|
In the encyclopedic dictionary, a system (from the Greek systema - a whole made up of parts, a connection) is defined “as a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, forming a certain integrity, unity.”
Analyzing this approach to defining a system, P.K. Anokhin comes to the conclusion that “all formulations of the concept of a system based only on “interaction” and on the “ordering” of components turn out to be untenable in themselves.” To understand the system, it is necessary to “reveal those determining factors that free the components from excess degrees of freedom.” As such a determining factor, P.K. Anokhin identifies a specific result of the system’s activity. Through the result, you can represent both the entire activity of the system and its various changes. “This activity can be fully expressed in questions reflecting the various stages of the formation of the system.
1. What result should be obtained?
2. When exactly should the result be obtained?
3. By what mechanisms should the result be obtained?
4. How does the system ensure that the result obtained is sufficient?”
The result has imperative capabilities. To obtain it, the system is formed and rebuilt over time. The result determines which components will be involved in the system and what qualities of the components will be used. In a system, possible components work in “interaction” to produce a useful result. “The specific mechanism for the interaction of components is to free them from excess degrees of freedom, which contribute to obtaining the result.”
But for the result to control the formation of the system, it is necessary that it arise before the system. Is this possible? Is it possible for the content of the result, its prediction, to exist before the result itself appears? Anokhin expresses a brilliant proposal, and then experimentally shows that this is possible. This prediction of the result in his theory appears in the form of an “acceptor of the result of an action.” Note that back in 1947 N.A. Bernstein, considering the problem of constructing movements, pointed out that the movement control system must have “a master element that, in one way or another, introduces the required value of the controlled parameter into the system.” However, in his words, “...how exactly, in what physiological ways can the image of the foreseeable or required effect of an action function as a leading determinant of the motor composition of the action and the program of departures of the specifying element - this is a question for which no specific answer has yet begun to be outlined.” and a reasoned answer." Anokhin not only outlines such a path, but also implements it in practice.
In our work, we introduced a third determinant - “motivation” - and showed that the systemogenesis of human activity is determined by two vectors: “motive - goal” and “goal - result”, which are formed taking into account the internal and external conditions of activity.
The integration of the components of the activity system begins on the basis of a normatively approved mode of activity (NOSA). This method of activity can be recorded in instructions, and then it acts as normative, or transmitted from master to student, and then it acts as approved. The normative method involves obtaining a certain result using fixed methods of activity. It is these external (objective) characteristics of activity that are the determinants of the integration of internal (subjective) conditions (mechanisms) of activity. In this case, the leading internal determination is the motivation of the subject of activity.
Motivation has a significant impact on the acceptance of professional activity, determines its personal meaning, influences the transformation of normative activities and methods of its implementation. Under the influence of motivation, criteria for achieving a goal and criteria for the preference of one or another modification of the goal and methods for achieving it are established.
Under the influence of motivation, memory resources are involved in activity. This is possible, since motivation was included in all components of the inner world when they were formed in the past. It also participates in reflecting the current external conditions of activity.
Thus, motivation organizes holistic behavior based on:
mobilization of structures of past experience;
assessing situational information about the conditions in which the activity should be carried out;
forming an operational image of the conditions of activity by comparing them with the normative result and method of activity, as well as with its normative conditions.
Any activity in its result is characterized by three parameters: productivity, quality and reliability. They can take various modifications. So, for example, in the activities of a businessman, this is the amount of utilized capital (productivity), the rate of profit (quality), and the stability of profit (reliability). These parameters are in an antagonistic relationship: in an effort to ensure quality or reliability, we often reduce productivity.
Achieving high performance in relation to each parameter requires certain financial and/or material and technical resources. Therefore, you often have to choose which one to give preference to. This is decided on the basis of motivation. Thus, motivation determines the hierarchy of the main parameters of the result of activity, which its subject builds for himself. It is important for us to emphasize that each of the result parameters requires its own PVC system. In a certain respect they can overlap, i.e. the same qualities can be included in subsystems that ensure productivity, quality and reliability. In a number of cases, it is necessary to optimize the interaction of individual PVCs that are part of different subsystems that ensure productivity, quality and reliability. All this must be taken into account when conducting a psychological analysis of activity.
Having defined a system as “a complex of selectively involved components, in which interactions and relationships take on the character of mutual cooperation of components to obtain a focused useful result,” we must answer the question, what is the component composition of the psychological system of activity? This question in turn can be divided into two sub-questions.
1. Where do these components come from?
2. What are these components, what are their substantive characteristics?
The following answer can be given to the first sub-question: the components of a functional system of activity are formed from individual structures of a person’s inner world. From the physiological side, they are realized by separate but interconnected components of the human nervous system and, first of all, the brain. At the same time, the leading methodological principle of our analysis is the position that a person is a subject of activity. This is primarily manifested in the fact that he has certain needs, abilities to want and desire. Depending on desires, a person sets himself as a subject of activity a certain goal, the achievement of which is characterized by a certain result associated with needs and desires.
The most important component of subjectivity is the fact that experiences are represented in the designated main components of activity. This connection realizes the methodological principle: the unity of knowledge and experiences.
The purpose of an activity and its result are initially realized through ideas about the result. In order for the goal to be achieved, the subject must perform targeted actions, in other words, actions according to a specific program. Therefore, the subject’s activities will be guided by ideas about the result and program of activity.
The program of activity is formed on the basis of reflection and assessment of its objective and subjective conditions, comparing them with normative methods of activity.
