Russian scientists in the field of ethnic and cross-cultural psychology; I. R. Sushkov - leading specialist in the psychology of intergroup relations; L. I. Naumenko - one of the recognized specialists in the field of social psychology of Belarus and many other scientists.

An illustration of the relationship between P. N. Shikhirev and his colleagues and students and their attitude towards him are the memories of some of them:

A. L. Zhuravlev, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Peter Nikolaevich, no doubt, had many virtues that quickly made him famous in various professional communities: sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, ethics, etc. However, some of his virtues always amazed me with their level and combination with other qualities, which caused the desire to imitate and achieve at least something close.Firstly, it is a high sensitivity to new scientific problems in the field of knowledge that he developed in a particular period of his life.He felt well that he would become relevant in the near historical time, he warned about this and called for pragmatic preparation for this in order to adequately and professionally respond to the challenges of the time.He could set important theoretical guidelines in the development of new problems, relying on his solid philosophical and historical training.Secondly, he did not just "follow the literature", new editions, etc., but tried in his own way to process and systematize new information rmation, including it in his system of scientific ideas, coming from distant history and facing the future. His system of ideas in science was truly systemic, integrating information from different sources, constantly updated and intensively developing. New information always "worked" constructively for him, was effective. Thirdly, Pyotr Nikolaevich possessed great abilities as a polemicist. His sharp and at the same time meaningful speeches are well known, which gave rise to the expression “to go to Shikhirev” that has become established among young scientists. However, what was striking was not so much the richness of his critical assessments (many had this), but the ability to offer at the same time something constructive, very specific and interesting, of course, not always easy to implement, but always developing and, most importantly, setting a person to continue work. This part of P. N. Shikhirev’s speeches was usually preceded by the words: “If I were you, I would do the following ...”, and these were the words for which he was most seriously responsible, suggesting exactly what it would be desirable to do. And so every time - this was amazing, given that in discussions and discussions

page 108

he spent much of his working time there. It was truly profound scientific work!"

T. Yu. Bazarov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University M. V. Lomonosov, Executive Director of the Russian Psychological Society:“The research and practical approaches of P. N. Shikhirev in relation to the topic of corporate ethics are amazing. For many businessmen with whom he met, this topic looked like nothing more than a “bow” on the lapel of a uniform. He turned the situation upside down: “How is it possible today achieve success in business without a built-in concept of life and a scale of preferences?" At the same time, actively and informally (even with those whom I saw for the first time - as it happened repeatedly during the conferences "Russian Business Culture" organized by him, traditionally held on board the ship going along the Volga) helped to sort out his own values.Peter Nikolaevich was allowed to ask others sharp questions like: "What is unshakable for you, and what are you ready to give up and for what? Just for the sake of money - it doesn't make sense: it's easy to become a pawn in the wrong hands. "There are people who have clear tasks and life is scheduled for five to ten years ahead. They are moving steadily towards the goal - they enter into conscious alliances with other people, organizations, build career trajectory, and without violating ethical standards: reputation is more important.He was amazingly able to explain to business people the importance of "intangible assets of the company. He could easily say that codes of ethics do not fall from the sky, that all requirements for employees are backed up by company goals. These are crutches , which are easy to rely on in decisive moments. Let's say I'm talking to an important client, and at this time the boss calls me in. What to do? If the company is customer-oriented, it is better to apologize to the boss and continue the conversation. contradiction, the ethical regulator comes to the rescue. that it is not a matter of external paraphernalia: the ability to behave, speak, look - it even looks through a soldier's overcoat. Professor Shikhirev set a high standard for the professionalism of a Russian intellectual for many (and in this case it does not matter what century)."

N. M. Lebedeva, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Sector of Cross-Cultural Psychology at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences:"P. N. Shikhirev was a unique scientific leader, and this uniqueness consisted in the fact that he absolutely did not "supervise" anything: he simply communicated, and always on an equal footing, but this communication contained the most important lessons in life ... Now, according to over time, many of these life principles I try to pass on to my students.

It is known that who owns the information owns the world (especially in the post-industrial era). Many of my colleagues did not like and still do not like to share information: books, articles, etc. P. N. Shikhirev, even in the era of "book hunger", when each book on the topic, especially foreign, was literally worth its weight in gold, shared his books (many of which were in a single copy in the country) generously and disinterestedly. This caused a chain reaction of trust and mutual assistance.

P. N. Shikhirev literally fell in love with people who were open, thinking, talented, witty and "obsessed with the search for truth": he enthusiastically talked about plans for joint research and called them like this: "a man of my blood type!", which meant the highest praise and recognition . In my memory there were few of them, but they all treated Pyotr Nikolaevich with the same love and admiration.

P. N. Shikhirev was a Russian patriot, and not snobbishly, but internally, deeply. knowing brilliantly English language, at the beginning of perestroika, he could safely leave for the West, as many of his colleagues did. However, he did not do this for reasons of a deeply personal nature. He himself told me about it this way: “When you start communicating with American professors, and they perceive you as an equal, with respect and trust, it becomes not only indecent, but impossible to leave the country at this difficult time. When you talk about her problems deeply and seriously, understanding their essence, it becomes obvious that the words and deeds of a decent person cannot diverge, and if you are so smart and moral, you should be there, in your country, with your people. not just flickering through life, then you, in fact, have no choice: leave or stay.

