Reflections on the role of the psychologist in society. Psychology in interaction with other disciplines. The role of body odor in interactions with other people

Some personality traits significantly affect both the goals and the process of communication, and its effectiveness. Some of them contribute to successful communication, others make it difficult. What qualities of people should be paid attention to in the first place to build effective interaction? The following analysis will help you learn how to quickly evaluate people according to basic criteria and choose the most optimal model of relationships with them.

Some personality traits significantly affect both the goals and the process of communication, and its effectiveness. Some of them contribute to successful communication (extroversion, empathy, tolerance, mobility), others make it difficult (introversion, dominance, conflict, aggressiveness, shyness, rigidity).

1. Extroversion - introversion

Extraversion - introversion - a characteristic of typical differences between people, the extreme poles of which correspond to a person's predominant orientation either to the world of external objects (for extroverts) or to their own subjective world (for introverts). Each person has traits of both an extroverted and an introverted type. The difference between people lies in the ratio of these traits: in an extrovert, some prevail, and in an introvert, others.

Hans Eysenck (H. Eysenck, 1967) suggested that people are divided into those who have high activation (introverts) and those who have low activation (extroverts). The first tend to maintain the existing level of activation, so they avoid social contacts to prevent it from rising. The latter, on the contrary, have a desire to increase their level of activation, so they need stimulation from the outside; they willingly go to external contacts.

The division of people into types of extroverts and introverts is carried out taking into account such qualities as sociability, talkativeness, ambition, assertiveness, activity and a number of others.

Introverts are modest, shy, prone to solitude. They are reserved, approach only a few, therefore have few friends, but are devoted to them. Extroverts, on the contrary, are open, courteous, affable, sociable, resourceful in conversation, have many friends, and are prone to verbal communication. They are sociable, talkative, ambitious, assertive and active. Even when extroverts argue, they allow themselves to be influenced. Extroverts are suggestible, accessible to the influence of others.

Introverts are slow to make connections and find it difficult to enter the alien world of other people's emotions. They have difficulty assimilating adequate behavioral forms and therefore often appear "awkward". Their subjective point of view may be stronger than the objective situation.

Due to the more careful thinking of their speech by introverts, compared to extroverts, their speech is slow, with long pauses.

O. P. Sannikova (1982) studied the relationship between sociability and emotionality of a person. She showed that a wide circle of communication, a large activity of the latter, combined with its short duration, are characteristic of people with positive emotional attitudes (dominance of the emotion of joy), and a narrow circle and low activity of communication against the background of a stable relationship - for people who tend to experience negative emotions(fear, sadness). The former are more proactive in communication. There is reason to believe that extraversion - introversion largely depends on the innate characteristics of a person, such as the properties of the nervous system. In the laboratory of V. S. Merlin, a connection was found between high sociability and a weak nervous system. A. K. Drozdovsky (2008) confirmed this on a large sample.

2. Empathy

Empathy is such a spiritual unity of personalities, when one person is so imbued with the experiences of another that he is temporarily identified with him, empathizes with him.

This emotional feature of a person plays a big role in communication between people, in their perception of each other, in establishing mutual understanding. Empathy can manifest itself in two forms - empathy and sympathy. Empathy is the experience by the subject of the same feelings experienced by another. Sympathy is a responsive, sympathetic attitude to the experiences, misfortune of another (expression of regret, condolences, etc.). The first is based more on one's past experience and is related to the need for one's own well-being, with self-interest. The second is based on an understanding of the disadvantage of another person and is related to his needs and interests. Hence empathy is more impulsive, more intense than sympathy.

Those who show a high degree of empathy are characterized by softness, goodwill, sociability, emotionality, and those who demonstrate a low degree of empathy - isolation, hostility. Subjects that are characterized highest degree empathic, are less likely to attribute blame to people for adverse events and do not require special punishments for their misdeeds, i.e., show condescension. Such people manifest themselves as field independent. Those who are more prone to empathy show less aggressiveness (Miller, Eisenberg, 1988).

As shown by L. Murphy (L. Murphy, 1937), the manifestation of empathy by children depends on the degree of proximity with the object (alien or close person), the frequency of communication with him (familiar or unfamiliar), the intensity of the stimulus that causes empathy (pain, tears), her previous experience. The development of empathy in a child is associated with age-related changes in his temperament, emotional excitability, as well as with the influence of those social groups in which he is brought up.

An important role in the formation and development of empathy is played by the emotion of sadness. Children's crying evokes a feeling of compassion in the mother, prompts to pay attention to the child, to calm him down. In the same way, the memory of a sad event that happened to a loved one evokes pity and compassion for him, a desire to help (B. Moore and others). According to some reports, women are more empathetic than men (J. Sidman, 1969).

