Lyha T. History of modern psychology

The popularity and attractiveness of biheviorism Why did the brave speeches of Watson won such a huge number of adherents of his ideas? Of course, the overwhelming majority was completely indifferent, that some psychologists advocated the existence of consciousness, and

The fate of biheviorism Despite the fact that the cognitive alternative to behaviorism, which arose from the inside, succeeded in the modification of the entire behavior movement inherited from John B. Watson and Skinner, it is important not to forget that Albert Bandura, Julian Rotter and

Criticism If you criticize others, improving the weaknesses and shortcomings, you will quickly lose peace. If you continue to continue to do this, you will forever lose the joy of life. Try to actuate the car that interferes

John Watson (1878-1958) The founder of Beheviorism John Watson was born on January 9, 1878 in Southern California. When the boy was thirteen years, the father left the family, and in the future the childhood of John took place on the farm - in poverty and loneliness. Later Watson recalled that bad

Criticism you can stop blaming others and cross out your lives from your life. But the best thing you can do with critical judgments is only to reduce their quantity in your daily life. Judge, criticize - it means to see the world as you are, and

Problems of any approach can be in principle to divide into three main groups. The most common, perhaps are the problems of argument: as part of the approach, a convincing argumentation method should be developed. The greatest actual theoretical difficulty, meanwhile, is associated with the problem of the method, in this case, presented at least three components: problems of verification, logical analysis of the natural language and the actual behavior concept of a psychological explanation, respectively. Show adequacy of the task method and it means to significantly solve the problem of argument. Finally, the metaphysical problems of the theory deserve mention, namely, as far as the prerequisites are acceptable, which the theory obliges us to take. The demonstration of their admissibility or principled disposability within the approach without its radical revision of unacceptable prerequisites is also a significant part of the solution to the problem of argumentation. As far as this problem is solved by solving two other types of problems, it depends on how the latter are fixed by standard objections against the theory of this species. If standard objections are limited to reference to the difficulties of the methodological and metaphysical species, which the theory is capable of responding, then we can say that it has a potential or method of effective argument in its favor.

The most, perhaps, a well-known standard objection against the Beheviorist, primarily a reducing or eliminating, mental understanding is to indicate that it is not capable of providing us with effective psychological criteria. If psychology examines only behavior and is not engaged in consciousness, but interest in consciousness and mental, nevertheless, is preserved, which independent significance such psychology would have, she will not be able to replace the psychology in the classical sense. If the behavior psychology claims to externalization of consciousness and mental, i.e. On the provision of their verified criteria, it is quite appreciation that behavior psychology simply does not cope with this task. The classic example of such an inability, on common recognition, demonstrate the behavior criteria for the differences between rational action or behavior from the irrational or behavior of some defined type From his simulation. So, Hilary Putnam offers such a mental experiment: Let another world in which pain, for example, otherwise, is associated with behavior, as well as in our world, and with external causes of pain. Let in this world there is a community of superspartents or supercons, in which adults his members are able to successfully suppress any involuntary pain. They may, on the occasion, recognize that they experience pain, but always - a calm tone, not emotionally, etc. (i.e., as they usually talk about other things, stating them). They do not otherwise show their pain. Nevertheless, it insists Patnam, they experience pain (phenomenally it takes place in this community) and they do not like it the same way as in our world. They even recognize that they are worth a big effort to behave as they, having pain. It can be assumed that children and immature citizens in this society do not know how else or do not cope with the successful suppression of pain behavior (to one degree or another): therefore, there is enough reason to attribute the presence of a phenomenon of pain in this community as a whole, even on the basis of behavior criteria . But what are our criteria in order to judge what such behavior is an involuntary reaction to pain in these unknown representatives of the imaginary world? It can be considered such behavior the usual behavior of avoiding sources of pain, but avoiding behavior can be understood with the same success and as an involuntary response to any other, not pain, sensations. In order not to get involved in these difficulties, Patthem proposes to consider the supersparters in millions of years of their evolution, as a result of which they began to be born completely echiefed children: speakers in the language of adults who know the multiplication table with opinions on political issues And, by the way, separating the dominant Spartan ideas about the importance of not the manifestation of pain, as in the form of a statement. In this case, a mental experiment will not assume any involuntary reactions to pain in such a community. Nevertheless, Patnham considers absurd to believe that such people cannot be attributed to pain. To reveal this absurdity, it is proposed to imagine that we managed to turn an adult superspartance into our ideology: in this case, it can be assumed, it will begin to be normal (from our point of view) to react to pain. The behavior will then be forced to admit that through this only member of the Superpartan community, we demonstrated the existence of involuntary pain reactions in the entire community and that, thus, the attribution of pain in the whole community is legally legitimate. But this means that if this only person had never lived and we would have the opportunity to demonstrate only theoretically, these people experience pain, then in this case the pains would be unlawful.