Each of the noted components includes a decision-making process: what should be taken into account in desires (the motivation process that ends with a decision about the dominant motives and desires); what result should be achieved in a particular case and at a particular time; the system of what actions and according to what program the desired result can be obtained. The selection field in each of the components can be significant.
Finally, it should be noted that the formation of each component is accompanied by reflection, which allows us to present the process of formation of each component and activity as a whole as a process of systemogenesis of activity. In this process of systemogenesis, a psychological functional system of activity is formed.
The basic principles of the formation of the system are simultaneously the laying of the main blocks, and subsequently heterochrony, unevenness and sufficiency of their development. The combination of these principles indicates that the formation of a system of activity cannot be considered as an autonomous, sequential formation of its individual blocks. Already at the very beginning of the genesis of the activity system, its main blocks are formed, which subsequently develop unevenly and heterochronically. However, this does not mean that individual actions cannot be mastered in an activity sequentially. The architecture of an action is close in component composition to the architecture of an activity, and by mastering individual actions, we lay down the basic blocks of its entire system, which will further develop and become more complex.
The specificity of the system-genetic approach is not that it assumes the sequential, additive formation of individual blocks of a system of activity, and then their integration into a structure through the formation of functional connections. This would not be a system-genetic, but essentially an analytical approach. From the standpoint of systemogenesis of activity, the main points are the non-additivity of the structural components of the system, as well as the unevenness, heterochrony and sufficiency of their development. The systemic genetic approach to mastering professions is more complex than the traditional analytical approach. However, this is most likely a case where the truth may not be simple, since we are dealing with systemic phenomena of a high degree of complexity. At the same time, the systematic approach allows us to penetrate deeper into the patterns of the process of mastering activities and, consequently, achieve greater efficiency.
An important advantage of the system genetic approach is that it is based on the principle of determinism formulated by S.L. Rubinstein, according to which any external influence is mediated by a set of internal conditions.
These conditions are the entire inner world of a person, involved in activity in accordance with the goal and result. This world includes knowledge and skills, activity programs, decisive rules, criteria for achieving goals and preference criteria formed in the process of life at the stages preceding the development of actual activity. This includes various motives, reflexive skills, personal qualities (volitional and moral). Separately, it is necessary to highlight the abilities of the subject of activity, which allow the implementation of the functions of reflecting subjective and objective conditions of activity, decision-making, development of activity programs, control over the implementation of individual actions and activities as a whole.
Thus, the psychological system of a specific activity consists of dynamically mobilized structures of a person’s inner world. The determination of this mobilization is carried out on the basis of motivation and the desired result. Following P.K. Anokhin, we can say that each of the components of the inner world is mobilized and involved in the functional system only to the extent that it contributes to the programmed result obtained. The richer the inner world, the easier it is to form a functional system of a specific activity. (This explains well the fact that in psychology is called skill transfer.)
The proposed architecture of the psychological functional system of activity is close to the general architecture of the physiological functional system proposed by P.K. Anokhin. It cannot be any other way if we build our research on the basis of the principle of psychophysical unity (in the understanding of S.L. Rubinstein). But at the same time, the psychological system of activity in its components is filled with new content, which is determined primarily by human consciousness. “With the transition from biological to historical development, the human psyche comes to a new, higher level. This highest, qualitatively specific stage in the development of the psyche is human consciousness.”
|
System -
a set of interconnected and interdependent components that form unity and integrity.
A system is something whole, consisting of individual parts that make up the whole.
Systematics is the basis of many sciences. All existence is ultimately a complex system.
Systematicity
- the principle of scientific knowledge, which requires the study of phenomena in their dependence on the internally connected whole that they form, thereby acquiring new properties inherent in the whole ( Yaroshevsky
)
Systematicity
– a methodological approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena, when the corresponding phenomena are considered as a system that is not reducible to the sum of its elements, having a structure in which the properties of an element are determined by its place in the structure. (Karpenko)
The common tasks of researchers are the analysis and synthesis of these systems.
Borders
application of a systematic approach:
A systematic approach is not an end in itself, but a necessity to explain the phenomenon
1) It is necessary to explain mental phenomena (because outside of a systematic approach one cannot find an interpretation for them);
2) Applicable only to those objects that have a high degree of functional isolation;
There are different types of systems approach
- Complex – studies only the composition of the system; The relationships between elements and elements and the whole are not studied.
- Structural - there is an analysis of the relationships between elements, but there is no analysis of the relationships between the elements and the whole;
- Holistic - all elements of the system are considered in all respects - both with each other and with the whole.
Research in any science is methodologically based on these three types of systems approach!!!
Examples
applicability of the systems approach in psychology:
1) Identification of higher and lower mental functions;
2)Personality – study of various aspects of personality;
3)An activity is a system consisting of many subsystems, each of which relates to each other.
Around the 60s. In the 20th century, scientists began to make attempts to systematically describe the psyche using cybernetic and mathematical concepts.
The psyche today can be studied at three levels:
1.
Mental – the level of mental formations generated by biological mechanisms and subject to biological laws.
2.
Psychological - it involves the study of those human properties in their psychosomatic unity that are formed and manifested in the process of social interactions. The very term “human psychology” presupposes the study of the individual psychological properties of a person in his psychosomatic unity, since there is no way to explain the psyche and somatics in isolation from each other.
3.
Socio-psychological – involves the study of only those properties, which manifest themselves in social construction.
CONCEPTS IMPLEMENTING SYSTEMICITY USING THE EXAMPLE OF PSYCHE CONSTRUCTION SCHEMES
For it is impossible to explain the operation of a system without finding out what blocks it consists of.