3. Authority

Accentuation of a person's desire for power over other people ("power motive") leads to such a personal feature as lust for power. For the first time, the need for domination began to be studied by neo-Freudians (A. Adler, 1922). The desire for superiority, social power compensates for the natural shortcomings of people experiencing an inferiority complex. The desire for power is expressed in the tendency to control the social environment, in the ability to reward and punish people, to force them to commit certain actions contrary to their desire, to control their actions (it is no coincidence that D. Veroff (J. Veroff, 1957) defined the motivation of power as the desire and ability to receive satisfaction from control over other people, from the ability to judge, establish laws, norms and rules of behavior, etc. .). If control or power over people is lost, this causes strong emotional experiences in the power lover. At the same time, he himself does not want to obey other people, actively strives for independence.

No matter how he regards you, positively or negatively, he especially sharply grasps those signs of your appearance from which one can conclude: succumb or not succumb to his influence. And he is definitely determined to influence: if he is physically strong, he will make you shy, if he is smart, he will leave the impression of a superior mind ... He does this involuntarily, but you, of course, perfectly feel his posture, facial expressions, look.

It is very difficult for him to admit that he is wrong, even if it is obvious. And he says: "Well ... This should be carefully considered ... "He is resolute. It is easy for him to turn off the conversation in mid-sentence. If necessary, he will show exquisite politeness, but you will feel well: the end has been set ...

The statement “this person is dominant” should not contain a deliberately negative assessment. Of course, the stupid and narcissistic "dominant" is sometimes unbearable. But with certain reservations, people of this warehouse are very valuable: they know how to make decisions and take responsibility for what is happening. If they are endowed with nobility and generosity, then they become favorites in their environment.

How to build communication with a dominant person? He needs to be given the opportunity to reveal his dominance. Calmly hold an independent point of view, but avoid suppressing or ridiculing his use of " power moves". And then he will gradually moderate his involuntary onslaught. If you actively upset him, the conversation turns into a quarrel.

The manifestation of the “power motive” as a personal disposition also lies in the tendency to attract the attention of others, to stand out, to attract supporters who are relatively easily influenced by the lover of power and recognize him as their leader. Such people strive to occupy leadership positions, but they do not feel well in group activities when they are forced to follow the same rules of conduct for all and, moreover, obey others.

4. Conflict and aggressiveness

Conflict is complex personal quality, which includes touchiness, irascibility (anger), suspicion. Resentment as an emotional property of a person determines the ease of occurrence of the emotion of resentment. Proud, vain, selfish people have a kind of hyperesthesia ( hypersensitivity) awareness of their own dignity, therefore they regard the most ordinary words spoken to them as offensive, they suspect those around them that they are intentionally offended, although they did not even think about it. An individual person can be especially sensitive in certain issues that provoke his resentment; he usually associates with them the greatest infringement of his own dignity. When these parties are affected, violent reciprocal affect cannot be avoided.

Short temper (anger) has several characteristics:

• an angry person tends to perceive wide range situations as provoking;
• anger as a reaction is characterized by a range from moderate irritation or annoyance to rage and rage;
• this is a trait of temperament that manifests itself even without connection with a provoking situation.

S. V. Afinogenova (2007) showed that irascibility and resentment are more pronounced in females and in feminine compared to androgynous and masculine, regardless of their biological sex. It follows from these data that conflict, including irascibility and resentment, is on average higher in feminine males and females than in androgynous and masculine ones. A positive relationship between resentment and femininity was found in women and N. Yu. Zharnovetskaya (2007).

5. Tolerance

In psychology, tolerance is tolerance, indulgence towards someone or something. This is an attitude towards a respectful attitude and acceptance (understanding) of the behavior, beliefs, national and other traditions and values ​​of other people that differ from their own. Tolerance contributes to the prevention of conflicts and the establishment of mutual understanding between people. Communicative tolerance is a characteristic of a person's attitude to people, showing the degree of tolerance by her of unpleasant or unacceptable, in her opinion, mental states, qualities and actions of interaction partners.

V. V. Boyko (1996) identifies the following types of communicative tolerance:

• situational communicative tolerance: it manifests itself in the relationship of a given person to a specific person; low level this tolerance is manifested in statements like: “I can’t stand this person”, “He annoys me”, “Everything about him revolts me”, etc.;
• typological communicative tolerance: manifested in relation to certain type individuals or a certain group of people (representatives of a certain race, nationality, social stratum);
• professional communicative tolerance: manifested in the process of implementation professional activity(tolerance of a doctor or nurse to the whims of patients, for service workers - to clients, etc.);
• general communicative tolerance: this is a tendency to treat people in general, due to character traits, moral principles, and the level of mental health; general communicative tolerance affects other types of communicative tolerance, which are discussed above.

Tolerance is formed through education.

6. Shyness

According to F. Zimbardo, shyness is a human trait associated with the desire to avoid communication or avoid social contacts (Ph. Zimbardo, A. Weber, 1997). This definition does not accurately reflect the essence of this feature. After all, the same can be said about the introvert. The Oxford Dictionary defines shyness as a state of embarrassment in the presence of other people. In the "Dictionary of the Russian Language" by S.I. Ozhegov, it is characterized by a person's tendency to timid or shy behavior in communication, in behavior.

