The specificity of the logical approach to the analysis of thinking. Theoretical approaches to the study of thinking in foreign psychology
Active psychological research the problems of thinking began as early as the 17th century with the advancement of various hypotheses, the application of various ones, and the study of subjects. Over time, they took shape in a number of theoretical approaches. The main ones are mechanistic, teleological, holistic, genesis, personal (motivational), historical and activity.
In the mechanistic approach (G. Muller, E. Tolman, G. Simon, etc.) there is no understanding of the specifics of thinking in comparison with other mental processes. Here the conditionality of the thought process is recognized only by the external situation; a person passively obeys either his own diffuse associations, or objective stimuli, or an algorithmic program. A person's own internal activity is not investigated, therefore it is recognized as insignificant.
The main thing in the teleological approach (from Latin telos - goal), which is represented by such scientists as A. Külpe, K. Buhler, O. Selz and others, is the understanding of thinking as an independent mental process, the specificity of which lies in the internal orientation of the subject to achievement of the goal, which is formulated in the task. Thus, thinking is an active process of solving a problem. The activity of the thought process gives it a conscious character and encourages the search for the essential in the conditions of the problem. The source and basis for solving problems is the past experience of the subject.
The main issue in the holistic approach (M. Wertheimer, W. Keller, K. Dunker and others) is the question of the structure and mechanisms for solving creative problems. Thinking is treated here as a sudden understanding of essential relations in problem situation. This is achieved due to the fact that parts of the problem situation begin to be perceived in new relationships. As a result, the problem situation is restructured and objects are perceived in a new light, revealing new properties. The essence of solving the problem lies precisely in revealing these new properties of the object. Sudden understanding of the problem, or insight, V. Keller called intuition (from the English insight - insight). Past experience in solving a problem situation does not play a decisive role.
The genesis approach (J. Piaget) considers thinking as a holistic, systemically organized higher cognitive process, which is formed under the influence of external and internal environment. This is both a biological and a logical process. The formation of thinking goes through four stages of its development: sensorimotor, preoperational, specific operations and formal operations. An important concept of the theory of J. Piaget is the concept of a scheme - a flexible mental structure that reflects a person's ideas about reality. Throughout human development, schemas can change both quantitatively and qualitatively. Initially, schemas are sensorimotor in nature, but later they become cognitive.
The essence of the personal (motivational) approach (3. Freud, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, etc.) is that a person’s mental activity is seen as directed by its motives: either unconscious, in particular dreams and wit, or conscious, in particular self-actualization. So, 3. Freud considers dreams as a kind of involuntary figurative thinking, and the product of thinking as depending on emotional states and ways to overcome internal conflicts. According to A. Maslow, in order to achieve self-actualization, it is necessary to intensify mental activity.
The main idea of the historical approach (E. Durkheim, L. Levy-Bruhl, L. Vygotsky, A. Luria, etc.) to the study of thinking lies in the recognition of its socio-historical conditioning. Thinking, in fact, is identified with human consciousness. Thus, L. Vygotsky considered the assimilation of socially and historically established forms and types of activity to be the main mechanism for the development of human thinking. In his opinion, during the public historical development man, the natural mechanisms of mental processes are transformed into socio-historical. This transformation is considered as an inevitable result of the assimilation of the products of human culture by a person in the process of his communication with people.
The activity approach (S. Rubinshtein, A. Leontiev, P. Galperin and others) considers mental activity to be a derivative of practical activity: mental actions are formed in stages as a result of the transfer of external actions to the internal plan. As a result of this, the objective action is transformed into a mental one. The criterion of the truth of thinking is social practice. Thinking actions top level cannot be formed without relying on previous forms of performing the same action.
You can sign up for a consultation on a topic that interests you by paying the cost of 1 consultation
or 5 discounted consultations.
After that, contact me to choose a convenient time for a consultation.
https://www.facebook.com/marina.korobkova.1
whatsapp +84 93 558 40 15
Or by e-mail via the Contacts button
One of the leading processes of cognition is thinking. Thinking is the process of processing information by a person and highly developed animals, aimed at establishing connections and relationships between objects or phenomena of the surrounding world.
Thinking is active process knowledge of reality, since a person can not only be aware of the phenomena of the external world, but also model, construct an image of the world based on his understanding, his attitudes and motivation. Not less than important role plays the mental activity of people in their desire to know themselves, comprehend their needs and desires, their personal qualities and relationships with others.