Some behaviorists may argue that in the case of the worlds described, the corresponding verbal behavior will just be the necessary form of pain behavior. Answering this, Patnhem offers to imagine a world in which there are no pains about pain: X-world, as he calls him. Supercupratans live in this world who even overwhelms pain: such citizens, even if each of them can think about pain and even have the word "pain," in their idiolek, never recognize that they have pain; They will even pretend that the words of this do not know or know nothing about the phenomenon to which it refers. In short, the inhabitants of the X-world at all do not demonstrate the presence of pain (children completely since the birth of anchored). There is no way to attribute pain based on behavior criterion to such people. But the inhabitants of the X-world, nevertheless, insists Patnam, have pain. But, we note that if the possibility of calling a member of such a community to our ideology is excluded, for example, due to too much differences between us and them, then in this case the only thing that will support the relevance of attributing pains to them is our metaphysics of mental. A thought experiment Patnaem offers the world of absolute simulation of the absence of pain, where the behavioral signs are generally impossible to expose this simulation. Bihewician however, it may argue that in relation to this world it is impossible to talk about the presence of a phenomenon of pain: these are we imagining such X-world "know" regarding him that its inhabitants are painful, but from the inside of this world or faced with the real such community, such Knowledge We cannot receive and then our statement that, despite the fact that it does not appear in any way, they are experiencing (or may experience) pain will be completely unreasonable. Patnama has an answer to this: he disagrees that his example designs a situation in which there are no ways to distinguish the case when there are pain, but it does not appear in behavior, from the case when it is simply not; He insists that his example shows only that according to external behavior it is impossible to distinguish one case from the other, but in principle there are other criteria for differences. For example, he says, you can explore the brain of the inhabitant of the city. Appeal to such criteria, of course, involves the complexity of another species associated with the program of physicialism. Such a study can give the results of the desired species, only if a psychophysical identity supporting such results, or rather, such an interpretation of the results obtained is generally true.

Another type of criticism is repelled from the analysis language Means and the language of biheviorism. So, N. Khomsky) argues in favor of the fact that Skinner creates the illusion of a strict scientific theory applicable in a very wide range, although in fact it may well be so that the terms used to describe behavior in laboratory conditions, and the terms used for describing real behavior, are only homonyms, between the values \u200b\u200bof which exist in best case, rather foggy similarity. Bisis of biheviorism - "stimulus" and "reaction". Skinner undertakes to use the narrow definitions of these terms: a fragment of the environment and a fragment of behavior is called an incentive (causing, distinguished or reinforcing) and reaction, respectively, then and only if they are correlated through the law (Lawfully related); This means that the dynamic laws correlate them demonstrate smooth and reproduced dependencies. So, if we look at the red chair and say "red", the reaction is under the control of the stimulus of the Redness; If we say "stools", the reaction is under the control of the assembly of properties (which Skinner calls the object) - chalness; And the same applies to any reaction. This method, according to Khomsky, is as simple, as languidly, since we can allocate so many properties as we do not have synonymous expressions for their description in our language; We can explain the wide range of reactions in the terms of the skinner of the functional analysis, highlighting the incentives for each reaction. But the word "stimulus" loses all objectivity in this use, since in this case the incentives cease to be part of the external physical world (as it is supposed to be Skinner), and turn out to be part of the body. We define the stimulus when we observe (for example, a speech) reaction. We cannot predict language behavior in terms of incentives affecting the speaker outside, since we do not know what the current incentives affecting it until we receive the reaction. Moreover, since we cannot control the property of the physical object, to which the individual reacts, except in extremely artificial (laboratory) cases, the approval of Skinner that its system, as opposed to traditional, allows practical control Language behavior, just false. This kind of objection is also expressed against the proposed interpretation of other key behavior termines.

In a certain respect, the fundamental argument against (at least externalizing mental) behavior is indicated by the following circumstance: the fact that the body does or has a disposition of doing at the moment, represents a very complex function of its assisted and desires along with its current sensual data and Memories. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that it will be possible to compare internally behavioral predicates to psychological predicates in the way that biheviorism requires, namely: so that for each type psychological state The body is in this state, if only if a certain behavioral predicate is true relative to this organism. This assumes that behaviorism is extremely probably false simply by virtue of their empirical consequences and regardless of his implausibility as a semantic thesis. Beheviorism cannot be true until the truth of the correlation between consciousness and behavior is not established, and the latter is not true.