Shyness is a common phenomenon. According to F. Zimbardo, 80% of Americans polled by him answered that at some point in their lives they were shy. About a quarter of respondents described themselves as chronically shy. According to V. N. Kunitsyna (1995), a significant part of the adult population of our country falls into the category of shy (30% of women and 23% of men).

Raymond Cattell (R. Cattell, 1946) considered shyness as a biologically determined trait associated with the excitability of the nervous system. According to the author, shy people (trait H) have a high excitability of the nervous system and sensitivity, and therefore are especially vulnerable to social stress. The timid have a certain biological predisposition of the sympathetic nervous system, which is excessive sensitivity to conflict and threat.

Shy people often have a self-awareness centered on the impression they make and on social evaluations. P. Pilkonis and F. Zimbardo (P. Pilkonis, Ph. Zimbardo, 1979) found that shy people are less extroverted, have less control over their behavior in situations of social interaction and are more concerned about relationships with others than those who do not experience shyness. In men, this personality trait, according to the authors, correlates with neuroticism. Among shy women, such a connection is noted only among those who are prone to introspection. I. S. Kohn (1989) believes that shyness is due to introversion, low self-esteem and bad experience interpersonal contacts.

In a group of people, a shy person usually keeps apart, rarely enters into a conversation, even more rarely starts it himself. In a conversation, he behaves awkwardly, tries to get away from the center of attention, speaks less and quieter. Such a person always listens rather than speaks himself, does not dare to ask unnecessary questions, argue, usually expresses his opinion timidly and hesitantly. Difficulties in communication experienced by a shy person often lead to the fact that he withdraws into himself. The stress experienced by a shy person when dealing with people can cause neuroses.

7. Rigidity - mobility

This property characterizes the speed of a person's adaptation to a changing situation. It denotes inertia, conservatism of attitudes, inflexibility to changes introduced by innovations, weak switchability from one type of work to another. It is believed that different types of rigidity are not interconnected by a single factor, since there are no correlations between their degrees of severity. This means that, being rigid in one manifestation, a person turns out to be plastic in another. However, a common component for all types of rigidity can be the inertia of nervous processes. The relationship of rigidity with this typological feature was revealed in the study by N. E. Vysotskaya (1975).

A rigid interlocutor needs some time to engage in a conversation with you, even if he is a completely decisive, self-confident person. The fact is that he is thorough, and if he thought about something immediately before the contact, he should, as it were, put a mark - where he stopped in his thoughts. But even after that, he does not immediately plunge into the element of discussion: he looks at you studying and, like a heavy flywheel, “unwinds” gradually. But, having “untwisted”, he is thorough in communication, as in everything he does.

If you are too hasty with the development of thought, distracted by side topics, putting forward and immediately canceling approximate versions yourself, he frowns: you seem to him a frivolous person. When, in your opinion, the main thing has already been discussed and joint conclusions have been drawn, he continues to go into details.

In the study of G. V. Zalevsky (1976), a positive and statistically significant connection rigidity with suggestibility, and P. Leach (P. Leach, 1967) revealed a negative relationship between rigidity and the creative potential of the individual. People who have it high are distinguished by flexibility of thinking, independence in judgments, rejection of social stereotypes and a penchant for complex forms of expression of their aesthetic preferences.

8. Psychological picture subject of difficult communication

As V. A. Labunskaya (2003) notes, the subject of difficult communication is a multivariate phenomenon. Really, different researchers different characteristics of a person are distinguished that impede the process of communication.

So, based on the parameters of subjectivity - the objectivity of communication difficulties, VN Kunitsyna (1991, 1995) identified three types of communication difficulties (difficulties, barriers and violations).

In one case, a person strives for communication, has such an opportunity, but does not know how to do it, since he is ill-mannered, shameless, self-centered, and this leads to his rejection. In another case, the subject of difficult communication is a person who knows how to communicate, has such an opportunity, but does not want it due to his deep introversion, self-sufficiency, lack of need for communication. A person who creates barriers in communication has a different set of characteristics: prejudice, rigidity in the perception of another, following prejudices and stereotypes. The subject of difficult communication, which introduces disturbances in the communication process, is distinguished by suspicion, envy, egocentrism, vanity, selfishness, jealousy, and a high level of frustration of interpersonal needs.

Communication disorders are associated with a person's attitude to humiliate another, infringe on his interests, suppress and rule over him. Such a subject of difficult communication manifests an aggressively devaluing style of communication, which is expressed in intimidation and subjugation of the other, in endless violent competition with him according to the “you or me” type.

The correlation of subjective indicators of difficult communication with the structural components of communication is presented in Table. one.

Table 1. Difficulties in implementation structural components communication

Evgeny Pavlovich Ilyin, doctor psychological sciences, Professor of the Russian State University named after A.I. Gertsen, Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation.

