B.F. Lomov & A.V. Brushlinsky Congress “History of the Institute, history of psychology, and history of science” Moscow, December 22, 2021

The conference “B.F. Lomov and A.V. Brushlinsky — history of the Institute, history of psychology, history of science” dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences was held as a session of the permanent seminar “Dialogue of Scientific Schools” in IP RAS on November 22, 2021. The idea of the conference was to discuss the foundations of the scientific schools of the Institute, to trace the contribution of B.F. Lomov and A.V. Brushlinsky, the first directors of IP RAS, to the development of science, their influence on modern psychology.

Discussion

The conference “B.F. Lomov and A.V. Brushlinsky — history of the Institute, history of psychology, history of science” dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences was held as a session of the permanent seminar “Dialogue of Scientific Schools” in the Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences on November 22, 2021.

In his welcoming speech the Director of the Institute of Psychology, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences D.V. Ushakov said that the scientific schools of B.F. Lomov and A.V. Brushlinsky had defined the scientific style of the Institute and had set a high methodological level of research, relying on their predecessors of B.G. Ananyev and S.L. Rubinstein. From the very beginning the theoretical and empirical research had been focused on the actual needs of science and practice, including the psychology of thinking, engineering psychology, etc. The contacts between the Soviet scientists with foreign colleagues had been developing intensively. Pointing to the importance of understanding the history of the Institute of Psychology development, D.V. Ushakov emphasized the need to be open to the new areas of research, for example, related to big data analysis, and to the challenges of such intensively developing field as artificial intelligence. One of the unique features of Russian science – the preservation of traditions and the development of research integrated within the framework of historically established scientific schools – was noted.

The Scientific Director of the Institute of Psychology RAS, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.L. Zhuravlev raised the question about the development of the scientific schools and the existence of a single school of the whole Institute – the IPRAS meta-school. A.L. Zhuravlev noted that the foundations laid down in the Project for the establishment of the Institute had had an integrative character; they included the tasks of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary human study. Systemic methodology has been the core feature of the scientific school of the Institute of Psychology, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (later – the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences). A.L. Zhuravlev mentioned three fundamental roots of the Institute’s research — interdisciplinary research of the Leningrad school of B.G. Ananyev, the subject-activity approach of S.L. Rubinstein and the theory of functional systems by P.K. Anokhin. He pointed out the need to identify separate periods in the development of the scientific school of the Institute.

D.V. Ushakov and A.L. Zhuravlev had named the famous scientists who had worked and were still working at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences —  Ya.A. Ponomarev, K.A. Abluhanova-Slavskaya, O.K. Tikhomirov, V.N. Pushkin, D.N. Zavalishina, L.I. Antsyferova, K.K. Platonov, K.V. Bardin, Yu.M. Zabrodin, V.Yu. Krylov, V.B. Shvyrkov and others.

In the first part of the seminar “Scientific creativity and scientific heritage of B.F. Lomov” the reports were made by Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Education, Dean of the Faculty of Psychology, Yaroslavl State University, named after P.G. Demidov, A.V. Karpov, Dr. Sci. in Psychology V.N. Nosulenko and Dr. Sci. in Psychology E.S. Samoilenko, Institute of Psychology RAS. This part of the seminar was completed by the report of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.L. Zhuravlev, Dr. Sci. in Psychology Professor V.P. Poznyakov.