Another objection appeals to the problem of someone else's consciousness: the idea of \u200b\u200bsomeone else's consciousness is based on our sociological and social philosophical concepts; We could not build social sciences, without endowing other individuals with certain characteristics that make them similar (by description) by the most appropriate (i.e. we ourselves or, rather, each of us in this role). The subject attributes to another consciousness on the basis of the presumption of recognizing him like this, he comes from what he knows about himself, which has consciousness. But if we learn their own consciousness just like someone else, following the recommendations of behaviorists, what kind of presumption here can correspond to the presumption of consciousness on the basis of the recognition of the likeness; After all, someone else should initiate as a conscious creature and a source of an analogy? Bihewicism, further, (probably), is well compatible with a promising psychological description "from a third party", but its compatibility with the prospect of the "first person" is very dubious. This kind of criticism develops, in particular, one of the most consistent adherents of the materialistic concept of the consciousness of D. Armstrong. Armstrong is one of those who believe that although human behavior constitutes our foundation for the attribution to it (a third party) of certain mental processes, it cannot be identified with its mental processes; With this, however, Skinner could agree. But it is interesting to the foundation on which Armstrong refuses to identify mental with behavior. He considers a fact, contrary to the fact that Rail and philosophers of the "ordinary language" say that regarding themselves we draw conclusions about our mental states on the basis of observations of their own behavior. Armstrong believes that without the concept of causality, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe disposition does not work: just as a certain molecular constitution of glass is indeed responsible for the fact that, if the glass is broken, it will break, and, accordingly, constitutive in relation to the dispositional characteristic "beating", a certain physical The Constitution of a person is responsible for being able to be able to perform certain types of species in certain circumstances. But, Armstrong claims, the explanation of consciousness in terms of physical reasons and consequences may be a good theory of consciousness not only from the point of view of the first person, but also from the point of view of a third party. The order of his arguments here is this: we need only three parcels to bring the existence of consciousness from observing the circumstances of the behavior of another individual, which is assumed to be an expression of this consciousness. 1) behavior has a certain reason. 2) This reason is inside the individual whose behavior is observed. 3) The complexity of this reason corresponds to the complexity of behavior. Thus, the argument of this type is opposed to one approach to understanding the mental other, namely physicalism and aims, rather, to demonstrate its advantages than just to discredit behaviorism. However, according to many, it is from the adoption of such parcels that the attribution of someone else's consciousness begins.

Most of all objections to Skinner's behaviorism caused its extreme positivism and denial of all theories. Opponents of the skin - RA argue that all theoretical constructions cannot be reduced to zero. Since the details of the experiment must be planned in advance, then this in itself is evidence of the construction of at least the simplest theory. It was also noted that the adoption of the cinema principles of the basic principles for the formation of conditional reflexes as a basis for its work is also to some extent theoretization.

The prevailing system of views attached to the skinner of confidence in economic, social, political and religious issues. In 1986, he wrote an article with a promising title<Что неправильно в западном образе жизни?> (What is Vrong Wesld?) In this article, he argued that<поведение жителей Запада ухудшилось, но его можно улучшить посредством применения принципов, выведенных на основании экспериментального анализа поведения> (Skinner. 1986. P. 568). Critics accused the skin on the fact that his readiness to extrapolate on the basis of experienced data is incompatible with its anti-historical installations and demonstrates the fact that in its desire to submit own project Reconstruction of the Company he goes beyond strictly observed data.

A narrow range of behavior research in skinner laboratories (click on the lever or to peel the key) also did not escape critics. Opponents of Skinner's theory argued that such an approach simply ignores many aspects of behavior. Skinner's approval that any behavior is learned, it was challenged by its former student who trained more than six thousand animals 38 species to perform in television programs, attractions and fairs (Breland & Breland. 1961). Pigs, chickens, hamsters, dolphins, whales, cows and other animals demonstrated a tendency to instinctive behavior. This means that they replaced by instinctive behavior, which received reinforcements, even if this instinctive behavior prevented them from getting food. Thus, the reinforcement turned out to be not so almighty as Skinner argued.

Skinner's position in verbal behavior - in particular, his explanation of how children learn to speak - challenged on the grounds that certain types of behavior should be hereditary. Critics argued that the baby does not study the word language for the word due to the reinforcement received for each correctly uttered word, the child masters the grammatical rules necessary to build offers. But the potential for the formation of such rules, the opponents of Skinner are approved, is hereditary, and not learned (chomsky.1959,1972).

Beheviorism is a movement in psychology, which completely denyed a person's consciousness as an independent phenomenon and identified it with the behavioral reactions of the individual on various external stimuli. Simply put, all the feelings and thoughts of the person were reduced to the motor reflexes produced by him with experience during life. This theory at one time produced a revolution in psychology. We will talk about its main positions, strengths and weaknesses in this article.

Definition

Beheviorism is a direction in psychology that studies behavioral features of people and animals. Its name was not by chance - the English word "Behaviour" is translated as "behavior". Biheviorism for many decades has determined the appearance of American psychology. This revolutionary direction radically transformed all scientific ideas about the psyche. It was based on the idea that the subject of study of psychology is not consciousness, but behavior. Since in the early 20th century it was customary to put a sign of equality between these two concepts, a version arose that eliminating consciousness, behavior, eliminates the psyche. The founder of this flow in psychology was American John Watson.

The essence of biheviorism

Beheviorism is a science of behavioral reactions of people and animals in response to ambient. The most important category of this flow is incentive. Under it is understood as any third-party impact on a person. This includes cash, this situation, reinforcement and reaction, which can be an emotional or verbal response of people around. At the same time, subjective experiences are not denied, but are put into dependent position on these effects.