• Psychology: personality and business

Using personal social experience and facts public life, illustrate with three examples the author's idea that "a person can become himself ... through his practical activities, communication."

Man... is aware of himself. Man thinks and knows himself. He is aware of what he does, thinks, feels. Both historically and in the course of individual development, a person is initially aware of objects and his practical actions, but on more high level development - and their thoughts about objects and actions. He recognizes himself as a person. Self-consciousness involves the selection and distinction of a person himself, his Self from everything that surrounds him. Self-consciousness is a person's awareness of his actions, feelings, thoughts, motives of behavior, interests, his position in society. In the formation of self-consciousness, a person's sensations of his own body, movements, and actions play a significant role.

A person can become himself only in interaction with other people, with the world through his practical activity, communication. The social conditionality of the formation of self-consciousness lies not only in the direct communication of people with each other, in their evaluative relations, but also in the formulation of the requirements of society for an individual, in the awareness of the very rules of the relationship. A person realizes himself not only through other people, but also through the material and spiritual culture created by them...

Knowing himself, a person, according to T. Mann, never remains quite the same as he was before. Self-consciousness did not arise as a spiritual mirror for the idle self-admiration of man. It appeared in response to the call social conditions life, which from the very beginning required from each person the ability to evaluate their actions, words and thoughts. Life, with its strict lessons, has taught a person to exercise self-control and self-regulation. By regulating his actions and foreseeing the results of these actions, the self-conscious person takes full responsibility for them.

Self-consciousness is closely connected with the phenomenon of reflection... Reflection is a reflection of a person about himself when he peers into the innermost depths of his inner spiritual life. Without reflection, a person cannot fully realize what is happening in his soul, in his inner spiritual world. Here, constant summing up of what has been done is important ...

The levels of reflection can be very diverse - from elementary self-consciousness to deep reflections on the meaning of one's being, its moral content. Reflecting on his own spiritual processes, a person often critically assesses the negative aspects of his spiritual world, bad habits, etc. Knowing himself, he never remains the same as he was before ...

The scale of the subject's awareness of his mental activity extends from a vague understanding of what is happening in the soul to a deep and clear self-consciousness. Consciousness is a moral and psychological characteristic of a person's actions, which is based on the consciousness and assessment of oneself, one's capabilities, intentions and goals.

(A.G. SparkinD. Soros)

Explanation.

The following examples may be given:

1) the entrepreneur has founded a fund to help sick children and realizes his need for civic engagement, the manifestation of mercy;

2) communication with a psychologist helped a person overcome difficult life circumstances;

3) after the internship, the student realized that he had chosen the right profession.

Other examples can be given

Who is a psychologist in modern society? What is the science of psychology in view modern people? - Two questions that I will not answer, but I will strive for this.

These questions may not arise among physicists, chemists, programmers. Nevertheless, in my first year at the university, doubts arose in my head about the seriousness and expediency of psychology as a direction of knowledge and as a profession. The history of the emergence of various teachings suggests that they conflicted and crowded out each other (although not completely). From ancient philosophers to the present day. Materialism of Democritus, Plato's world of ideas, Associationism, Psychoanalysis, Analytical psychology, Behaviorism, Gestalt psychology, Activity approach and many, many other European and Soviet schools of thought on the object of study.

Is there an object of study in psychology, and is it really objective? They say that psychology as a science is now losing the object of study. And when authoritative people say this, a doubt arises: "Am I doing the right thing by starting to study this?" The concept of "psychology" arose at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries; most often the authorship is recognized by the German theologian Goklenius. Etymologically, this word is derived from the ancient Greek "psyche" (soul) and "logos" (teaching, knowledge, science). It was first introduced into the scientific-philosophical (and not theological) language by the German scientist Christian Wolf in the 18th century, and now the most popular translation is “the science of the soul.” However, no absolutely complete knowledge about the soul (as well as about other objects, by the way) is fundamentally impossible - only movement towards this knowledge is possible; meanwhile, the soul, which - unlike objects and natural phenomena - cannot be directly seen, felt, measured, turns out to be a particularly difficult object to study. - (Vachkov I.V. "Introduction to the profession of Psychologist"). For a person with a first education as a programmer (and not only for him), who lives in a technocratic world, such blurs are a cause for stress.

However, the ability to doubt is the best that a university can give. As noted by the domestic teacher S. I. Gessen,"A task higher education"is not to make a man smarter... but to make his mind more cultured, to ennoble him by instilling in him the method of scientific knowledge, to teach him to raise scientific questions and direct him on the path leading to their solution." I remember the motto of Novosibirsk State University "We will not make you smarter, we will teach you to think" . I am now reading a book by Yuri German "The Cause You Serve", which contains illustrative examples from the 30s of the XX century about the desire young guy Volodya Ustimenko to find out the root causes of all phenomena and the destruction of certainty by university teachers:This fat person he taught doubts, he wanted in advance to rid the institute of neat five-year-olds, cramming, of mother's daughters, of bored young people who had not yet determined their abilities. He taught the eternal search, hinted that no doctor's guides, textbooks and well-recorded lectures would help the future "Aesculapian children", as he liked to put it, if they did not ceaselessly seek themselves. By the way, it is interesting that the so-called "opportunists" react to uncertainty very sharply, even to the point of denying the authority and necessity of the teacher (from the same book).