Schemes for constructing the psyche
The first of them was proposed by Mr. Aristotle.
|
Psyche as a unity
|
Knowledge
|
That is, the block of cognitive information processing
|
|
Feelings
|
That is, a block of affective states (emotions, feelings)
|
|
Voli
|
That is, a regulatory-volitional block
|
Lomov Boris Fedorovich
Based on a systems approach, he distinguishes three subsystems in the human psyche:
|
Subsystems of the human psyche
|
|
cognitive
|
regulatory
|
communicative
|
|
Levels of the cognitive subsystem:
Ø
Sensory-perceptual level;
Ø
Presentation level;
Ø
Speech-mental level
|
Includes all behavioral manifestations - psychomotor skills
|
Not described - Lomov did not specify its contents
|
Hansen
proposed his own scheme for the analysis and composition of the psyche, based on the so-called "pentbasis of initial properties".
Based on these five bases, he identified a number of components (structural elements) of the psyche:
1) perception (sensation and perception);
2) thinking (ideas and speech);
3) affect (emotions and feelings);
4) will (motive and actions)
“These associations become components of the system through their integration by such a component as consciousness Integrating attention and memory"
Panferov
divided human properties into 1) mental and 2) psychological.
In his concept, Panferov considers 2 mental structures:
1.
The structure of the psyche in its biologically determined properties, i.e.:
Gnostic
· affective
Regulatory entities
2.
Describes psychology person. Here, not only biological determinants are taken into account, but also human subjectivity - a person is characterized as subject of activity in three main areas:
· in cognition;
· in work;
· in communication.
The structure of the human psyche in Panferov’s concept is fivefold:
I. Block of activity-psychological formations. Here we consider how a working person interacts with the external material environment.
II. Block socially-psychological formations. Here a person is considered as a subject of communication; a person interacting with the social environment.
III. Block of psychophysical formations. A person here is considered as a subject of cognition who interacts with the external material environment;
IV. Block of psychophysiological formations. Here a person is considered as a subject of cognition, interacting with the internal environment of his body.
V. Central integrating unit psychoreflexive formations. Here, a person as a subject of cognition interacts with the internal ideal environment.
Balin
identified three components of the psyche:
|
Endopsychics
|
Forms a mental product in the form of emotions, feelings and motives
|
|
Exopsyche
|
Ensures the emergence of all mental images under the influence of the external environment
|
|
Mesopsychic
|
Serves motor skills
|
All three components have one universal foundation: environment reflection function
|
The main starting point of system analysis as a scientific discipline is principle of consistency, which can be perceived as a philosophical principle that performs both ideological and methodological functions. Worldview function The principle of systematicity is manifested in the representation of an object of any nature as a set of elements that are in a certain interaction with each other with the surrounding world, as well as in understanding the systemic nature of knowledge. Methodological function The principle of systematicity is manifested in a set of cognitive tools, methods and techniques, which are the general methodology of systemic research.
The first systematic ideas about nature, its objects and knowledge about them took place in the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Throughout the history of the formation of systems analysis, ideas about systems and the patterns of their construction, functioning and development have been repeatedly clarified and rethought. The term “system” is used in cases where they want to characterize the object being studied or designed as something whole (single), complex, about which it is impossible to immediately give an idea by showing it, depicting it graphically, or describing it with a mathematical expression.
Comparing the evolution of the definition of a system (elements of communication, then the goal, then the observer) and the evolution of the use of categories of the theory of knowledge in research activities, one can detect similarities: at the beginning, models (especially formal ones) were based on taking into account only elements And connections, interactions between them, then attention began to be paid goals, searching for methods for its formalization (objective function, functioning criterion, etc.), and, starting from the 60s. more and more attention is being paid to observer, the person performing the modeling or conducting the experiment, i.e. decision maker. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives the following definition: “a system is an objective unity of objects, phenomena, naturally related to each other, as well as knowledge about nature and society”), i.e. it is emphasized that the concept of an element (and therefore a system) can be applied both to existing, materially realized objects, and to knowledge about these objects or about their future implementations. Thus, in the concept of a system, the objective and subjective constitute a dialectical unity, and we should talk about approaching objects of research as systems, about their different representation at different stages of cognition or creation. In other words, the term “system” at different stages of its consideration can include different concepts, as if talking about the existence of a system in various forms. M. Mesarovic, for example, suggests highlighting strata consideration of the system. Similar strata can exist not only during creation, but also during cognition of an object, i.e. when displaying real-life objects in the form of systems abstractly represented in our minds (in models), which will then help create new objects or develop recommendations for transforming existing ones. A system analysis methodology can be developed not necessarily to cover the entire process of cognition or system design, but for one of its strata (which, as a rule, happens in practice), and in order to avoid terminological and other disagreements between researchers or system developers , it is necessary, first of all, to clearly stipulate which particular stratum of consideration we are talking about.
Considering various definitions of a system and their evolution, and without highlighting any of them as the main one, the fact is emphasized that at different stages of representing an object as a system, in specific different situations, different definitions can be used. Moreover, as ideas about the system are refined or when moving to another stratum of its research, the definition of the system not only can, but should also be refined. A more complete definition, including elements, connections, goals, and the observer, and sometimes his “language” of displaying the system, helps to set the task and outline the main stages of the system analysis methodology. For example, in organizational systems, if you do not identify a person competent to make decisions, you may not achieve the goal for which the system is created. Thus, when conducting a system analysis, it is necessary first of all to display the situation using the most complete possible definition of the system, and then, highlighting the most essential components that influence decision-making, formulate a “working” definition that can be refined, expanded, and converged depending on the progress of the analysis . It should be taken into account that clarification or specification of the definition of a system during the research process entails a corresponding adjustment of its interaction with the environment and the definition of the environment. Hence, it is important to predict not only the state of the system, but also the state of the environment, taking into account its natural and artificial inhomogeneities.