In the second half of the twentieth century, Beheviorism postulates were partially refuted by another direction - cognitive psychology. However, many ideas of this current and today are widely used in certain areas of psychotherapy.

The motives of the emergence of biheviorism

Beheviorism is a progressive direction in psychology, which arose against the background of criticism of the main method of studying the human psyche at the end of the XIX century - introspection. The basis for a doubt about the accuracy of this theory was the lack of objective measurements and the fragmency of the received information. Beheviorism urged to study human behavior as an objective phenomenon of psyche. The philosophical basis of this flow was the concept of John Locke on the appearance of an individual with a clean sheet and the denial of the existence of a certain thinking substance of Thomas's Hobbes.

In contrast to the traditional theory, Watson John's psychologist suggested a scheme that clarifies the behavior of all living beings on Earth: the stimulus causes a reaction. These concepts could be subjected to measurement, so this viewer quickly found loyal supporters. Watson adhered to the opinion that, with the right approach, it would be possible to completely predict the behavior, form and control the behavior of people of different professions by changing the surrounding reality. The mechanism of this influence was announced training through classical determination, which examined in detail on the animals academician Pavlov.

Pavlov's theory

Beheviorism in psychology was based on studies of our compatriot - Academician Ivan Petrovich Pavlova. He found that on the basis of unconditional reflexes in animals there is an appropriate reactive behavior. However, with the help of external influences, they can also develop acquired, conditioned reflexes and form new behavioral models.

In turn, Watson John began experimenting on babies and revealed three fundamental instinctive reactions from them - fear, anger and love. The psychologist concluded that all other behavioral responses lay on primary. How exactly the complex forms of behavior are formed, there was no scientist. Watson's experiments were very controversial from the point of view of morality, which caused a negative response of others.

Studies Torndayka

Bathievoism arose based on numerous studies. Representatives of different psychological trends have made a considerable contribution to the development of this flow. For example, Edward Torndayk introduced into the psychology the concept of operated behavior, which develops on samples and errors. This scientist called himself not a behavior, but a connexionist (from the English "Connection" - communication). He spent his experiments on white rats and pigeons.

The fact that the nature of intelligence is based on associative reactions, also argued by HBBS. The fact that the corresponding mental development allows an animal to adapt to the environmental conditions, Spencer noted. However, only with the experiments of Tordaniya, an understanding of the fact that the essence of intelligence can be detected without applying to consciousness. The Association assumed that the relationship was carried out not between some ideas in the head at the experimental, and not between movements and ideas, but between situations and movements.

During the initial moment, Torndayk movement, in the opposite of Watson, did not accept an external impulse that makes the body of the experimental move, but a problematic situation forcing the body to adapt to the conditions of surrounding reality and build new formlU behavioral response. According to the scientist, in contrast to the reflex, the connection of the concepts "situation - the reaction" could be characterized by such signs:

• the starting point is a problem situation;
• in response, the body is trying to resist her as a whole;
• he is actively looking for an appropriate line of behavior;
• and learn from new techniques using the exercise method.

Bihewicism in psychology is largely obliged to be the appearance of the theory of Tordaniya. However, in his studies, he used the concepts that this current was subsequently completely excluded from the understanding of psychology. If Torndayk argued that the behavior of the body is formed on the feeling of pleasure of any discomfort and put forward the theory about the "law of readiness" as a method for changing the response impulses, the behaviorists prohibited the researcher and to the inner sensations of the subject, and its physiological factors.

Biheviorism provisions

The founder of the direction was the American researcher John Watson. He put forward several provisions on which psychological behavior is based:

1. The subject of study of psychology is the behavior and behavioral reactions of living beings, since it is these manifestations that can be investigated by observation.
2. Behavior determines all the physiological and mental aspects of human existence.
3. The behavior of animals and people should be considered as a set of motor response to external stimuli - incentives.
4. Knowing the character of the stimulus, you can predict the subsequent reaction. Learn to correctly predict the actions of the individual - the main task of the direction "Biheviorism". Man's behavior can be formed and controlled.
5. All the reactions of the individual have either the acquired nature (conditional reflexes), or are inherited (unconditional reflexes).
6. The behavior of a person is the result of learning when successful reactions by multiple repetitions are automated, fixed in memory and can be reproduced. Thus, the formation of skills occurs with the development of conditional reflex.
7. Speech and thinking should also be considered skills.
8. Memory is the mechanism of retaining acquired skills.
9. The development of mental reactions occurs all life and depends on the surrounding reality - living conditions, social environment, and so on.
10. Periodization of age development is absent. There are no general laws in the formation of a pediatric psyche in different age stages.
11. Under emotions, you need to understand the body's reactions on positive and negative environmental incentives.