Let's return to psychology and continue the quote: Meanwhile, the soul turns out to be a particularly difficult object to study, so much so that, as they say, Albert Einstein, having met and talked with the great Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, exclaimed: “How simple is what I do compared to what you do! ". According to other versions, his words sounded like this: "Theoretical physics is a child's game compared to the secrets of a child's game!" Another option: “Lord, how much more complicated psychology is than physics!”. - (Vachkov I.V. "Introduction to the profession of Psychologist"). And this story immediately calms and instructs to work, because complex means existing.

I have already mentioned approaches such as psychoanalysis and the lines of psychological thought that flow from it. So, it is interesting that in our country the teachings of Sigmund Freud arose (became popular) in "two humps" - in the 20s of the 20th century and in the 2000s. Maybe it is connected with revolutions-perestroika? After all, this teaching is reductionist, that is, it seeks to explain the activity of a person and his psyche through two energies: sexual and destructive, which lurk in the unconscious and fight with the super-ego. Simply put, all human behavior comes down to one thing. Simplified everything and classical behaviorism (English behavior - behavior). In a period of social upheaval, such as these two restructurings of the state, the level of education among the population had to fall, and the level of stress should rise due to the emergence of a large number of uncertainties. Against this background, a general passion for simplifying reality could appear. This is my hypothesis, nothing personal to Sigmund Freud.

In 1964, the first conference on humanistic psychology was held in the USA. Its participants came to the conclusion that behaviorism and psychoanalysis (they were designated as the two main “psychological forces” at that time) did not see in a person what constitutes his essence as a person. Humanistic psychology has designated itself as a "third force" in psychology, opposed to psychoanalysis and behaviorism. First of all, humanistic psychology emphasizes that a person should be considered as a creative self-developing being, striving not only for peace and certainty, that is, a state of equilibrium, but and to an imbalance: a person poses problems, solves them, striving to realize his potential, and it is possible to understand a person exactly as a person only by taking into account his “highest ups”, the highest creative achievements. Individuality in humanistic psychology regarded as integrative whole, as opposed to behaviorism, focused on the analysis of individual events. Humanistic psychology emphasizes the irrelevance (unsuitability) of animal research for human understanding; this thesis is also opposed to behaviorism. Unlike classical psychoanalysis, humanistic psychology claims that man is inherently good or, at the very least, neutral; aggression, violence, etc. arise in connection with the influence of the environment. - (Vachkov I.V. "Introduction to the profession of Psychologist").

It turns out that the science of psychology and social processes are somehow connected. Of course, it is obvious that the cultural and historical context influences the formation of the sphere of knowledge, but there is also an opposite influence. I immediately remember the story of how, after a training to improve efficiency, the manager set a loud sound signal (stress for employees), which turned on when someone was hacking. The influence of classical behaviorism and the doctrine of the formation of conditioned reflexes is felt. Let's take the situation before and after the training. The leader's understanding of his subordinates has changed. As a result, working conditions have changed. The workers wanted to form conditioned reflex as in experiments with dogs. And the reason was the authoritative opinion of the coach, to which the head of the enterprise listened. And although I do not think that the coach was a representative of science, it is still a good example when the lack of knowledge about a person gives rise to gullibility to authorities and blindly following their advice.

So who is a psychologist in modern society? What is the science of psychology in the view of modern people?

Maybe a Psychologist - a person who "sees people through", or a Psychologist - a sage who knows more about life than others, and his mission is to point out true path suffering, confused people with advice and instructions? Probably these are myths, but myths are working and living in the minds of uninitiated people. However, he can really see much better than most of those who are not engaged in psychology - since the psychologist specifically thinks about this, studies it and works with it; he can talk about something better - because he “knows psychological words” with which you can designate certain events related to the world of mental phenomena. - (Vachkov I.V. "Introduction to the profession of Psychologist"). All this speaks of the special authority of the psychologist and special responsibility. Maintaining a good physical shape makes the psychologist more efficient and resistant to various stressful situations, which are many in professional activity. In addition, the psychologist, whether he likes it or not, often acts for those with whom he works, some kind of "model of the optimal person"; are guided by it; therefore, he must feel responsible in this respect as well. - (Gippenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to General Psychology. Course of lectures).