Karpov A.V. B.F. Lomov: a modern retrospective of his scientific creativity

In the report “Boris Fedorovich Lomov – a modern retrospective of his scientific creation”, Professor A.V. Karpov followed the development of B.F. Lomov’s ideas, including those being implemented in Yaroslavl University, and highlighted three main directions. At first, he noted the methodological works of B.F. Lomov, and above all, the systemic approach, which B.F. Lomov urged to consider not as a final result, but as a way to start the study of the psyche. It gave a powerful impetus to the further development of a systemic approach. The systemic approach continues to develop now, in many versions, including the developing metasystem approach by A.V. Karpov, where B.F. Lomov’s ideas about the systemic nature of the psyche are coupled with post-nonclassical versions of systemic methodology. Further, Karpov pointed to the paradigmatic shift made by B.F. Lomov in the understanding of one of the basic concepts of Russian psychology – activity. Lomov’s development of a systemic approach allowed us to move to a polystructural interpretation of activity and to its investigation in the structural-morphological paradigm. According to A.V. Karpov, further logic of the research of activity in its isomorphism with regulatory processes leads to the transformation from the structural-morphological paradigm into the system-dynamic one. Finally, a systematic approach leads to the study of the procedural content of the psyche and to the study of its hierarchical structure. At the same time A.V. Karpov pointed out that we are now at the initial levels of development of ideas about the procedural content of the psyche. Summing up his speech, A.V. Karpov emphasized the synthetic nature of not only the systemic approach developed by Lomov, but also of the personality of B.F. Lomov, who synthesized in his work theory and practice, various schools, various approaches, uniting and inspiring the team he led. In conclusion A.V. Karpov congratulated the Institute on the anniversary on behalf of all psychologists of Yaroslavl, wished to remain the vanguard of psychology, to achieve new discoveries and fundamental results.

Nosulenko V.N., Samoylenko E.S. B.F. Lomov’s general psychological concept of communication and the relevance of the cognitive-communicative paradigm

The report highlights the main theses of B.F. Lomov’s cognitive-communicative paradigm and some directions of the development of these ideas. Developing these theses, B.F. Lomov initiated a research direction where cognitive processes were studied in various communicative situations. It is emphasized that communication is one of the most important determinants of cognitive processes, which, in turn, determine the nature of communication between subjects. Any natural situation of human interaction can be considered as a communicative situation, and communication acts as a source of data on the characteristics of cognitive processes in communicants. In empirical studies, the model of the most common natural communicative situation has become the situation of reference communication between communicants transmitting information about some object of reality to each other.

It is noted that in the school of B.F. Lomov, special attention was paid to the mutual influence of communication, cognitive processes, and activity. The result of the integration of these categories was another dimension that significantly expands the application of the paradigm of cognition and communication – joint activity. Much attention in the report is paid to empirical studies of joint activities initiated by B.F. Lomov and continued to this day by followers of his ideas.

An important consequence of the application of the cognitive-communicative paradigm was the identification of the problem of combining and establishing a connection between the data obtained using different methods and approaches. Examples of the implementation of B.F. Lomov’s systematic approach are given, in particular, the triangulation strategy, the task of which is to determine the patterns between empirical data, research methods and concepts belonging to different scientific fields. This is exactly what is shown in the cognitive-communicative paradigm of B.F. Lomov, where the task of examining the role of communication in the organization of perceptual processes required, for example, a new interpretation of psychophysical data.

The relevance of the questions posed by B.F. Lomov in modern conditions, when the joint activity of people is mediated by information and communication technologies, is discussed. It is shown that the digital environment radically changes the relations between the participants of joint activities.

At the end of the report, B.F. Lomov’s special attitude to the problem of interaction between man and technology was noted, based on an anthropocentric approach and assigning a dominant place to man in the “Man-Technology” system. Modern trends are associated with the penetration of the latest technologies into all spheres of human life and are often characterized by the transfer of an increasing role to technology, up to the transfer of technology the right to choose the purpose of activity and decision-making to achieve it. One can only assume that the features of modern interaction between man and technology could be of interest to B.F. Lomov.

Zhuravlev A.L., Poznyakov V.P. About the views of B.F. Lomov on the problems of social psychology