Pros and cons of behaviorism

In each direction scientific activity There are their strengths and weaknesses. The direction "Biheviorism" also has its pros and cons. For his time, it was a progressive direction, but now his postulates can not withstand any criticism. So, consider the advantages and disadvantages of this theory:

1. The subject of biheviorism is the study of human behavioral reactions. For his time, it was a very progressive approach, because only the psychologists were studied for the psychologists in the detachment of an objective reality. However, expanding the understanding of the subject of psychology, the behaviorists did it inadequately and one-sidedly, completely ignoring the consciousness of a person as a phenomenon.
2. Followers of behaviorism acutely set a question about the objective study of the psychology of the individual. However, the behavior of a person and other living beings was considered by them only in external manifestations. Unobservable mental and physiological processes them completely ignored.
3. The theory of behaviorism meant that human behavior can be controlled depending on the practical needs of the researcher, however, due to the mechanical approach to studying the problem, the behavior of an individual was reduced to the aggregate of the simplest reactions. The whole active active essence of a person was ignored.
4. Bihewicists made a laboratory experiment method The basis of a psychological study, introduced the practice of animal experiences. However, at the same time, scientists have not seen a special qualitative difference between human behavior, beast or birds.
5. When the mechanism is established, the most important components - motivation and mental image of action as the basis for its implementation were rejected. Social factor Bihewicists were completely completely.

Representatives of biheviorism

John Watson was the leader of the behaviest direction. However, one researcher is not capable of creating a whole move alone. A few more bright researchers were promoted behaviorism. Representatives of this flow were outstanding experimenters. One of them, Hunter William, created a diagram in 1914 to study behavioral reactions, which was called delayed. He showed a banana monkey in one of two boxes, then closed the spectacle from it, which was removed after a few seconds. Monkey after that successfully found the banana, which proved that the animals are initially capable not only on the immediate, but also a delayed reaction to the impulse.

Another scientist - Leshli Karl - went even further. With the help of experiments, he developed at some animal skill from some animal, and then removed him various parts of the brain to find out depends on them developed reflex or not. The psychologist came to the conclusion that all parts of the brain are equivalent and can successfully replace each other.

Other flows of biheviorism

And yet an attempt to reduce consciousness to the aggregate of standard behavioral reactions was not crowned with success. Beheviorists needed to expand the understanding of psychology and include the concepts of the motive and reduction of the image. In this regard, in the 1960s several new trends appeared. One of them - cognitive behavior - was founded by E. Tolman. It is based on the fact that mental processes when learning are not limited to the connection "Stimulus - Reaction". The psychologist has found an intermediate phase between these two events - a cognitive representation. Thus, he proposed his scheme explaining the essence of human behavior: incentive - cognitive activity (sign-gestalt) - reaction. He sestels he saw from "cognitive cards" (mental images of the studied area), possible expectations and other variables. Tolman proved his views to various experiments. He forced animals to look for food in a maze, and they found food with different ways, regardless of what road was accustomed to. Obviously, for them the goal was more important than a way of behavior. Therefore, Tolman called his system of views by "target behavior."

There is a direction "Social behaviorism", which also contributes its own adjustments to the standard "Stimulus-Reaction" scheme. Her supporters believe that when determining incentives, which will properly affect the behavior of a person, must be considered individual characteristics Individual, his social experience.

Beheviorism and psychoanalysis

Fully denyed human consciousness behaviorism. Psychoanalysis, in turn, was aimed at studying the deep peculiarities of the human psyche. The founder of the theory of Sigmund Freud brought two key concepts in psychology - "consciousness" and "unconscious" - and proved that many actions of a person cannot be explained by rational methods. At the heart of some behavioral reactions of a person lies a subtle intellectual work flowing outside the sphere of consciousness. There may be a remorse of conscience, a sense of guilt, the acute self-criticism. Initially, Freud's theory was encouraged in the scientific world cool, but over time she won the whole world. Thanks to this movement, psychology again began to study a living person, penetrate into the essence of his soul and behavior.

Over time, behaviorism outlived itself, as his ideas about human psyche It turned out to be too single.

] Beheviorism, which determined the appearance of American psychology in the 20th century, radically transformed the entire representation system about the psyche. His credo expressed a formula, according to which the subject of psychology is behavior, and not consciousness. (Hence the name - from the English. Behavior, behavior.) Since then it was customary to put a sign of equality between the psyche and consciousness (mental processes that begin and ended in consciousness), the version arose that, eliminating consciousness, behavior, thereby eliminating the psyche .

The true meaning of events related to the emergence and rapid development of the behavior movement was different and was not in the annihilation of the psyche, but in changing the concept of her.

One of the pioneers of the biheviorist movement was Edward Torndayk (1874-1949). He himself called himself not a behavior, but a "connexionist" (from the English. "Connexia" - connection). However, the researchers and their concepts should not be judged by how they call themselves, but by their role in the development of knowledge. Works Tordandyka opened the first chapter in the chronicles of biheviorism.

Torondayk outlined his conclusions in 1898 in the doctoral dissertation "Animal Intellect. Experimental study of associative processes in animals." The terms Torndayk used the traditional - "intelligence", "associative processes", but they were filled with new.