Each of us learns to understand other people from birth. We imitate, remember, deduce patterns. Some are very successful at this. How is life experience different from professional knowledge? Yulia Borisovna Gippenreiter has good examples: 1) Professional psychologist supports communication with your colleagues as well as with former fellow students, teachers, with related specialists, etc. All this allows the specialist to constantly keep abreast of events (learn about the latest in psychology in a timely manner), exchange experience through the activities of psychological professional communities and through informal contacts, and finally, just get moral-emotional and meaningful professional support and help in case of any failures and difficulties. Naturally, the “amateur” psychologist is deprived of all this. 2) Special professional tact and adherence to professional and ethical standards from a professional psychologist. An “amateur” is often ill-mannered, interrupts another person in a conversation and, most importantly, deprives him of the right to solve his problems independently (the main slogan of an “effective” “amateur” is “Be calm! Rely on me!” ... “But don’t interfere don't cross me!"...). The task of a good psychologist is to create conditions for the client to independently solve his life difficulties, and ideally, to teach him to do without a psychologist at all, no matter how paradoxical it may seem ... This is where real respect for the client’s personality is manifested, based on faith in his own opportunities to be the subject of solving their problems.

There is a hypothesis that good psychologist This is the person who doesn't exist. Notice, only in the end, to which you still need to come. Possessing diversified knowledge and approaches, he chooses best way to solve the problem. Perhaps the worst thing for a psychologist is to turn into a narrow specialist who is only able to carry out individual “methods” or who can only read specific “courses” and “special courses”, but who does not understand what is happening in the world around him ... The famous American sociologist R. Mills wrote that it is social problems that often underlie the personal concerns and difficulties of many people, therefore “... the task of liberal institutions, like the task of widely educated people, is to constantly turn people's personal adversities into public problems and consider social problems in terms of their significance for the life of the individual” (Mills, 1959).

There are, however, several other significant differences between everyday and professional experience. In everyday experience, we rely mainly on empirical generalizations, that is, generalizations based on directly observed or experienced properties of objects and phenomena, while science is focused on theoretical generalizations, based on hidden essential properties that go beyond direct observation and require the introduction of some additional principles (the very hypotheses of a generalizing nature that we talked about). Somewhat coarsening the situation, we can give the following example: a whale and a shark are closer to us than a whale and a porcupine, although in zoological systematics based not on external signs(body shape, the presence of fins) or the generality of the habitat, but on the theory of the origin of species, this is not the case. - (Vachkov I.V. "Introduction to the profession of Psychologist"). It can be seen that there is a tendency to increase the distance between amateur psychologists and professional psychologists. An amateur psychologist will strive to center the situation on himself, and a professional psychologist will strive to center the situation outside of himself. The first will base his actions on his own experience, the second will try to synthesize his own experience with the available scientific knowledge.

In fairness, it is worth noting that psychologists are divided into researchers and practitioners. On people receiving and systematizing scientific knowledge and those who apply this knowledge in practical areas respectively. In my opinion, psychology can be most successfully used at the intersection of different disciplines: psychology-journalism, psychology-programming, psychology-medicine, psychology-jurisprudence, psychology-organization, psychology-marketing, etc. Recalling the book by Anatoly Konstantinovich Sukhotin - "The Paradoxes of Science", I would like to emphasize that many useful discoveries were indeed made by specialists who were at the intersection of different disciplines. The new usually appears now in the border areas at the junction of problems and directions. Quite often it is difficult to determine where one industry ends and another begins. So, I. Kepler showed the qualities of a doctor, when in 1611 he created a whole doctrine of the dioptics of the eye. This is a tricky medical name (it comes from Greek words"dia" - "through" and "optoman" - "look") means nothing more than the science of myopia, more precisely, the causes of myopia. I. Kepler established that a clear image of what he saw is the merit of the retina. But this is only if the light rays, passing through the lens and being refracted in it, intersect just on the retina. If the lens remains in a highly convex state, the focus will be slightly forward. Then the image is blurry. We add that in the case of farsightedness, the lens, on the contrary, is too stretched and the focus is behind the retina. Definitely in the development of the causes of myopia by I. Kepler, the decisive role was played precisely by the fact that he, an astronomer-observer, knew the structure of the telescope well. Obviously, the analogy of the eye with optical system and led the scientist to the idea to explain visual impairment in this way. one more good example I think modern interface design for websites, the so-called usability, which has been transformed from engineering psychology. There was a government order to study the interaction between man-machine or man-machine-man, as a result of which a large amount of scientific and practical knowledge was accumulated. Later, this knowledge began to appear in civilian areas of activity, including, almost a century later, in designing interfaces for websites.

Finishing this publication, I would like to emphasize that psychology has separated from philosophy, but has not broken off relations with it. And the first experimental laboratory in Leipzig was opened by a physiologist, which means its relationship with natural sciences. Modern society leaves a big imprint on the understanding and development of the very profession of a psychologist, and the role of psychologists in shaping the understanding of man and society remains a mystery to me. It is necessary to study the life of domestic and foreign psychologists in order to compare social phenomena with specific specialist positions. The German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850-1909) said: “Psychology Short story but a long past.