The main characteristic of thinking that distinguishes it from others cognitive processes, is its generalized and mediated character. Unlike perception and memory, which are aimed at the knowledge of objects and the preservation of their images, the purpose of thinking is to analyze the connections and relationships between objects, as a result of which a person develops a scheme of the situation, develops a plan of action in it.
It is possible to realize the properties and qualities of an object through direct contact with it, as a result of which traces of these objects are formed in memory. That is, both memory and perception are direct processes that are in direct contact with objects. Thus, upon contact with people, we get an idea of their appearance, their appearance is preserved and helps to recognize this person at a new meeting.
It is impossible to understand the connections between objects and their relations (for example, what is harder or heavier) directly. It is also impossible to do this with simultaneous contact, which gives, although not always accurately, an idea only of appearance object. In order to know that it is always cold in winter, or that water freezes at temperatures below 0° Celsius, it is necessary to observe this phenomenon repeatedly. Only by summarizing observations can we speak with confidence about the differences between the seasons or about the properties of water. The fact that the experience of one person may not be sufficient for an accurate and objective judgment is connected with the search for supra-individual criteria that would confirm the correctness of individual generalizations. Logic is often used as such a criterion, which is transpersonal and is a crystallization of the experience of many generations. In other types of thinking that are not directly related to logic (figurative-schematic, creative), a person turns to other types of supra-individual experience, crystallized in culture (art, ethical standards etc.), to prove the objectivity and reliability of their conclusions.
As already mentioned, thinking is a process of not only generalized, but also mediated cognition, that is, in the process mental activity additional, mediating tools are used. In order to realize that iron is harder than wood, we need to compare them with each other. In the same way, looking at the water and at the wooden block, we cannot tell which of them is heavier. To do this, we need to throw a bar into the water and see if it sinks or floats. That is, we determine the weight of a tree by comparing it with water, indirectly. We test its hardness with an iron ax that cuts wood, while glass breaks on contact with it. This gives us the understanding that glass is more brittle and iron is harder than wood.
This example also shows that the first tools of labor (axe, knife, plow, etc.) were at the same time the first tools of thinking, since with their help relations between objects were established and verified. These tools were also the first abstraction, since the statement that, for example, an ax can only be made from iron or steel, but not from glass or clay, already contains a generalized result of thinking, abstracted from direct experience done by someone. This experience is passed on to the next generations both in the form of tools and in the form of words that fix its results. These are the very meanings that constitute the content of consciousness and individual person and culture of this society. It is patterns of behavior in different situations, labor activity, norms of communication, heroes works of art are confirmation of individual generalizations, that transpersonal experience, which, like logic, helps to objectify individual experience in various types of thinking.
The first studies were mainly associated with the analysis of verbal-logical thinking, which was considered as a process of associations aimed at the formation of concepts and judgments. At the same time, the psychological patterns of thinking were actually reduced to logical ones, primarily to the laws of formation of the operations of induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis.
An experimental study of the psychological mechanisms of thinking was first carried out at the beginning of the 20th century at the Würzburg School. At the same time, a tradition was laid for the study of thinking in the process of solving problems of varying complexity.
In the experiments of behaviorists (Watson, Thorndike, Tolman), the features of visual-effective, motor thinking were studied. As shown in their works, the process of solving problems in this case differs significantly from solving problems in verbal-logical, verbal thinking. Watson's experiments proved the correctness of understanding intellectual operations as internalized actions formed by trial and error.
Gestalt psychologists, on the contrary, believed that thinking does not depend on experience, but only on the image of the situation. The concept of "insight" became the key for scientists belonging to this direction, it became the basis for explaining all forms of mental activity, including, as shown in the works of Wertheimer, and productive thinking. For the first time, visual-figurative and figurative-schematic thinking, described by them, made it possible to present the whole process of forming ideas about the environment in a new way, proved the importance of images and schemes in solving problems, revealing important mechanisms creative thinking.
Koehler's experiments showed that the solution of the problem does not occur by blindly searching for the right path (like trial and error), but through spontaneous grasping of relationships, understanding. Explaining the phenomenon of "insight", Koehler argued that at the moment when phenomena enter into another situation, they acquire new feature. The combination of objects in new combinations associated with their new functions leads to the formation of a new image (gestalt), the awareness of which is the essence of thinking. Köhler called this process "Gestalt restructuring" and believed that such restructuring occurs instantly and does not depend on the subject's past experience, but only on the way objects are arranged in the field.
