Vygotsky and Spinoza

The article analyzes Lev Vygotsky’s attempts to utilize Spinoza’s philosophical ideas in solving the methodological crisis of psychology in the 1920s and 1930s. Vygotsky had a manuscript, Uchenie ob emocijakh, where he scrutinized the doctrines of the effects on Descartes and Spinoza. Whilst Descartes’ doctrine built on a dualistic soul versus body premise, Spinoza’s starting point was monistic. Despite his clear sympathies for Spinoza’s solution, which according to him was more compatible with Marxism, too, Vygotsky did not manage to finish his study. One may, indeed, doubt whether Spinoza was able to deliver the decisive key for the solution of the dualism problem, since his philosophy built on metaphysical postulates that were unacceptable to Vygotsky.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING THE SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY OF WILHELM WUNDT FOR FOREIGN AND RUSSIAN PSYCHOLOGY

Данное сообщение было подготовлено к специальному заседанию лаборатории истории психологии и исторической психологии Института психологии РАН (20 февраля 2020 г.), посвященному 150-летию создания В. Вундтом первой экспериментальной психологической лаборатории в Германии. Обсуждается актуальность обращения к научному творчеству Вундта в настоящее время: в современной зарубежной теоретико-методологической и историко-психологической литературе ставятся задачи анализа как его научных идей, так и жизненного пути. В частности, рассматриваются неизвестные детали раннего периода его научной деятельности (в области физиологии, химии, психологии), его идеи относительно прикладной и практической психологии, культурно-исторические взгляды, анализ спада востребованности идей ученого после его смерти, роль Вундта в возникновении методологического кризиса психологии конца XIX - начала XX вв. и современного кризиса, мероприятия по сохранению наследия немецкого психолога. Подчеркивается актуальность исследования восприятия и значения идей Вундта российскими психологами и философами второй половины XIX в. Приводятся мнения и отзывы М.И. Владиславлева, М.М. Троицкого, Н.Я. Грота и С.С. Гогоцкого о работах немецкого психолога. Показано, что отечественные ученые относились к первым работам Вундта по-разному в зависимости от периода (1860-е, 1870-е, 1880-е гг.) и теоретико-методологической позиции: от резко негативного осуждения (редукции души к физиологии, отсутствия анализа отдельных психологических вопросов) до положительного одобрения (предложения комплексного подхода к изучению души, экспериментального метода). Можно констатировать, что интерес к прогрессивному мыслителю существовал еще до всеобщего признания, а полярность оценок показывает значимость его идей. This short report was prepared for a special meeting of the Laboratory of History of Psychology and Historical Psychology of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (February 20, 2020), dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the organization of the first experimental psychological laboratory in Germany by W. Wundt. The relevance of addressing the scientific work of W. Wundt at the present days is outlined: modern foreign theoretical-methodological and historical-psychological literature sets the task of analyzing W. Wundt’s scientific ideas and life path. In particular, the works examine unknown details of the early period of W. Wundt's scientific activity (in the field of physiology, chemistry, psychology), his ideas on applied and practical psychology, cultural-historical ideas, the analysis of demand decrease for the scientist's ideas after his death, the role of W. Wundt in the emergence of a methodological crisis of psychology of the late 19th - early 20th centuries and current crisis, the measures proposed to preserve the German psychologist’s heritage. The author puts the task to study the perception and significance of W. Wundt's ideas by Russian psychologists and philosophers of the second half of the 19th century. The opinions and reviews of M.I. Vladislavlev, M.M. Troitsky, N.Ya. Grot and S.S. Gogotsky about the German psychologist’s work are presented. Russian scientists treated the first works of W. Wundt differently depending on the period (1860s, 1870s, 1880s) and theoretical-methodological position: from sharply negative condemnation (soul reduction to physiology, lack of analysis of particular psychological issues) to positive approval (proposal of an integrated approach to the soul study, the experimental method). It can be stated that interest in the progressive thinker definitely existed even before widespread recognition, and the polarity of the assessments shows the significance of his ideas.