The fact that intelligence has an associative nature was known since the Hobbs times. The fact that intelligence ensures the successful adaptation of the animal to the medium, has become generally accepted after Spencer. But for the first time, it was precisely the experiments to the Tordanike that the nature of intelligence and its function can be studied and evaluated without circulation to ideas or other phenomena of consciousness. The Association already meant the connection is not between ideas or between ideas and movements, as in previous associative theories, and between movements and situations.

The whole process of learning was described in objective terms. Torndayk used the idea of \u200b\u200bVienna about "samples and errors" as a regulatory principle. The choice of this beginning was deep methodological foundations. He marked the reorientation of psychological thought on new way Determinist explanation of its objects. Although Darwin did not specifically focused on the role of "samples and errors", this concept undoubtedly was one of the prerequisites for his evolutionary teaching. Insofar as possible methods Response to increasingly changing conditions external environment Cannot be provided in advance in the structure and methods of behavior of the body, the coordination of this behavior with the medium is implemented only on a probabilistic basis.

Evolutionary teaching demanded the introduction of a probabilistic factor acting with the same immutability as mechanical causality. The probability could not be considered more as a subjective concept (the result of ignorance of the reasons, according to Spinoza). The principle of "samples, errors and random success" explains, according to Tordanka, the acquisition of the living beings of new forms of behavior at all levels of development. The advantage of this principle is quite obvious when comparing it with the traditional (mechanical) reflex scheme. Reflex (in his mindening understanding) meant a fixed action, the course of which is also determined strictly fixed in nervous system ways. It was impossible to explain to this concept the adaptability of the organism reactions and its learning.

Torndayk acted for the initial moment of the motor act is not an external impulse that runs into the course of a bodily machine with foot-proof methods of response, but a problem situation, i.e. Such external conditions, to adapt to which the body does not have the finished formula of the motor response, and is forced to build it with its own efforts. So, the connection "Situation - the reaction", in contrast to the reflex (in its uniquely known torch, a mechanistic interpretation) was characterized by the following features: 1) the initial item is a problem situation; 2) the body opposes to it as a whole; 3) It actively acts in search of choice and 4) learned by exercise.

The progressiveness of the Torndayka approach compared to the approach of Dewey and other Chicaggers is obvious, for a conscious desire for the goal was taken by them not for a phenomenon that needs explanation, but for a causal principle. But Torndayk, eliminating a conscious desire for the goal, kept the idea of \u200b\u200bactive actions of the body, the meaning of which is to solve the problem with the goal of adapting to the environment.

So, Torndayk has significantly expanded the field of psychology. He showed that it extends far beyond consciousness. Previously it was assumed that the psychologist behind these limits could only be interested in unconscious phenomena hidden in the "Cains of the Soul". Torondayk resolutely changed the orientation. The sphere of psychology was the interaction between the organism and the medium. The former psychology argued that connections are formed between the phenomena of consciousness. She called them associations. The former physiology argued that the bonds are formed between the irritation of receptors and the response movement of the muscles. They were called reflexes. By Torndayka, Connexia is a connection between the reaction and the situation. Obviously, this is a new element. Speaking by the language of subsequent psychology, Connexia is an element of behavior. True, the term "behavior" torman did not use. He spoke about intelligence, about learning. But after all, Descartes did not call the reflex operators open by him, and Hobbes, being a hence of the associative direction, did not yet use the phrase "Association of Ideas", invented by the plant after it by Locke. The concept matures before the term.

Works Tordani would not have for the psychology of Pioneer, if they did not discover new, actually psychological patterns. But it does not less clearly perform the limited behavior schemes in terms of explaining human behavior. The regulation of human behavior is made by different types than the Torondayk represented and all subsequent supporters of the so-called objective psychology, which were considered for the horses of learning uniforms for humans and other living beings. This approach spawned a new form of reductionism. Inherent in human patterns of behavior, having socio-historical grounds, reduced to the biological level of determination, and thus lost the possibility of investigating these patterns in adequate scientific concepts.

Torondayk is more than anyone prepared the occurrence of behaviorism. At the same time, as noted, he did not think a behaviorist; In his explanations of the processes of learning, he used the concepts that arose later behaviorism demanded to be expelled from psychology. These were the concepts relating, firstly, to the sphere of mental in its traditional sense (in particular, the concepts of satisfaction and discomfort experienced by the body in the formation of communications between motor reactions and external situations), secondly, to neurophysiology (in particular, "The law of readiness", which, according to Torndayk, implies a change in the ability to carry out impulses). Behevioric theory has banned the researcher to apply and to what is experiencing a subject, and to physiological factors.

The theoretical leader of behaviorism became. His scientific biography is instructive in the sense, which shows how in the formation of a separate researcher, the influences that determined the development of the basic ideas of the direction as a whole are reflected.