Of great importance for understanding the psychological patterns of the process of solving problems and becoming different forms thinking had the work of J. Piaget. Piaget started from the idea that mental development is the development of the intellect. In a series of experiments, he proved his point, showing how the level of understanding affects the speech of children, their perception and memory. He came to the conclusion that the stages of mental development are the stages of the development of the intellect, through which the child gradually passes in the formation of an increasingly adequate scheme of the situation. The basis of this scheme is just logical thinking. The intellect is the core of the development of the psyche, that it is understanding, the creation of the correct scheme of the environment that ensures adaptation to this world around.
The process of adaptation and formation of an adequate scheme of the situation occurs gradually, while two mechanisms for constructing the scheme are used - assimilation and accommodation. During assimilation, the constructed scheme is rigid, it does not change when the situation changes, but, on the contrary, a person tries to squeeze all external changes into the narrow, given framework of the already existing scheme. Accommodation is associated with a change in the finished scheme when the situation changes. In the process of solving a problem, people often use both mechanisms, since up to a certain limit a person tries to use the old scheme, and then changes it, building another, more adequate one.
In cognitive psychology, the study of the process of problem solving has also become the leading method for studying thinking. At the same time, two types of knowledge were distinguished - declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative - knowledge obtained in the process of experience, that is, knowledge about facts and objects. Procedural - knowledge of how to perform the various cognitive activities required to solve problems. It is used in the process of reasoning and decision-making and is in fact the basis of thinking.
On the historical heterogeneity of verbal thinking
The phenomenon of heterogeneity of verbal thinking (or "cognitive pluralism") is that in any culture, any person has not one single and homogeneous thinking, but different types of verbal thinking. This phenomenon has almost never been specially considered in the literature on the psychology of thinking and has not yet received a satisfactory explanation. The idea of heterogeneity in verbal thinking is rarely taken into account when discussing how theoretical problems historical development of thinking, and the results of experimental studies of historical changes and intercultural differences in thinking.
In the sciences of culture, the coexistence of different types of texts and their corresponding types of thinking is regarded as a natural and logical phenomenon. The heterogeneity of texts and types of thinking within one culture is its essential characteristic. At the same time, in psychology, one-sided evolutionism proved to be much more enduring, and its influence continues to this day. Various types of verbal thinking are still treated primarily as stages of its development and are evaluated primarily from the point of view of what level of development they represent, and not from the point of view of the functions they perform.
A prominent exception here is the work of W. James and J. Dewey. For James (1910, p. 120), the three stages or types of thinking - common sense, scientific and philosophical thinking, "each of which is excellently suited for certain purposes" - act as equivalent and functionally related to different "spheres of life". In particular, James appreciates the stage of common sense at which "all of humanity, outside the circle of European civilization, has stopped. It is quite sufficient for all practical purposes of life" (p. 113). This stage in history arose earlier than the other two, but still retains its significance: “Our main methods of thinking about things are discoveries made by very distant ancestors that managed to survive throughout the experience of all subsequent time. They form one great period, one great stage of balance in the development of the human spirit, a stage of common sense. All other stages have developed on the basis of this primary, but they have never been able to completely eliminate it” (p. 106). Psychological analysis James does not give different types of thinking or their differences from each other.
Another major representative of pragmatism, J. Dewey, although he insists on "recognizing the ultimate goal of such a setting of the mind, such a habit of thinking, which we call scientific" (Dewey, 1922, p. 7), at the same time believes that education should not replace the ability to think concretely by "abstract reflection". "Theoretical thinking is no more high type thinking than practical. A person who owns both types of thinking at will is higher than one who owns only one" (p. 126).
Thus, in psychology, it was pragmatists who were able to look at different types of thinking not only from the point of view of the evolutionary criterion - which type is higher and which is lower - but also from the point of view of the functions they perform.
Among psychologists, for whom the idea of development was central, G. Werner notes the phenomenon of heterogeneity of thinking. He raises the question of how people can understand each other, whose thinking belongs to different stages of development. Werner writes: "The genetic approach shows that the psyche of a European is changeable; that a person has more than one level of behavior, and that in different cases the same person can belong to different levels of development. In the obvious fact that there are many levels of mental activity, is the solution to the riddle of how the European mind can understand primitive types of thinking" (Werner, 1948, p. 39). Unlike James, however, Werner does not consider the functions of "less developed" types of thinking in the behavior of a European. From the standpoint of an evolutionist, it would still be natural to expect an educated person to always think scientifically.