The system is distinguished from the environment by an observer who determines the elements included in the system from the rest, i.e., from the environment, in accordance with the goals of the study (design) or a preliminary understanding of the problem situation. In this case, there are three possible positions for the observer, who:
can attribute himself to the environment and, presenting the system as completely isolated from the environment, build closed models (in this case, the environment will not play a role in the study of the model, although it may influence its formulation);
include yourself in the system and model it, taking into account your influence and the influence of the system on your ideas about it (a situation characteristic of economic systems);
to isolate oneself from both the system and the environment, and consider the system as open, constantly interacting with the environment, taking this fact into account when modeling (such models are necessary for developing systems).
Let's consider the basic concepts that help clarify the idea of the system. Under element It is customary to understand the simplest, indivisible part of the system. However, the answer to the question of what is such a part may be ambiguous. For example, the elements of a table can be “legs, drawers, lid, etc.”, or “atoms, molecules”, depending on what task the researcher faces. Therefore, we will accept the following definition: an element is the limit of division of a system from the point of view of the aspect of consideration, the solution of a specific problem, a set goal. If necessary, you can change the principle of division, highlight other elements and, with the help of a new division, obtain a more adequate idea of the analyzed object or problem situation. When multi-level dismemberment of a complex system is customary to distinguish subsystems And components.
The concept of a subsystem implies that a relatively independent part of the system is distinguished, possessing the properties of the system, and in particular, having a subgoal towards which the subsystem is oriented, as well as its own specific properties.
If the parts of the system do not possess such properties, but are simply collections of homogeneous elements, then such parts are usually called components.
Concept connection is included in any definition of a system and ensures the emergence and preservation of its integral properties. This concept simultaneously characterizes both the structure (statics) and functioning (dynamics) of the system. Communication is defined as a limitation on the degree of freedom of elements. Indeed, elements, when interacting (connecting) with each other, lose part of their properties that they potentially possessed in a free state.
Concept state usually characterize a “cut” of the system, a stop in its development. If we consider the elements (components, functional blocks), take into account that the “outputs” (output results) depend on , y and x, i.e. g=f(,y,x), then, depending on the task, the state can be defined as (,y), (,y,g) or (,y,x,g).
If a system is capable of transitioning from one state to another (for example,
), then they say that she has command. This concept is used when there are unknown patterns (rules) of transition from one state to another. Then they say that the system has some kind of behavior and find out its nature, the algorithm. Taking into account the introduction of notation, the behavior can be represented as a function
Concept equilibrium is defined as the ability of a system in the absence of external disturbing influences (or with constant influences) to maintain its state for as long as desired. This condition is called state of balance. For economic organizational systems, this concept is rather conditionally applicable.
Under convention understand the ability of a system to return to a state of equilibrium after it has been removed from this state under the influence of external (or in systems with active elements - internal) disturbing influences. This ability is inherent in systems at constant Y only when the deviations do not exceed a certain limit. State of balance. to which the system is capable of returning is called stable state of equilibrium.
Regardless of the choice of system definition (which reflects the accepted concept and is actually the beginning of modeling), it has the following characteristics: signs:
integrity – a certain independence of the system from the external environment and from other systems;
connectedness, i.e. the presence of connections that allow, through transitions from element to element, to connect any two elements of the system - The simplest connections are serial and parallel connections of elements, positive and negative feedback;
functions - the presence of goals (functions, capabilities) that are not a simple sum of subgoals (subfunctions, capabilities) of the elements included in the system; The irreducibility (degree of irreducibility) of the properties of a system to the sum of the properties of its elements is called emergence.
The orderliness of the relationships connecting the elements of the system determines the structure of the system as a set of elements that function in accordance with the connections established between the elements of the system. Connections determine the order of exchange between elements of matter, energy, and information, which is important for the system.
The functions of a system are its properties that lead to the achievement of a goal. The functioning of a system is manifested in its transition from one state to another or in the preservation of a certain state for a certain period of time. That is, the behavior of a system is its functioning over time. Goal-directed behavior is focused on the system achieving its preferred goal.
Large systems are systems that include a significant number of elements with similar connections. Complex systems are systems with a large number of elements of various types and with heterogeneous connections between them. These definitions are very conditional. It is more constructive to define a large complex system as a system, at the upper levels of control of which all information about the state of the elements of the lower level is unnecessary and even harmful.
Systems can be open or closed. Closed systems have clearly defined, rigid boundaries. For their functioning, protection from environmental influences is necessary. Open systems exchange energy, information and matter with the environment. For open systems, exchange with the external environment and the ability to adapt to external conditions are an indispensable condition for their existence. All organizations are open systems.
The concept of “system structure” plays a key role in the analysis and synthesis of systems, and the following thesis (law) of cybernetics is essential.
“There are laws of nature that govern the behavior of large multi-connected systems of any nature: biological, technical, social and economic. These laws relate to the processes of self-regulation and self-organization and express precisely those “guiding principles” that determine growth and stability, learning and regulation, adaptation and the evolution of systems. At first glance, completely different systems from the point of view of cybernetics are exactly the same, since they demonstrate the so-called viable behavior, the goal of which is survival.