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Professor A.L. Zhuravlev and Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor V.P. Poznyakov presented the analysis of the scientific views of B.F. Lomov in the field of social psychology. The authors of the report identified and described three areas of social psychology developed by B.F. Lomov. First of all, Professor V.P. Poznyakov presented the direction of theoretical and empirical research of communication problems. B.F. Lomov described the function of establishing relationships between people, as an independent function of communication, along with the functions of organizing joint activity and people knowing each other. Thus, the concept of relationships was included in the system of socio-psychological concepts as one of the central categories of social psychology. The second direction is the development of B.F. Lomov psychological problems of collaborative activity. B.F. Lomov considered interpersonal relations in a group as an important structural element of joint activity, mediating its organization and productivity. At the same time, joint activity in the theoretical concepts of B.F. Lomov is a very broad concept: any phenomenon of the life of society can be considered as a joint activity of people, and any individual activity is an integral part of joint activity. The third direction highlights the contribution of B.F. Lomov in the formation and development of management psychology. Lomov’s comprehensive approach to the psychology of management, as a new scientific direction, made it possible to integrate the psychological problems of managerial activity or the psychology of a manager’s work, and the socio-psychological problems of team leadership, interaction and relationships between the manager and other participants in managerial interaction. Summing up the analysis of B.F. Lomov’s ideas in the field of social psychology, the authors of the report note that Lomov implemented the principle of the unity of theory, experiment and practice in his works. Taking into account the contribution of B.F. Lomov in the revival, formation and development of social psychology, he should be considered as one of the founders and leaders of the Moscow academic school of social psychology.

Dr. Sci. in Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of General Psychology V.V. Selivanov (Smolensk State University), Dr. Sci. in Psychology, Professor V.V. Znakov, Dr. Sci. in Psychology, Professor E.A. Sergienko (Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences) presented their reports during the second part of the seminar “The history of the IP RAS continues: A.V. Brushlinsky on the subject, development, forecasting”.

Selivanov V.V. Subject-activity and procedural psychology of A.V. Brushlinsky

V.V. Selivanov points out that the founders of the subject-activity approach are S.L. Rubinstein and K.A. Albukhanova-Slavskaya, A.V. Brushlinsky. A.V. Brushlinsky’s contribution is that he expanded the understanding of the subject in psychology and determined its main characteristics. From V.V. Selivanov’s point of view, the oppening of new characteristics of the subject and their articulation with such approach to thinking as a process allows us to identify special facets of personal conditioning of thinking, the ratio of cognitive and affective, the regulation of mental search.

V.V. Selivanov’s reported that A.V. Brushlinsky was the creator of the continuum-genetic approach in which thinking was considered as an activities and a process. The processuality of thinking was characterized by continuity of thinking; changing relations of external and internal conditions; changing functional structure of thinking; creativity (new forecasts of what you are looking for, new correlations of conditions and requirements of tasks).

Further, V.V. Selivanov discusses the issue, that thinking contains both cognitive and emotional components. Cognitive components of thinking include thought processes (analysis, synthesis, generalization, abstraction, analysis through synthesis as the main mechanism of the thinking process); mental actions, operations (for example, mathematical operations: addition / subtraction, multiplication / division); forms of thinking (concepts, judgments, conclusions). In V.V. Selivanov’s and his colleagues investigations the three-membered structure of the cognitive part of thinking is correlated with emotional components. Emotional components of thinking include operational meanings, personal meanings of the conditions and requirements of the task; resistant meanings.

It was pointed out that the development of the continuum-genetic (procedural) approach takes place in the following areas of research: ontology of the unconscious; “instantaneous” insight; “subsensory substructure”; ontology of critical thinking (study by M.V. Gudkova); ontology of structural and functional properties of intelligence; ontology of virtual reality.

In conclusion, V.V. Selivanov noted that the new ontology of the subject’s thinking, created by A.V. Brushlinsky, affects all modern areas of research in psychology. The importance of these studies is combined with the priority areas of science highlighted by Russian President Vladimir Putin – the study of the meta-universe and artificial intelligence, which, according to V.V. Selivanov, are impossible without the study of virtual reality.