The idea of the historical heterogeneity of thinking was shared by L.S. Vygotsky, who referred in this connection to the works of G. Werner and P.P. Blonsky: "The individual in his behavior discovers in a frozen form various completed phases of development. The genetic diversity of the personality, containing layers of various antiquity, informs it unusual complex construction and at the same time serves as a kind of genetic ladder, connecting, through a whole series of transitional forms, the higher functions of the personality with primitive behavior in onto- and phylogeny" (Vygotsky, 1983, p. 63). With regard to thinking, Vygotsky wrote: "One cannot imagine the process of change individual forms thinking and individual phases in its development as a purely mechanical process, where each new phase comes when the previous one is completely finished and completed. The picture of development turns out to be much more complicated. Different genetic forms coexist, as in earth's crust strata of various geological epochs coexist. This provision is not an exception, but rather the rule for the development of all behavior in general. We know that human behavior is not constantly on the same upper or higher plane of its development. The newest and youngest, most recent forms in the history of mankind coexist in human behavior side by side with the most ancient. An adult does not always think in terms. Very often his thinking takes place at the level of complex thinking, sometimes descending to even more elementary, more primitive forms" (Vygotsky, 1956, p. 204).
We find a functional approach to the heterogeneity of units of verbal thinking in Luria (1959, p. 536): " characteristic feature for the structure of the verbal meanings of an adult is the fact that the word retains in him all the system of connections inherent in him, starting with the most elementary and illustrative and ending with the most complex and abstract, and that, depending on various tasks, those that can become dominant then other communication systems. Without this, no plastic thinking would be possible, and a person who uses the system of the most abstract connections to solve more concrete life problems would always risk finding himself in the same position as a schizophrenic patient, in whom the second signaling system is separated from the first and whose behavior loses its meaningful and expedient character. "These words contain the idea of a functional correspondence between the nature of the tasks being solved in one or another case and the nature of the units of thinking used in this. On the whole, in the psychology of thinking (and even more so in children's and educational psychology) developed thinking is simply identified with scientific thinking, while "pre-scientific" types of verbal thinking are denied an independent meaning. This is equally characteristic of Piaget's concept and other approaches to the development of thinking.
^ Heterogeneity of verbal thinking and activity approach
The activity approach considers human activity, first of all, as objective, productive, and thus allows linking into a single system a certain type of activity, type of thinking and result of activity - in particular, verbal texts. From the point of view of this approach, the connection between the diversity of activities and the heterogeneity of thinking seems obvious. The reason for the heterogeneity of verbal thinking should be seen not in the accidental preservation in society and in the individual of the "old", "lower", "passed" stages in the socio- and ontogeny of thinking, but in the variety of activities common in society and performed by the individual. Historically, heterogeneity develops in such a way that with the development of material and spiritual production, new types of activity appear that require new types of thinking and generate them, while in view of the preservation of the former types of activity that perform a particular role in culture, functionally corresponding to them are also preserved. "old" types of thinking.
No type of verbal thinking is applicable in all types of activities, in solving any problems, and therefore cannot replace other types of thinking. It is quite obvious, for example, that scientific thinking, which is aimed at explaining phenomena according to certain rules and, accordingly, at solving a certain kind of problem, cannot replace artistic thinking, which has other functions and is used in solving a different kind of problem. The same applies to ordinary thinking (common sense). From the point of view of the activity approach, it is reasonable to speak not so much about the lower or higher stages in the development of thinking, but about the types of thinking that functionally correspond to certain types of activity. Since no culture consists of science alone, there is no reason to believe that people should constantly apply scientific thinking. Vyach. Sun. Ivanov et al. (1973, pp. 18-19) write in this regard that "the traditional history of culture takes into account for each chronological cut only "new" texts, texts created by a given era. In the real existence of culture, along with new ones, there are always texts transmitted by a given cultural tradition or brought in from outside. This gives each synchronous state of culture the features of cultural polyglotism. It is reasonable to assume that a similar polyglotism is observed in the thinking of an individual involved in various activities and forced to solve various problems. It is quite obvious that if we see in the ontogeny of verbal thinking, first of all, the assimilation of the types of verbal thinking existing in culture, then in view of the heterogeneity of the assimilated culture and the presence of different types of thinking in it, the thinking that is formed in the child must also be heterogeneous.