Such behavior of the system is determined not so much by the specific processes occurring within it, or by the values that even the most important of its parameters take, but, first of all, by its dynamic structure, as a way of organizing the interconnection of individual parts of a single whole. The most important elements of the system structure are feedback loops and conditional probability mechanisms, which ensure self-regulation, self-learning and self-organization of the system. The main result of the system's activity is its outcomes. In order for the outcomes to meet our goals, it is necessary to organize the structure of the system accordingly." That is, in order to obtain the required outcomes, it is necessary to be able to influence feedback and conditional probability mechanisms, as well as be able to evaluate the results of these influences.
The condition for the successful outcome of such influences is to take into account the following thesis (law) of cybernetics. “A system with a certain structure is characterized by a set (interval) of equilibrium states. Under the influence of external influences, the system can go into one of its possible states or collapse.
Under certain conditions, due to external influences, an abrupt transition of the system to a new higher (or lower) level of order is possible. Moreover, the transition of a system to various states characteristic of it, as well as the destruction of the system, can be the result of both sufficiently strong external influences and relatively weak fluctuations that have existed for a long time or are increasing due to positive feedback. The transition of a system to a new level of organization in certain situations is a random process of the system choosing one of the possible paths of evolution. Here again we need to emphasize the word “possible”, i.e. It is reasonable to talk about creating conditions for the system to transition into one of the possible states inherent to it. Violence against the system will lead to nothing good
There are two extreme options for changing the structure of the system under the influence of external forces: revolutionary and evolutionary. In revolutionary it is assumed that the creation of a new, better structure must be preceded by the “breaking” of the old structure. Usually, after a violent break, the system moves to a lower level of functioning, and the formation of a new structure is delayed for a long, sometimes indefinite period. Evolutionary influence involves studying the structure of the system, identifying trends in its development, supporting positive trends and counteracting negative ones. The results of the impact are controlled by feedback. With the accumulation of quantitative changes, an abrupt transition of the system to a new equilibrium state is possible - to a new structure for which the system is “internally” ready.
If we assume that the state of the system can be represented by a set of n-parameters, then each state of the system will correspond to a point in the n-dimensional state space of the system, and the functioning of the system will manifest itself in the movement of this point along a certain trajectory in the state space. Apparently, achieving the desired state is possible, in the general case, along several trajectories. The preference of a trajectory is determined by an assessment of the quality of the trajectory and also depends on the restrictions imposed on the system by the external environment. These restrictions determine the range of permissible trajectories. To determine the preferred trajectory from among the acceptable ones, a criterion for the quality of system functioning is introduced - in the general case, in the form of some objective function. On the preferred (optimal) trajectory, the objective function reaches an extreme value. Purposeful intervention in the behavior of a system, ensuring that the system selects an optimal trajectory, is called control.
The division of a system into interacting modules (subsystems) depends on the purpose of the study and can have a different basis, including a material (substantial), functional, algorithmic, informational, etc. basis. An example of systems in which the material, functional and information bases are merged when divided into subsystems are organizational systems management systems.
The presented concepts characterizing the system and its structure determine the basic provisions that determine the development of effective management of objects.
Indeed, effective management presupposes:
1) consideration of the object as some kind of integral system operating in a certain environment;
2) the availability of the necessary information about the main characteristics of the system, primarily about the patterns of system behavior under various conditions;
3) determining the development strategy of the system, based on the goals of its existence and functioning;
4) justification for the effectiveness of achieving the set goal, i.e. choosing a criterion for assessing the quality of system development;
5) implementation of the solution when managing the system, analysis of the system’s response to control influences.
The listed provisions are related to the use of models for studying systems, including:
development of models adequate to the system and problem being solved ;
justification of management decisions made on the basis of “model experiments”, taking into account technical, technological, social and other .
factors.
The most expensive thing for a person is the hope for a “magic pill” - an illusory opportunity to solve complex situations simply. What does “complicated” mean? Having components that are connected in one way or another. But this means that the situation has a structure that can be considered as a system. This means that it can be applied to solving the problem. This method helps to make the issue simpler, but without compromising the effectiveness of the measures taken.
A systematic approach is the consideration of an object or phenomenon in a variety of relationships that make it possible to predict changes in the object of consideration. There can be a lot of elements of systems, and their connections are ambiguous. And yet there are principles that help make life easier for a scientist. They are called “principles of the systems approach.” With their help, you can overcome the “curse of complexity.” Let's illustrate the ideas with examples from psychology.
The principle of determination: The system does everything to achieve the goal, even if circumstances change. As we see, this principle can easily explain such a complex phenomenon as personal conservatism. The fact is that goals are not formed by the strongest sides of our psyche, so we cannot expect flexibility.
Principle of tolerance: Only those systems are viable that are able to tolerate some deviations from the parameters they are comfortable with. In practice, this manifests itself in the fact that a person’s level of achievement is associated with his ability to tolerate discomfort. So you shouldn’t complain about inconveniences - you need to learn to tolerate them or eliminate them, but don’t despair. The systems approach argues that tolerance pays a premium.
Emergence principle- each system has properties that cannot be derived from the properties of individual elements and the connections between them. When two personalities form a family, something like a new psyche is formed, common to family members (it is not for nothing that it is believed that spouses are given a new angel - the guardian of the family). And the “spirit” of such a new family may be different from the “spirit” of each individual family member.
Principle of consent- the goals of the system and subsystems should at least not contradict, ideally, coincide, although this almost never happens. Hence a lot of disagreements in everyday life. For example, the parents' goals are to give their son a higher education, and the son's goals are to get the most out of life. And when the choice becomes between entertainment and an evening of work, systemic contradictions begin. This is already a conflict of values.