Lecture 4 general characteristics interactions

The essence of interaction. Society does not consist of separate individuals, but expresses the sum of those connections and relations in which these individuals are with each other. The basis of these connections and relationships is the interaction of people.

Interaction- this is the process of direct or indirect influence of objects (subjects) on each other, giving rise to their mutual conditioning and connection.

It is the causation that main feature interaction, when each of the interacting parties acts as a cause of the other and as a consequence of the simultaneous reverse influence of the opposite side, which determines the development of objects and their structures. If the interaction reveals a contradiction, then it acts as a source of self-movement and self-development of phenomena and processes.

In interaction, the relation of a person to another person as to a subject who has his own world is realized. The interaction of man with man in society is the interaction of their inner worlds: exchange of thoughts, ideas, images, influence on goals and needs, impact on the assessments of another individual, his emotional state.

Interaction in domestic social psychology, in addition, is usually understood not only as the influence of people on each other, but also as the direct organization of their joint actions, which allows the group to realize common activities for its members. The interaction itself in this case acts as a systematic, constant implementation of actions aimed at causing a corresponding reaction from other people. Living together and activity, unlike individual activity, at the same time has more severe restrictions on any manifestations of activity-passivity of individuals. This forces people to build and coordinate

create images of "I - He", "We - They", coordinate efforts among themselves. In the course of real interaction, adequate ideas of a person about himself, other people, and their groups are also formed. The interaction of people is the leading factor in the regulation of their self-assessments and behavior in society.

Features of interaction. Usually distinguish between interpersonal and intergroup interaction.

Interpersonal interaction- these are accidental or intentional, private or public, long-term or short-term, verbal or non-verbal contacts and connections between two or more people, causing mutual changes in their behavior, activities, relationships and attitudes.

The main features of such interaction are:

The presence of an external goal (object) in relation to the interacting individuals, the achievement of which involves mutual efforts;

Explicitness (accessibility) for observation from outside and registration by other people;

Situation - a rather rigid regulation by specific conditions of activity, norms, rules and intensity of relations, due to which interaction becomes a rather changeable phenomenon;

Reflexive ambiguity - the dependence of its perception on the conditions of implementation and the assessments of its participants.

Intergroup interaction- the process of direct or indirect influence of multiple subjects (objects) on each other, giving rise to their mutual conditionality and the peculiar nature of the relationship. Usually it takes place between whole groups (as well as their parts) and acts as an integrating (or destabilizing) factor in the development of society.

The basis of intergroup interaction is the functioning of the phenomena "we" and "they". Any community of people, any relationship between them arise, strengthen and function only as long as the awareness of the feeling of “we”, i.e. while all people (or most of them) consider themselves to belong to this group, identify themselves with it. “We” is nothing but a reflection in the consciousness of a particular social community of the fact of the objective Conditions for the coexistence of its representatives.

But for the stability of the “we” phenomenon, the “they” phenomenon must inevitably exist, i.e. another group, not similar, different from us. It is the realization that there are "they", in turn, gives rise to the desire to self-determine in relation to "them", to separate from "them" as "we". Analyzing the idea of ​​L. Feuerbach about replacing the category “I” as a subject of knowledge with the category “I and you”, one of the most famous scientists of our country B.F. Porshnev concluded: social Psychology becomes a science only when the place of the original psychological phenomenon is not “I and you”, but “we and them”, but instead of the relationship of two personalities - the relationship of two communities (Porshnev B.F., 1967).

The “they” phenomenon, just like the “we” phenomenon, has its own real basis: if the objective conditions of life and activity of people, the psychological reflection of which are the “we” and “they” phenomena, coincide, turn out to be the same, then the opposition of one community the other one will fade away sooner or later.

Yet "we" have always endowed ourselves large quantity merit than "they". People tend to overestimate the merits of "their" nation and, conversely, downplay strengths others. As for the shortcomings, the opposite is true here. famous proverb that “a speck is visible in someone else’s eye, but you can’t even notice a log in your own,” just clearly characterizes this pattern.

"Our" ideas, views, feelings, behavior are more correct, more just than "theirs". Wherein we are talking not about real comparison, i.e. not about which is better, based on common sense and worldly logic. A simple person usually does not make such a comparison. “Alien” seems “bad” not because for some reason it is worse than “ours”, but because it is “foreign”.

Lecture 5. The content and dynamics of human interaction

At present, in Western science there are many points of view explaining the reasons for the interaction of people (Table 1). In our country, its study by psychologists is given

very little attention. For a better understanding of its essence, it is necessary to represent, first of all, the epistemology of the emergence and development of interaction, understanding it as a complex multi-stage process of transformation (transformation) of some social-psychological phenomena into others.

It is possible to divide the process of human interaction into three stages (levels): initial, intermediate and final (Scheme 1).