After the protection of the dissertation on psychology at the University of Chicago Watson became a professor at the University of John Gopkins in Baltimore (since 1908), where he was heading the department and the laboratory of experimental psychology. In 1913, he publishes the article "Psychology from the point of view of a behaviorist", as evaluated as a manifest of a new direction. After that, he publishes the book "Behavior: Introduction to comparative psychology", in which for the first time in the history of psychology, it was strongly refuted by the postulate that the subject of this science is consciousness.

The motto of biheviorism was the concept of behavior as an objectively observed system of body reactions to external and internal incentives. This concept originated in Russian science in the works of I.M. Suchenova, and V.M. Bekhtereva. They proved that the region of mental activity is not exhausted by the phenomena of the subject of the subject, cognized by internal monitoring of them (introspection), because, with a similar interpretation of the psyche, the body's soul (consciousness) and body (the body as a material system) is inevitably. As a result, the consciousness was separated from the external reality, closed in a circle of their own phenomena (experiences), which put it out of the real connection between earthly things and the inclusion of corporate processes. Having rejected a similar point of view, Russian researchers reached the innovative path of studying the relationship between the holistic organism with the medium, relying on the objective methods, the very body of the body in the unity of its external (including motor) and internal (including subjective) manifestations. This approach has planned a perspective to disclose the interaction of a holistic organism with a medium and the reasons on which the dynamics of this interaction depends. It was assumed that knowledge of the reasons would allow in psychology to implement the ideal of other accurate sciences with their motto "Prediction and Management".

This fundamentally new leverage answered the needs of time. Old subjective psychology everywhere exposed its inconsistency. This brightly demonstrated experiments on animals, which were the main object of research of US psychologists. The arguments about what happens in the consciousness of animals in the performance of the personal experimental tasks, turned out to be fruitless. Watson came to the conviction that the observations of the states of consciousness as little needed a psychologist as physics. Only by refusing these internal observations, he insisted, psychology will become accurate and objective science.

The overall trend of the transition from consciousness to behavior, from the subjective method of analyzing the psyche to objective was observed in various sections of the scientific front. After reading (in German and french translation) Book of Bekhtereva "Objective Psychology", Watson finally approved in the opinion that conditioned reflex (Bekhterev called him a compatible) should be the main unit of behavior analysis. Acquaintance with the teachings of Pavlova, all Lilo in Watson confidence that it was the conditional reflex that is the key to the development of skills, on the structure of complex movements from simple, as well as to any forms of learning, including those who are affective.

Being under the influence of positivism, Watson argued as if it was actually only what could be seen directly. Therefore, according to his plan, all behavior should be explained from the relationship between the directly observed effects of physical stimuli on the body and its directly observed responses (reactions). Hence the main formula Watson, perceived by behaviorism: "Stimulus - reaction" (S-R). It happened that the processes that occur between members of this formula - be it physiological (nervous), whether mental, psychology should eliminate from their hypotheses and explanations. Since the only real behavior was recognized various forms Body reactions, Watson replaced all traditional ideas about mental phenomena by their motor equivalents.

The dependence of various mental functions from motor activity was firmly established by experimental psychology in those years. It concerned, for example, the dependence of the visual perception from the movements of the eye muscles, emotions - from corporal changes, thinking - from the speech apparatus, etc.

These facts Watson used as evidence that objective muscle processes can be a decent substitute for subjective mental acts. Based on such a parcel, he explained the development of mental activity. It was alleged that a man thinks muscles. The child's speech arises from disordered sounds. When adults connect with some sound a certain object, this object becomes the meaning of the word. Gradually, the child has an external speech in a whisper, and when he starts to pronounce the Word of him. Such an inner speech (sick in vocalization) is nothing but thinking.

All reactions, both intelligent and emotional, can, according to Watson, manage. Mental development is reduced to the teaching, that is, to any acquisition of knowledge, skills, skills - not only specially formed, but also emerging spontaneously. From this point of view, learning is a broader concept than training, as it includes and purposefully formed in teaching knowledge. Thus, studies of the development of the psyche are reduced to the study of the formation of behavior, relations between incentives and the reactions arising based on them (S-R).

Based on such a look at the psyche, the behaviorists did the conclusion that its development occurs during the child's life and depends mainly from the social environment, from the living conditions, i.e. from incentives supplied by the medium. Therefore, they rejected the idea of \u200b\u200bage periodization, as it was believed that there were no uniform patterns of development for all children in this age period. The proof served and their research research in children of different agesWhen with targeted training already two-three-year-old children learned not only to read, but also to write, and even print on a typewriter. Thus, the behaviorists did the conclusion that the environment, such and the patterns of the development of the child.

However, the impossibility of age periodization did not exclude, from their point of view, the need for a functional periodization building, which would allow to establish the steps of learning, forming a certain skill. From this point of view, the stages of the development of the game, learning to read or swimming are functional periodization. (Similarly, the functional periodization are the stages of the formation of mental actions developed in Russia P.Ya. Galperin.)

Evidence and the prominent formation of basic mental processes were given Watson in its experiments on the formation of emotions.