Principle of causality- any change is necessarily associated with other changes. Let's take an overweight woman as an example: until she has enough reasons to lose weight, she won't get down to business. And many live like this for years.
The principle of determinism- the system changes only due to external reasons. And you shouldn't deceive yourself. Goals are set “outside”. Let's take the problem of self-education. A person reads additional books not because he set a goal for himself, but because he realized that he lacks knowledge. That is, the reason is still external, but the person himself decided how to solve the problem - by reading literature. From this principle, by the way, follows the existence of God. But this is a separate topic.
The principle of diversity- the stability of the system is due to the variety of characteristics of the elements. Of course, if there is no contradiction. According to this principle, a family made up of very different people is more likely to cope with a variety of problems than one made up of similar people with similar problems.
Entropy principle- the isolated system dies. Of course it sounds sad. But the fact is that if a person loses connection with his environment, he degrades. We remember that goals are set from the outside and controlled from the outside. The system overcomes its imperfections. And if there is no interaction, then degradation is inevitable. So, if a person loses interest in life, then his mental activity gradually or immediately fades away.
There are other principles, but the ones outlined are basic for understanding what a systems approach is.
ABSTRACT
on topic:
“The principle of systematicity in psychology”
Plan
Introduction
1. The concept of the principle of systematicity in science
2. Implementation of the principle of systematicity in psychology
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
The system is an integral part of modern scientific theory. Without the principle of systematicity today, it seems, not a single science is possible. If we talk about a systems approach as a whole, then it usually means a special position of the researcher and an arsenal of tools that capture the subject under study as multi-quality, holistic and changing. Dynamic unity of the different, i.e. system is analyzed in terms of elements and structure, part and whole, organization and coordination, development, hierarchy, dimensions and levels, expressing the modern structure of any positive science. The specificity of systemic cognition lies in the possibility of describing and explaining integral formations of reality.
The idea of the systemic nature of mental phenomena acts as a definite result of the development of knowledge about the psyche and behavior. Being included in the universal interconnection of events in the material world, mental phenomena express the unique unity of the diverse properties of living beings. Together, they form a “functional organism” that allows animals (humans) to flexibly navigate, communicate and act in a changing world. The psyche objectively appears as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized, developing whole, or organic system, the functional components of which have a common root and are therefore inseparable.
Here begins a series of questions that are of fundamental importance for psychology. How to represent a mental phenomenon as a system? In what form do the components, structure, system-forming factors, levels of organization appear here? What properties do such systems have and how are they related to each other? It is obvious that outside of special studies, these and similar questions either remain rhetorical or receive an abstract and general solution that adds little to the understanding of the reality being studied. Therefore, the systemic principle in psychological science needs the most careful study, which explains the relevance of our work.
Consequently, the purpose of our work is to study the process of emergence and development of the principle of systematicity in psychological science.
The object of research in our work is psychological science.
Subject: system principle in psychology.
The goal, object and subject define the following tasks:
Consideration of the concept of systematicity in scientific knowledge as a whole;
Study of the origin and development of the system principle in psychology;
Determining the significance of this principle for psychological science.
The practical significance of our work lies in the fact that the material presented in it can be used in studying the course of general psychology and human psychology, as well as for a more in-depth study of methodological problems of scientific knowledge within the framework of special courses and special seminars.
1. The concept of the principle of systematicity in science
Systematicity is an explanatory principle of scientific knowledge, requiring the study of phenomena in their dependence on the internally connected whole that they form, thereby acquiring new properties inherent in the whole.
Behind the apparent simplicity of the aphorism that “the whole is greater than its parts,” lies a wide range of questions, both philosophical and concrete scientific. The answers to them prompt us to find out by what criteria and on what basis a special category of objects is isolated from a great variety of phenomena, acquiring the significance and character of a systemic one.
The internal structure of these objects is described in such concepts as element, connection, structure, function, organization, management, self-regulation, stability, development, openness, activity, environment, etc.
The idea of systematicity has a centuries-old history of knowledge. The phrases “solar system” or “nervous system” have long been included in everyday language. From ancient ideas about the cosmos as an orderly and harmonious whole (as opposed to chaos) to the modern triumph of systems such as man-computer and the tragedies generated by the degradation of ecosystems, human thought follows the principle of systematicity.
The systems approach as a methodological regulator was not “invented” by philosophers. He directed research practice (including laboratory and experimental work) in reality before it was theoretically comprehended. Natural scientists themselves singled it out as one of those working principles of science, using which one can discover new phenomena and come to important discoveries.
From scientific thought it is required that this knowledge be built according to a certain logic and its various fragments be put together into a holistic picture that satisfies the principle of systematicity. Not all concepts pass the test of this criterion, therefore, in order to clarify the specifics of knowledge that is adequate to the principle of systematicity, they should be compared with several types of “non-systemic” theories.
There are several such types: holism, elementalism, eclecticism, reductionism.
Holism (from the Greek holos - whole, whole) absolutizes the factor of integrity, accepting it as a primary principle that cannot be deduced from anything. In psychology, a similar principle appeared in ideas about the soul, consciousness, and personality.
Consciousness or personality are indeed wholes, but systemic ones, therefore their study involves a special analysis of the area of phenomena designated by these terms, its multidimensional structure, levels of its organization, relations with the natural and social environment, mechanisms for maintaining integrity, etc. Only then does the prospect of building a theory that reproduces the properties and functions of consciousness and personality as system objects open up.