Beginning of interaction. On the first stage(initial level) interaction is the simplest primary contacts of people, when between them there is only a certain primary and very simplified mutual or one-sided "physical" influence on each other for the purpose of exchanging information and communication, which, for specific reasons, may not reach its goals, and therefore not to receive comprehensive development 1 .

The main thing in the success of initial contacts is the acceptance or rejection of each other by the partners in the interaction. At the same time, they do not constitute a simple sum of individuals, but are some completely new and specific formation of connections and relationships, which is regulated by a real or imaginary (imagined) difference - similarity, similarity-contrast of people involved in joint activity (practical or mental). Differences between individuals are one of the main conditions for the development of their interactions (communication, relationships, compatibility, workability), as well as themselves as individuals.

Any contact usually begins with concrete sensory perception. appearance, characteristics of the activities and behavior of other people. At this moment, as a rule, emotional-behavioral reactions of individuals dominate. Acceptance-rejection relations are manifested in facial expressions,

The concept of "contact" is used in several meanings. "Contact" can mean touch (from lat. contactus, contingo- touch, touch, grab, get, reach, have a relationship with someone). In psychology, contact is the convergence of subjects in time and space, as well as a certain measure of closeness in a relationship. In this regard, in some cases they speak of "good" and "close", "direct" or, conversely, of "weak", "unstable", unstable, "mediated" contact; in other cases, about contact as a necessary condition for correct interaction. The presence of contact, i.e. known stage of intimacy, is always regarded as the desirable basis for effective interaction.

Before looking into the role of body odor in interactions with other people, it is reasonable to ask what odors are perceived as pleasant and which are not.

Respondents consider a subjectively unobtrusive perfume smell to be a pleasant body odor. At the same time, the subjective assessment of the unobtrusiveness of the smell is associated not only with the dosage of perfume application, sensitivity to smells, but also with the personal preferences of the one who feels this smell. In other words, if the respondent likes the smell, the increased (within reasonable limits) intensity of its application does not cause irritation and preserves pleasant impression from the smell.

“For me, as a rule, a perfume smell is still pleasant. It is clear that I may or may not like it, but if it is a slight flair, then I may well find it pleasant. It is much worse when a person smells like a dirty and sweaty body” (Respondent No. 16, 51 years old, has a partner).

In addition, when describing pleasant bodily odors, some respondents refer not only to abstract natural and perfume aromas, but also to the smell of a specific significant person. Women who are in a romantic relationship mention their man's natural body odor. In this context, the spontaneous mention of the smell of one’s partner, and not another significant person (mother, father, girlfriend) can be explained both by a stable moral assessment of the smell of a beloved (“good” according to Sinott) person, and by the importance of accepting the smell of a person, interaction with which is more intimate, dense and intimate. It is worth noting that it is the pleasant body odor of one’s man that is spontaneously mentioned, while the assignment of a “neutral” smell to a man occurs as a result of a targeted question about the partner’s body odor.

“I really like the smell of my husband. From the very beginning I noted this for myself, for me it was very important. After all, we are always together with him, I could not endure the unpleasant smell. Plus, there is an opinion that we choose our partner by smell. It seems to me that it is true” (Respondent No. 6, 32 years old, has a partner).

The smell of a clean body is perceived by respondents as neutral, sufficient for comfortable communication with another person. In this situation, we are talking more about the absence of body odor than the smell of "purity", which is explicitly regarded as perfumery.

To unpleasant odors respondents attribute a strong natural body odor. First of all, it is associated with non-compliance with hygiene - a “dirty” bodily odor that appeared as a result of irregular washing, non-use of deodorants, and wearing dirty clothes. Secondly, a strong natural body odor is associated with the aging process, disease, and sometimes habits (alcohol, cigarettes, garlic, onions). Sometimes the smell of the body or clothes, saturated with the unpleasant smell of a “foreign” house (the smell of a smoky room, a musty smell, the smell of food, etc.) can turn out to be unpleasant. In addition, body odor is associated with a subjectively "heavy" perfume smell. Again, the perception of the smell of a perfume as heavy or harsh is determined not only by its dosage, susceptibility to smells, but also by the personal aromatic preferences of the person who smells it. For example, Thierry Mugler's Angel perfume, recognized as one of the loudest perfumes, was generously applied to the interviewer during an interview, and the respondent rated it as unobtrusive due to a personal liking for the smell. However, it is worth noting that the smell of perfume, whatever it may be, is perceived by the respondents more positively than the smell of a dirty body. In addition, respondents are more sensitive to unpleasant odors than pleasant ones.

“Well, if a person smells of sweat or dirty clothes, then I will think that he is either a slob or an unhappy person, because he may simply not hear this or there is no one to look after him. Clothes often smell - I understand that I live in such conditions, I understand that something goes on in the family ... Well, for example, people who smoke. Or sometimes some kind of senile clothes smell unpleasant - it means something like this at home” (Respondent No. 8, 47 years old, no partner).

Rice. 2. Continuum of degree of "pleasantness" of body odor