It would seem that Jems's hypothesis about the primacy of those forest changes, the secondaryness of emotional with standing was to arrange Watson. But he strongly rejected it on the grounds that the very idea of \u200b\u200bthe subjective, experiencing should be withdrawn from scientific psychology. In emotions, on Watson, there is nothing but intolerable (visceral) changes and external expressions. But the main thing he saw in the other - in the ability to manage on a given program with emotional behavior.

Watson experimentally proved that it was possible to form a reaction of fear for a neutral incentive. In his experiments, children showed the rabbit, which they took in their hands and wanted to stroke, but at that moment the discharge of the electric current was obtained. The child frightened the rabbit and began to cry. The experience was repeated, and on the third or fourth time the appearance of rabbit even in the distance caused fear among most children. After this negative emotion was fixed, Watson tried to change the emotional attitude of children once again, forming their interest and love for the rabbit. In this case, the baby showed rabbit during tasty food. At first, the children stopped there and began to cry. But since the rabbit did not approach them, staying at the end of the room, and the delicious food (chocolate or ice cream) was near, then the child calmed down. After the children stopped responding to crying at the appearance of a rabbit at the end of the room, the experimenter moved it closer and closer to the child, at the same time adding delicious things to his plate. Gradually, the children stopped paying attention to the rabbit and reacted calmly at the end when he was already located near their plates, and even took him to his arms and tried to feed. Thus, proved Watson, emotional behavior can be controlled.

The principle of behavior management received in American psychology after Watson works wide popularity. The concept of Watson (as well as whole behavior) began to call "psychology without psyche". This assessment was based on the opinion that only the evidence of the subject is among the psychic phenomena that he considers what is happening in his consciousness in the "internal observation". However, the psyche region is significantly wider and deeper directly conscious. It also includes human actions, his behavioral acts, his actions. The merit of Watson is that he expanded the scope of mental, including those forest actions of animals and humans. But he achieved this dear price, rejected as the subject of science, the huge wealth of psyche, insignificant to externally observed behavior.

In behaviorism, inadequately reflected the need to expand the subject of psychological research, nominated by the logic of the development of scientific knowledge. Beheviorism acted as an antipode of a subjective (introspective) concept that made a mental life to the "facts of consciousness" and believed that the world's alien psychology lies outside of these facts. Critics of behaviorism later accused his supporters in the fact that in their speeches against introspective psychology they themselves were influenced by the version of the consciousness created by it. Having accepted this version for the unshakable, they believed that it could be either taken, or reject, but not convert. Instead of looking at consciousness in a new way, they preferred to be divided into generally.

This criticism is valid, but not enough to understand the gnoseological roots of biheviorism. Even if its subject-hand-shaped content, which turned into introspectionism in the ghostly "subjective phenomena", and then, it is impossible to explain the structure of a real action or its determination. No matter how closely the action and image are related to each other, they cannot be reduced to another. The inconsistency of the action to its subject-shaped components was the real feature of the behavior that hypertrophies appeared in the behavior scheme.

Watson became the most popular leader of the behavior movement. But one researcher, however brightly he was, powerless to create a scientific direction.

Among Watson's associates cross campaign Against consciousness highlighted large experimenters of W. Hanter (1886-1954) and K. Leshley (1890-1958). The first invented in 1914 the experimental scheme for studying the reaction, which he called delayed. Monkey, for example, gave the opportunity to see, in which of the two boxes the banana is put. Then between it and the boxes were put in a screen, which was removed after a few seconds. She successfully solved this task, proving that animals are already capable of delayed, and not just a direct reaction to the incentive.

Watson's student was Karl Leshli, who worked in Chicago and Harvard Universities, and then in the Laboratory of Irks to study primates. He, like other behaviorists, believed that the consciousness would be disappointing to the body's physical activity. Famous experiments Leved on the study of brain mechanisms of behavior were built according to the following scheme: an animal was developed by any skill, and during the fact that various parts of the brain were removed in order to find out whether this skill depends on them. As a result, Levelly came to the conclusion that the brain functions as a whole and its various sections of Equipotential, that is, equal, and therefore, they can successfully replace each other.

All behaviorists united the conviction in infertility of the concept of consciousness, in the need to end with "mentalism". But unity before a common enemy - an introspective concept - was lost in solving specific scientific problems.

And B. experimental workAnd at the level of the theory in psychology, changes were made to transform biheviorism. The Watson ideas system in the 1930s no longer was the only option of behaviorism.

The decay of the initial behavior program spoke about the weakness of its categorical "nucleus". The category of action, unilaterally interpreted in this program, could not be successfully developed with the reduction of the image and motive. Without them, the action itself lost its real flesh. The image of events and situations for which the action is always focused, turned out to be at Watson declined to the level of physical stimuli. The motivation factor was either generally rejected, or spoke in the form of several primitive affects (like fear), to which Watson was forced to apply to explain the conditionally reflex regulation of emotional behavior. Attempts to include image categories, motive and psychosocial relationship to the original behavior program led to its new version - non-versions.