Elementarism claims that a system is built from elements that, interacting with each other, acquire a new quality as parts of the whole and lose it, falling out of this whole. Just as holism absolutizes integrity, seeing its foundations and active causes in itself, elementalism ignores the integrity of the system, considering each of its components to be a self-sufficient value. Its connections with other similar quantities are thought of as a connection, entering which they do not experience significant transformations.
Another antipode of systematicity is eclecticism (from the Greek eklektikos - choosing) as a combination of heterogeneous, devoid of internal connections, sometimes incompatible with each other, ideas and positions, the replacement of some logical foundations with others.
Another attitude opposing the principle of systematicity in psychology is reductionism (from the Latin reductio - moving back), which reduced either the whole to parts, or complex phenomena to simple ones. Reducing, for example, complex organized activity to a simpler “stimulus-response” relationship or to a conditioned reflex prevents a systematic explanation of this integrity. The danger of a reductionist attitude incompatible with the principle of systematicity is especially great in psychology due to the uniqueness of its phenomena, “borderline” in relation to the biological and social.
In connection with everything said above, it should be noted that the history of psychological science itself in many ways acts as a history of the search for alternatives to the atomistic, essentially asystemic point of view on the nature of the psyche and behavior.
2. Implementation of the principle of systematicity in psychology
psychological science systematic
Aristotle was the first in the history of scientific thought, including psychological thought, to approve the principle of systematicity. He went through the school of Plato, where the soul was represented as an entity external to the body, falling apart into parts, each of which is located in one of the organs of the body (mind in the head, courage in the chest, lust in the liver). At the same time, Plato defended the position that expediency reigns in the world. Things in nature tend to imitate imperishable ideas. Imperfect human ideas are drawn to these ideas in anguish.
In Plato's teaching, the role of purpose was mythologized. But this role is not fictitious. Human consciousness is initially goal-oriented. Plato gave this property to all reality, where, in his conviction, it is not reasons that rule, as philosophers previously believed, but goals. The appeal to the category of goal prepared the development by Aristotle of the principle of systematicity.
Aristotle developed his system concept. She assumed that a living body has a physical composition (contains the same elements that inorganic nature consists of), but in it the action of these elements occurs within certain boundaries and according to special internal principles established by its organization as a whole, on which the interaction of parts depends. The body ceases to exist not due to the disappearance of one of the elements, but due to the collapse of its systemic organization. This organized whole is, according to Aristotle, the soul as “the form of a natural body potentially endowed with life”
It should be emphasized that the basis for the principle of systematicity approved by Aristotle in relation to the psyche was the rethinking of the broad “grid” of universal categories of cognition (part-whole, means-goal, possibility-reality, structure-function, content-form, internal-external). They are philosophical and methodological, but the implementation of the principle of systematicity in specific sciences, including psychology, depends on them.
In the 17th century, with the advent of a new picture of the world, which did away with the previous Aristotelian “forms” and “essences”, which presented the entire visible universe as moving according to the laws of mechanics, a new type of systemic explanation of the organism and its mental manifestations - perception, memory, affect, movement - arose. An example of such an explanation was Descartes’ model, in which the organism was presented as a machine-like working device.
However, then the entire structure of ideas about the body, its evolution, self-regulation and relationships with the external environment changes radically. A new systematic style of thinking is emerging, in the establishment of which four naturalists C. Darwin, C. Bernard, G. Helmholtz and I. M. Sechenov played an outstanding role.
A new era in biology and psychology was opened by the transition to a special system that integrates the organism and the environment, treating their relationship as an integrity, but different from physicochemical, energetic and molecular integrity.
Darwin combined the principle of the determining role of the environment with the idea of the struggle of living beings for survival in this environment. The pathos of the physicochemical direction was to identify processes in inorganic and organic nature, bring them under one law and make the organism an object of precise knowledge. Interpreting the “organism-environment” relationship in a new way, Darwin’s concept emphasized the activity of the organism, encouraging the removal of the equal sign between the two members of the relationship.
Bernard was at the origins of the new model of the organism, according to which the organism has two environments: an external, physical environment, and an internal one, in which all the living elements of the organic body exist. The general idea was that it is thanks to the constancy of the internal environment that the organism acquires independence from external vicissitudes. Many reading mechanisms work to preserve the constants of this environment (oxygen, sugar, salts, etc.).
And again, as in previous eras (during the times of Aristotle and Descartes), the idea of systematicity was asserted in opposition to non-systematic ideas about nature as a great cycle of countless physical particles. To remove a living body from this cycle would mean to tear it out of the single chain of existence.
Having approved the systemic relationship “organism - environment,” Darwin and Bernard created a new problematic situation in the psychophysiology of the senses. After all, it is through these organs that the specified relationship is realized at the level of the organism’s behavior.
There was a search for a direct relationship between sensations and nerve fibers. Some progress has been made along this path. In particular, Helmholtz's theory of color vision appeared. However, the same Helmholtz, having moved in his “Physiological Optics” from individual sensations to an explanation of how holistic images of external objects arise, decisively changed his approach to these mental phenomena. He put forward the hypothesis, which received experimental confirmation, that an integral mental image is built by an integral sensorimotor mechanism, thanks to operations similar, as already noted, to logical ones (“unconscious conclusions”).
This was an outstanding step towards establishing the principle of systematicity in psychology.
The next step belonged to Sechenov. He translated the concept of unconscious inferences into the language of reflex theory. Behind this was a radical transformation of the concept of reflex. Instead of individual reflex arcs, the theory of neuroregulation of the behavior of an entire organism was introduced.