The Concept of Crisis in the History of Western Psychology

With roots that range from medicine to politics, to jurisdiction and historiography in ancient Greece, the concept of “crisis” played an eminent role in the founding years of Western academic psychology and continued to be relevant during its development in the 19th and 20th century. “Crisis” conveys the idea of an imminent danger of disintegration and breakdown, as well as a pivotal turning point with the chance of a new beginning. To this day, both levels of meaning are present in psychological discourses. Early diagnoses of a state of “crisis” of psychology date back to the end of the 19th century and focused on the question of the correct metaphysical foundation of psychology. During the interwar period, warnings of a disintegration of the discipline reached their first climax in German academia, when many eminent psychologists expressed their worries about the increasing fragmentation of the discipline. The rise of totalitarian systems in the 1930s brought an end to these debates, silencing the theoretical polyphony with physical violence. The 1960s saw a resurgence of “crisis literature” and the emergence of a more positive connotation of the concept in U.S.-American experimental psychology, when it was connected with Thomas Kuhn’s ideas of scientific “revolutions” and “paradigm shifts.” Since that time, psychological crisis literature has revolved around the question of unity, disunity, and the scientific status of the discipline. Although psychological crisis literature showed little success in solving the fundamental problems it addressed, it still provides one of the most theoretically rich and thought-provoking bodies of knowledge for theoretical and historical analyses of the discipline.

PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROBLEMS AND WAYS TO SOLVE THEM

At the beginning of its formation psychology used to be a philosophical discipline; permanent methodological crisis started along with psychology standing apart as a separate science. The common questions that defined methodological crisis of psychology are its philosophical foundation and subject of study. This article contains information about one of the attempts to find a solution to listed problems on materials of the history of Russian psychology. The path of psychology formation on a basis of Marxist philosophy wasn’t easy; there were many debates and arguments upon a subject. This way wasn’t a coincidence, it was conditioned both social processes and inner logic of this science development. The chosen historical example shows the connection between philosophy and psychology. This connection back there was reasoned by the fact that at first there was a need to defend the materialistic approach to the understanding of psychological. Currently, the question of the philosophical basis of psychology is being ignored, though in the Soviet era for a short period this crisis was overcome and methodology that was constructed allowed to achieve expected results. The methodological crisis arose again with the political system being demolished. Pluralistic methodological positions that existed afterwards couldn’t grand the actual solution, they only acknowledged the existence of a multiplicity of psychologies. One of the alternatives to further development would be the construction of an independent discipline going by the name of a philosophy of psychology. Psychology needs philosophical conceptualization and a view from the meta on its history and future evolution. This discipline can stop arguments that went on for years. We though suppose that the construction of this discipline needs full scientific cooperation including support from those who work in the field of psychology, philosophy and methodology. Constructing unified methodological and communicative space on a basis of the philosophy of psychology can help with solutions to practical tasks such as the question of consciousness or the development of artificial intelligence.

General Psychology Walks Again

Explaining the role, importance, and basic layout of general psychology, the paper has two parts. In the first part, told as a ghost story, we visit the long history of general psychology and its usual absence, aka the crisis of psychology. Drawing on the insights of among others George Henry Lewes, Herbert Spencer, Karl Bühler, and Lev Vygotsky, a number of requirements are listed that the author believes are necessary for a general psychology. In the second part is sketched the author’s proposal for such a general psychology. Built on Aristotle’s taxonomy of bio-psyches, the proposal divides psychology into four subdomains, each in need of explanation. In evolutionary sequence: Sentience, which posits the psychological present moment or now. Intentionality, which posits the future. Mind, which posits the past. Human consciousness, which posits the view from without. Sentience remains unexplained. Intentionality is linked to the second law of thermodynamics. Mind is linked to REMS in mammals. Human consciousness is linked to a new understanding of human evolution in which all the defining attributes of the human being – society, consciousness, and language – arrive all at once and together.

When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: a reassessment

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has several shortcomings that are likely contributing factors behind the widely debated replication crisis of psychology, cognitive neuroscience and biomedical science in general. We review these shortcomings and suggest that, after about 60 years of negative experience, NHST should no longer be the default, dominant statistical practice of all biomedical and psychological research. Different inferential methods (NHST, likelihood estimation, Bayesian methods, false-discovery rate control) may be most suitable for different types of research questions. Whenever researchers use NHST they should justify its use, and publish pre-study power calculations and effect sizes, including negative findings. Studies should optimally be pre-registered and raw data published. The current statistics lite educational approach for students that has sustained the widespread, spurious use of NHST should be phased out. Instead, we should encourage either more in-depth statistical training of more researchers and/or more widespread involvement of professional statisticians in all research.