^ Heterogeneity of Verbal Thinking and Explaining Cross-Cultural Differences in Thinking
Sometimes the tacit assumption of intracultural homogeneity of thinking leads to the fact that, on the basis of a few experimental data, all the thinking of people in a particular culture is characterized - for example, it is declared concrete or abstract. Ignoring the heterogeneity of thinking leads to a reassessment of the role in it of either universals or intercultural differences; historical changes either absolutized or denied. Based on this or that particular data, one can at best judge the presence and nature of one or another particular type of thinking in a given individual or in a given society, but not about the general nature of their “thinking in general”.
If we proceed from the idea of historical heterogeneity of thinking, then the arguments with the help of which the possibility of a qualitative change in thinking in the course of its historical development are often disputed are not very convincing. Thus, M. Cole and his co-authors (Cole et al., 1971; Cole et al., 1976) tend to reject the idea that the current spread of school education in developing countries causes qualitative transformations in thinking, because, firstly, traditional and received school education the subjects understand each other, which would be impossible if their ways of thinking differed qualitatively from each other; secondly, the results of these two groups of subjects differed from each other in some, but not in all experiments. Both circumstances can be explained by the presence in both groups common types thinking, which does not contradict the fact that they also have qualitatively different types of thinking.
It is easy to solve the seeming contradiction that people from traditional groups, who are fluent in ethnosciences, common sense, artistic thinking, etc., at the same time do not solve some problems that seem extremely simple to an educated person (for example, simple verbal-syllogistic problems ). Failure to solve these problems can be explained by the fact that in traditional cultures there is no type of activity for which these tasks are characteristic, i.e. science, and it is quite natural, therefore, that they also lack the corresponding type of thinking.
J. Goody rightly writes that in modern literature on the problems of the relationship between culture and thinking, there are two extreme points vision, both being one-sided and therefore unacceptable. According to one of them, thinking in all cultures is the same in its essence. According to the second, "our" thinking is fundamentally different from "their" thinking (Goody, 1977). From what has been said above, it follows that both of these views should be rejected because they start from the false assumption that there is one mindset for every culture. Types of thinking do not correspond to individual cultures, but certain types activities. It is reasonable to talk not about primitive and civilized thinking, but about common sense (ordinary, practical thinking), scientific thinking, artistic thinking, etc. The basis for such a division is the functional correspondence of certain types of thinking to certain types of activity and to the tasks that have to be solved in the course of this or that activity.
In the methodological plan, it should be taken into account that any experiment can provide data not about thinking in general, but about one type of thinking and what type of thinking this subject uses when solving this experimental problem. General view about the existing (and absent) types of thinking in a particular culture can be given by an analysis of the types of activities existing in a given culture and the nature of the tasks that have to be solved in the course of their implementation.
Thus, the coexistence in any culture of different types of verbal thinking seems to be a natural and necessary phenomenon. It testifies not at all to an unfortunate return to stages already passed in the development of thinking, but to the diversity of the tasks that people have to solve in the course of their implementation. various kinds activities. This does not mean at all that different types of thinking function in isolation from each other - rather, their interaction and joint flow is characteristic of the real solution of problems.
(stages of intelligence development according to J. Piaget)
The central idea of the genetic approach to the study of intelligence is that the content, the essence of thinking can be revealed only by analyzing the patterns of its formation, development, and formation. The most clear and consistent genetic approach is presented in the concept of the stages of development of the intellect according to J. Piaget (1896-1980).
The theory of J. Piaget includes two main components: the doctrine of the functions of the intellect and the doctrine of the stages of development of the intellect.
Piaget uses the concept not "thinking", but "intelligence", which he defines as "progressive reversibility of mobile mental structures", and believes that "intelligence is a state of equilibrium towards which all consecutive adaptations of the sensorimotor and cognitive order gravitate, as well as all assimilative and accommodating interactions of the organism with the environment. This formulation is explained by the fact that in traditional ways of identifying the specifics of thinking, the latter is compared with perception, that is, with another form of cognition.
In the theory of J. Piaget, intelligence in itself general view understood as further development some fundamental biological characteristics, fundamental in the sense that they are inseparable from life. Organization and adaptation (adaptation) stand out as such characteristics. Adaptation, in turn, includes two interrelated processes - assimilation and accommodation. The balance between assimilation and accommodation is one of the main concepts of this theory. The two types of functioning of the intellect form the states of a balanced and unbalanced equilibrium state.