Pyotr Nikolaevich told everyone he saw smoking, rightly considering such an attitude towards one's health an unaffordable luxury and stupidity: "In Russia one must live long." When they asked him: "Why is she, such a life, and even a long one?", He always answered: "You can live to see changes." We lived up to the changes, only untimely death did not leave Russia, still taking away the brightest and most defenseless.

G. U. Soldatova, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Deputy Head of the Department of Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University M. V. Lomonosov:"Pyotr Nikolaevich for me is a bright and unforgettable person. Of his many roles, he was extremely successful

page 109

one very important is to be a teacher. A brilliant methodologist, encyclopedist, fluent in several languages, he always generously shared his knowledge, presented with a heap of ideas, expanded the horizons of research, expanding the boundaries of domestic science. His excellent library, filled with rare and inaccessible publications at that time, was always open to his colleagues and students. He constantly praised and over-praised his students, completely sincerely admiring even the very first timid steps. And thus instilled in them the confidence and desire for development and improvement. Pyotr Nikolaevich awakened the imagination of his students, taking him on scientific journeys. Romanticizing science, he made it terribly attractive, imperceptibly and subtly instilling a taste for scientific research. But, outlining tempting research prospects, he did not forget to return to reality, harshly asking his favorite question: "And what is all this for?"

It is great luck if you can say that you had a teacher in your life. The students of Petr Nikolaevich were lucky - we met such a person. And who could, wanted and managed - he was dedicated.

T. A. Nestik, Candidate of Philosophy, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "The life of Pyotr Nikolayevich was a life of ideas, and he himself was a living idea. Perhaps that is why he perceived the creative fate of other people as his own, constantly helping everyone around. Pyotr Nikolayevich liked to repeat the words of his father:" When you cut firewood, you need to be able to pull the handle of the saw towards yourself, and then let someone else pull it, just like in life - you need to share with others. "He believed in his students, after meeting with him we left him inspired and convinced of the need to think more and more deeply about what we write and do. Not a single book lay in his library for a long time, they were constantly in motion, passed from hand to hand of his students and colleagues. He treated his business relations in the same way. It is no coincidence that in recent years he has been at the center of scientific interests Petr Nikolaevich turned out to be social networks, trust and social capital. He himself was the quintessence of a "network" person: he constantly introduced colleagues to each other, shared his endless contacts. intermediary. Surprisingly, he was able to unite scientific communities and adherents of different ideological traditions, showing what fundamental directions are being developed by their joint efforts. Petr Nikolayevich acted as a "liaison" between the Soviet and foreign scientific communities, the pre-revolutionary domestic scientific heritage and modernity, the business cultures of the West and East.

Petr Nikolayevich was a "right hemispheric" scientist: a developed scientific intuition made it possible to foresee points of growth in the development of science for years to come, an absolute ear for music and a fluent knowledge of six languages ​​allowed him to simultaneously cover entire cultural horizons as a polyphonic interweaving of ideas. Forced in difficult conditions for freethinking, as he said, "to grow under a closet," Pyotr Nikolaevich never backed down and did not lose heart. He was going to celebrate his 70th birthday by participating in a marathon race, intending to conduct a conversation in Chinese on the run ... "

L. M. Sosnina, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Researcher, Head of the Scientific Archive of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences:"The image of Petr Nikolayevich as a person and a scientist in my memory is associated with such qualities as his utmost honesty, openness, generosity and a strict attitude towards himself and others. His encyclopedic memory, creative aspiration, love of life, sharpness of mind and sparkling humor were admired by colleagues and students. He formed me as a scientist, instilled the foundations of a culture of scientific work, high moral and ethical criteria for evaluating my creative activity. In my memory, Petr Nikolayevich remains an example of a scientist and a person by whom I still compare my life actions, attitudes and assessments scientific activity".

I. R. Sushkov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Department of Psychology, Ivanovo Pedagogical University:"In front of me is a photograph of Pyotr Nikolayevich, talking over a cup of tea with Serge Moskovichi. An old Zenit camera. A feeling of youth and beauty of communication. Feelings of freedom and friendship always arose when meeting with P. N. Shikhirev, despite the big difference in age. He possessed a unique property, he knew how to teach to think.His subtle sense of language, amazing breadth of vision forced others to look at familiar things in a completely new way.He forced them to turn to primary categories and, on their basis, build the entire structure of a scientific idea.

His office was littered with books. And every book that he named or could just give as a gift turned out to be the one that most of all helped in the work.

About ten years ago he said that he wrote fifty printed sheets during the summer. It was not so much the volume of the work that made a strong impression, but the fact that each page of his manuscript was filled with deep authorial reflections. His example continues to evoke in me a bright feeling of envy and the desire to be at least a little like him.