Znakov V.V. A.V. Brushlinsky, a prediction and the psychology of the possible

Report of V.V. Znakov “A.V. Brushlinsky, a prediction and the  “ highlighted the influence of the ideas of A.V. Brushlinsky on modern psychology, in particular the influence of the idea of thinking as a prediction on the formation of a new field of psychological science – the psychology of the possible. It was noted that in the studies of Andrei Vladimirovich, the problem of the ratio of natural and social in a person was gradually transformed into the task of determining the ratio of the past and the future, the influence of previously acquired knowledge on a prediction of possible options for human behavior. Why only today did we start talking about a new field of psychology – the psychology of the possible? Viktor Vladimirovich notes that the novelty lies in the new focus of scientists – the emphasis on the possible as unexpected, incredible, and improbable. In psychology of the possible, at one pole of the understanding by psychologists is the adaptive possible, based on past experience, on the opposite – the possible as a pre-adaptive phenomenon (understanding of events that are not causally related to the ontogenesis of the subject). The connecting link between these poles is the idea of the sought-for in human thinking, the prediction of the initially unknown when solving the problem. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the psychology of the possible were analyzed in detail – the philosophy of the possible by M.N. Epstein, the historical and evolutionary concept of pre-adaptation to uncertainty by A.G. Asmolov with colleagues, scientific ideas about the uncertainty of the human world. The concept of possible thinking, which analyzes different options and alternatives of the possible, is disclosed and substantiated in detail. At the end of the report, V.V. Znakov summarized three large groups of phenomena in the psychology of the possible: the phenomena traditionally studied in psychology that relate to the possible (affordances, anticipation, and others), the phenomena of the sought-for, and the understanding of the possible as a pre-adaptive phenomenon that characterizes unstable situations, the occurrence of which cannot be predicted.

Sergienko E.A.  Mental development from the perspective of a system-subjective approach

E.A. Sergienko presented a report on the topic “Mental development from the perspective of a system-subjective approach”. The report is devoted to the system-subject approach, which combines two areas of scientific knowledge – the system approach of B.F. Lomov and the subjective approach of A.V. Brushlinsky. Starting her report, Elena Alekseevna quotes the motto with reference to the composer Gustav Mahler: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” This motto emphasizes and reflects the essence of scientific communication, where it becomes important not only to preserve a scientific idea, but also to develop and enrich it.

The meaning of one of the critical remarks directed to the cultural-historical theory of L.S. Vygotsky about the role of the sign in the development of the psyche is revealed. The consciousness of an individual, as A.V. Brushlinsky believed, is indeed always formed under the influence of public consciousness, but it happens selectively. This idea is reflected in the works of A.V. Brushlinsky, who wrote about important issues of determining mental development, the relationship between biological and social, individual and social development of a person.

Special attention is paid to the development of Andrey Vladimirovich’s ideas in modern concepts. Thus, the principle of continuity and succession of mental development, which A.V. Brushlinsky wrote about, is currently reflected in such fields of science as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, etc. Gilbert Gottlieb’s concept of “Probabilistic epigenesis” and his model, which points to the validity of the formula “external through internal” with a constant change of both, are given. The model reveals the principle of ontogenetic and evolutionary development, the multideterminacy of mental development, and emphasizes the reciprocity of the level of development. The final thesis of the report is devoted to the system-subjective approach in psychology. The comparison of system and subject-activity approaches is given, their weaknesses are highlighted. It tells about the correct criterion of the subject, about the role of the continuum-genetic principle in understanding human development. It is noted that the subject and personality should be considered as two hypostases of human individuality, which represent an inseparable unity and develop from the earliest stages of ontogenesis on the principle of continuity and succession, integration-differentiation. At the end of the report, a diagram of the selected levels of subjectivity is presented, which reflects the fact that the hierarchical principle of B.F. Lomov in modern science is supplemented by the principle of heterarchy.

The RTC, named “50 years later: without changing traditions” was organized at the end of the seminar. The short reports were made by T.N. Savchenko, E.B. Lomova, I.M. Brushlinsky, V.I. Morosanova, E.V. Volkova, I.G. Skotnikova, Yu.N. Oleinik, V.A. Tolochek, N.V. Tarabrina, M. Nyagolova, Yu.V. Bykhovets, T.V. Drobysheva, A.L. Zhuravlev, D.V. Ushakov.

Author contributions. N. E. Kharlamenkova: conceptualization, writing-review & editing G. A. Vilenskaya, E. I. Lebedeva, J. V. Bykhovets, E. A. Nikitina, N. N. Kazymova, D. A. Nikitina, A. Yu. Ulanova: writing-review & editing, writing-original draft preparation

Competing interests. The authors declare no conflict of interest.