Organization and adaptation are the main functions of intelligence. The meaning of the term "assimilation" comes down to emphasizing the re-creation by the subject in the course of his cognitive activity some characteristics of the cognizable object. "Accommodation" is the process of adapting the cognizing subject itself to the various requirements put forward by the objective world. The cognitive experience that this person has accumulated to certain period, J. Piaget calls the cognitive structure.
In describing the functioning of the intellect, Piaget uses the concept of action schema as one of the most important concepts. In the narrow sense of the word, a schema is the sensorimotor equivalent of a concept. From the very beginning, the child acquires his experience on the basis of action: he follows with his eyes, turns his head, explores with his hands, drags, feels, grasps, explores with his mouth, moves his legs, and so on. All the experience gained is formalized in action schemes. The action scheme is the most general thing that is preserved in the action when it is repeated many times in different circumstances.
The scheme of action, in the broadest sense of the word, is a structure at a certain level mental development. The structure, according to Piaget, is a mental system or integrity, the principles of activity of which are different from the principles of activity of the parts that make up this structure. Structure is a self-regulating system. New mental structures are formed on the basis of action. One of the features of the functioning of the human intellect is that not every content received from the outside world can be assimilated (assimilated), but only that which at least approximately corresponds to internal structures individual.
The central core of the genesis of intelligence, according to Piaget, forms the formation of logical thinking, the ability for which, according to Piaget, is neither innate nor preformed in the human spirit. Logical thinking is a product of the growing activity of the subject in his relationship with the outside world.
J. Piaget identified four main stages in the development of logical thinking:
1. Sensorimotor, preverbal intelligence (from 0 to 1.5-2 years).
Sensorimotor, preverbal intelligence has natural origins in perception and motor skills, in particular, going beyond direct contact with an object (perception), establishing and quickly automating links between observing an object and acting with it (skill). In the course of the formation of sensorimotor intelligence, the goals and means of performing practical actions are correlated with each other, their causal relationships and relationships are organized.
The first stage of the development of the intellect is that form of mobile balance, to which the psychological mechanisms of perception and skill formation strive, reaching it by moving into a new sphere of application - the field of purposeful practical actions.
2. Visual (intuitive), pre-operational thinking (from 1.5-2 to 7-8 years).
Visual (intuitive), pre-operational thinking begins with the mastery of symbolic speech, which creates the possibility of interiorizing practical action. The intuitive representation of an object, an event is the acceptance of some part of it (for example, the height of the level of water poured into a glass) for the whole (general shape) of a glass of water, including its width: and if this is so, then it is intuitively "clear" - there is more water in one of the glasses where its level is higher". These ways of interaction of the subject with the object are not yet smart operations, although they are striving for them.
3. Stage of specific operations (from 7-8 to 11-12 years).
At the stage of specific operations, the child develops the ability to internally carry out those operations that he had previously performed externally. Such thinking already allows the child to carry out comparison, classification, systematization, but only on specific material.
4. Stage of formal or propositional operations (from 11-12 years old).
The stage of formal or propositional operations. At this stage, the genesis of intelligence is completed. During this period, the ability to think hypothetically-deductively appears, theoretically, a system of operations of propositional logic (propositional logic) is formed. With equal success, the subject can now operate both with objects and with statements. Along with the operations of propositional logic, the child during this period forms new groups of operations that are not directly related to the logic of propositions; there are operational schemes related to probability, multiplicative compositions, etc. The appearance of such systems of operations indicates, according to J. Piaget, that the intellect is formed.
Thus, J. Piaget considers thinking as a biological process. The emergence of thinking, in his opinion, is due to the biological processes of adaptation to environment. Logical thinking is a product of the growing activity of the subject in his relationship with the outside world.
Piaget built the theory of children's thinking on the basis of logic and biology. He proceeded from the idea that the basis of mental development is the development of the intellect; the stages of mental development are the stages of the development of the intellect, through which the child gradually passes in the formation of an increasingly adequate scheme of the situation. The basis of this scheme is logical thinking. In the process of development, the organism adapts to the environment. At the same time, adaptation is not a passive process, but an active interaction of the organism with the environment. The process of adaptation and formation of an adequate scheme of the situation occurs gradually, while the child uses two mechanisms for its construction - assimilation and accommodation.
19. Definitions of thinking and its types. Basic approaches to the study of thinking. Theories of thinking.There are two main definitions of thinking. The first definition is given in within the philosophical tradition division of knowledge into two types: sensual and rational.