One of the unique features of Sechenov’s idea of a psychological system was its author’s overcoming for centuries the splitting of phenomena that had reigned over the minds of phenomena that belonged to incompatible orders of being - bodily and mental, brain and soul. Essentially, all of Sechenov’s innovative concepts were “hybrid”. “A brilliant stroke of Sechenov’s thought” - this is what I.P. Pavlov called the scheme associated with the discovery of central inhibition, adding to this that the discovery “made a strong impression among European physiologists and was the first contribution of the Russian mind to an important branch of natural science, just before thereby moved forward by the successes of the Germans and French.”
Freudians, Gestalt psychologists, and other scientists made their contribution to the formation of a system-forming principle in psychology. It is important that all these teachings gradually brought psychological science closer to the modern stage of its development.
Today, two tasks act as strategic guidelines for the development of a systematic approach in psychology: 1) building, based on the principle of systematicity, the subject of psychological science and 2) developing a systematic method of cognition of mental phenomena, or “reifying” the approach in the method. The completeness and effectiveness of solving these problems determine the level of development of systems research as a whole. Strictly speaking, the study of integral formations of the psyche (or their derivatives), identifying the composition, structure, methods of functioning, hierarchical organization, etc. is the rule rather than the exception. Objects of this kind include: behavioral act (P.K. Anokhin), gestalt (K. Koffka), psychological system (L.S. Vygotsky), intelligence (J. Piaget), cognitive sphere (D. Norman), perceptual cycle (U. Neisser), etc. The peculiarity of the current stage is that, along with the organization (structure, levels) and functioning of integral formations, the study of their formation and development comes to the fore. The genetic direction of the systems approach turns out to be dominant. The key issues considered are the mechanisms of generation of integrity, the relationship between stages and levels of development, its types, criteria, the relationship between the actual and the potential in mental development, etc.
Development expresses the way of existence of the psyche as a system. Its integrity and differentiation arise, form and transform during the development of the individual, which, in turn, acts as a multisystem process. Mental development is characterized by the movement of foundations, the change of determinants, the emergence of new properties or qualities, the transformation of the structure of integrity, etc. Any result of development is included in the overall determination of the psyche, acting as an internal factor, prerequisite or mediating link in relation to the result of the subsequent stage. A situation is emerging that makes it possible for mental education to move to a new stage of development.
The existing arsenal of systemic technologies in psychological science and practice is still very modest, and its development represents a difficult research task. The main difficulty is to study this or that phenomenon without losing it, without cutting it off, but taking into account its systemic (integral) qualities, connections with other phenomena of the life and activity of the subject, the holistic nature of their unfolding over time, the multi-level organization.
Psychological research conducted in line with the systems approach bears little resemblance to a monolithic movement. This is a very vague and heterogeneous body of work, united by an appeal to the concept of “system,” which is defined and implemented differently by different authors. In the general body of research, two extreme branches of the systems approach are embodied: concrete-syncretistic and abstract-analytical.
The concrete-syncretic branch involves the study of specific things and events (for example, a person, mental illness, professional training of specialists, etc.), and not the laws of their interaction. Here the elements or components of the system are arbitrarily established, and sets of connections and relationships are considered in a single formal plan, each of which is subject to qualitatively different laws. This branch reflects the stage of multidimensional knowledge in the development of psychological science.
The abstract-analytical branch of the systems approach involves the study of abstractly distinguished properties of things or events (for example, character traits or abilities), subject in content terms to qualitatively homogeneous laws. The basis for identifying systems (its components, levels) is a certain form of interaction and the corresponding structural level of event organization.
Both branches perform useful functions in cognition and are closely interrelated.
Conclusion
The principle of systematicity is a methodological approach to the analysis of mental phenomena, when the corresponding phenomenon is considered as a system that is not reducible to the sum of its elements, has a structure, and the properties of the element are determined by its place in the structure. The ideas of the system principle were developed in their own way by representatives of Gestalt psychology and psychoanalysis. Representatives of psychoanalysis connected the systemic principle with the analysis of affective processes, considering the so-called “complex” as the main factor of the human psyche. In connection with the idea of development, the system principle is implemented in the operational concept of intelligence by J. Piaget (Geneva School of Genetic Psychology). In neo-Freudianism, as well as in symbolic interactionism, the system of social, sign-mediated interaction, with its structure, is interpreted as primary and determining in relation to the individual’s psyche. Domestic philosophers and psychologists view psychological systems as purposeful and socially conditioned. In the process of individual development, they go through successive stages of complexity, differentiation, and transformation of their structure. The single genetic basis from which psychological systems develop is joint (social) objective human activity, including communication processes.
The principle of systematicity (or systems approach) as part of the methodological model of personality theory allows us to present it as an integrity in which multi-qualitative and multi-level connections are revealed, as a synthesis of structural-functional and phylo-ontogenetic concepts.
Literature
1. Belomestnova N.V. Systematic approach in psychology // Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 2005, No. 10.
2. Ganzen V.A. System descriptions in psychology. – L.: Leningrad State University, 1984.
3. Lomov B.F. On the systemic determination of mental phenomena and behavior // The principle of systematicity in psychological research. – M.: Nauka, 1990.
4. Tikhonov A.P. Personality and interpersonal relationships: psychological studies of the socionic approach. // Socionics, mentology and personality psychology. 2000, No. 6.
5. The principle of consistency in psychological research. / Under. ed. D.N. Zavalishina. – M.: Nauka, 1990.
Lomov B.F. On the systemic determination of mental phenomena and behavior // The principle of systematicity in psychological research. – M.: Nauka, 1990. p. 70.