Thinking- cognitive activity, the products of which are characterized by a generalized and indirect reflection of reality ( O.K.Tikhomirov).
Thinking– problem solving process ( W. James).
Types of thinking. There are 5 main classifications.
autistic- thinking is more in line with the needs and emotions of a person, and not with the objective properties and laws of the surrounding world; realistic- logical thinking, serving for cognition and adaptation ( Bleiler).
abstract– thinking in the form of an abstract idea;
Practical– a mindset characterized by time constraints, greater connection with practice, and a greater degree of responsibility.
Creative- thinking, the result of which is the discovery of a fundamentally new solution to the problem or its improvement.
Visual and effective- seen in infancy early childhood(2-3 years), aimed at solving problems in the form of actions (get something with your hands, etc.)
Verbal-logical - begins to form in the younger school age, finally develops at the age of 11-12, the child becomes able to solve problems according to the laws of logic (genetic classification S.L. Rubinstein).
Basic approaches to the study of thinking
Theories of thinking as a process of problem solving
Theory of thinking as a process of replenishment of the complex (O. Zelts )
Requirements for certain conditions
The desire to solve the problem
Operations (methods for solving the problem)
When solving a problem, a person sorts out from his experience various options that would satisfy the condition of the problem.
The specificity of a productive decision is that the subject is faced with solving a new problem, the means for the solution of which a person does not have in experience. Selz identifies 3 ways to solve the problem:
A new problem can be solved with the help of operations that were once successfully used to solve other problems (a more general operation is used to solve a particular operation).
The problem is solved with the help of potential operations (such operations that are present in the experience, but the person still does not know anything about them, they have never been used before).
The problem is solved with the help of operations that were once allocated by the subject for solving another problem, but turned out to be unsuitable for it.
Gestalt theory of productive thinking (K.Dunker )
The desire to solve the problem
Sudden understanding of why the task is not being solved
Functional solution
2 stage
Concrete implementation of a functional solution
The solution of the problem
Dunker confronts Zelts. The solution is not extracted from past experience but it happens in a completely different way. Dunker pithy describes "James' insight." The initial stage of the first stage is penetration into the conflict. Understanding the reason why the problem is not solved is the most important condition for its solution. The first stage is the stage insight, sudden solution An example is the solution of problems by Koehler's monkeys. Understanding why the problem is not solved- the limbs are too short. Functional solution- elongate the limbs. Specific solution- lengthen with a stick.
Theory of thinking as an information processing process (A. Newell, G. Simon )
Scientists have developed a program "individual problem solver", which contains a typical way of solving problems. Further, they developed a program for creative thinking - "logic theorist". This program turned out to be able to find new proofs of already known theorems.
As a result of the study of creative thinking, the authors described two main strategies for people to search for something new. ways of solving problems. They called these strategies "algorithms" and "heuristics". Algorithms– rules for finding a solution to the problem, which involve consideration of all options, ways to solve it. The use of algorithms is a guarantee of finding a solution. Heuristics- rules for finding a solution to the problem, which involve the consideration of only a certain limited number of options possible ways problem solving. Heuristics do not guarantee that a solution will be found. If the right way is inside, then the solution will be found much faster. In practice, people prefer to be guided by heuristics much more often when solving creative problems. The authors tried to create computer programs for individual heuristics, they succeeded. These works prompted not only psychologists, but also other scientists to create artificial intelligence.
The theory of thinking as a generalized and mediated knowledge of reality (S.L. Rubinshtein )
The process of problem solving is not limited to thinking. Thinking participates in this process along with other mental processes and states (motivation, emotions, perception, will, etc.). Thinking as a generalized and indirect reflection of reality is the result of participation in the mental process of certain operations, thanks to which a specific cognitive product arises - thoughts. This is only possible if the thought process is present five operations:
Comparison operation consists in establishing the identity or difference between the objects to which the cognitive activity of the subject is directed. The result of this operation is usually a certain classification of objects.
Analysis operation consists of dismemberment of objects cognitive activity into individual elements.
Synthesis operation is the opposite of analysis, its essence is to establish all kinds of connections between the various elements identified as a result of the analysis.
Abstraction operation highlighting one aspect in the subject and at the same time distinguishing it from all others. The result of abstraction is the selection of an essential attribute, one object, phenomenon.
Generalization operation the establishment in various objects of some common properties for them.