Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
None at all. I couldn't find any articles by Andrey Kurpatov in peer-reviewed scientific journals on medicine or psychology. Accordingly, if there is criticism of his work, it is informal. On the other hand, the lack of published works supporting statements from his books makes it possible to criticize, in fact, any of his original thesis.
I wrote a critique of one of his books, ” Methodology of Thinking. Draft”.
Link to the first part.
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5dfced1934808200b67f181d/kritika-knigi-av-kurpatova-metodologiia-myshleniia-chernovik-str-124-5e2d70fec05c7100ae22aa97
There are also 3 more parts of the criticism. I didn't hear any constructive criticism of my criticism from Kurpatov's fans who gather in his VK group. Moreover, most of them are not able to understand anything written!))
Unfortunately, Kurpatov is a false scientist. The problem is that few people are engaged in science and understand how the scientific method works in general. Especially when it comes to such specific areas as neurobiology, psychology, psychophysiology, etc.
I am a student of the “experimental psychology” direction, I study at the Institute of Experimental Psychology, respectively. I read several books by Andrey Vladimirovich, and even visited his “Higher School of Methodology”once for the sake of interest.
In fact, Kurpatov today represents the “new Freud”, whose theories were also not particularly scientific, but at the same time became very popular, like Fred himself.
A. V. Kurpatov is not connected with science in ANY way. He takes various well-known scientific studies (Zimbardo's prison experiment, Michel's marshmallow test, etc.), and then simply interprets the conclusions from them in the way he wants and builds his theories on these conclusions. Some authors Kurpatov simply misrepresents, such as Vygotsky (read, for example, one of the main works of Vygotsky “Thinking and speech”, you will understand what it is about). So, his concept of the “Trinity” is a kind of vinaigrette, collected from the theories of Lichko, Leonhard, Ananyev, Teplov, Pavlov and other famous personalities in psychology. At the same time, Kurpatov is very smart, his reasoning is somewhat similar to the thoughts of ancient philosophers and seems very logical. Perhaps some elements in his reasoning are even correct.
BUT science doesn't work that way! Kurpatov is not represented in any way in the academic sphere. All his theories are just the fruits of his own imagination: they were not checked by anyone, no scientific papers were written on them, and there was no criticism at all from specialists in psychology and neuroscience. And Kurpatov perfectly understands that it is much more profitable and easier to create a cult of his own name, and tell ordinary people something about the brain, consciousness, psyche, etc. Because in real science, each of the hypotheses will have to be proved. And this includes hundreds of experiments and critical reviews by experts in your own field. Only then will any hypothesis be accepted as working. But even so, most likely it will not be the ultimate truth, since the human psyche is very complex. For example, the Russian theory of activity (Vygotsky, Rubinstein, Luria), evolutionary psychologists (Tobby, Kosmides), cognitive scientists (Edelman), and others have very different views on how thinking works.
If you really want to learn something about the brain, consciousness, and thought processes, then take the same classic textbook by Baars and Gage ” Brain. Cognition. The mind.” Each of the theses in the book is supported by a huge number of scientific articles, after flipping through the book, you can generally understand at least partially how scientific methods work in psychology today.
Against the background of any normal scientific and popular science literature, Kurpatov's books are fiction. Kurpatov's constructions, like houses of cards, are destroyed by a detailed analysis of the facts.
All scientists and people I know who are connected specifically with scientific activities in psychology, rightly consider Andrey Kurpatov to be an ordinary showman who decided to pretend to be an authoritative psychologist. Kurpatov would have made a good philosopher or science fiction writer, but it is contraindicated for scientists.
Another question is how harmful are people like Kurpatov? On the one hand, it discredits science as such, presents pseudoscientific theories. On the other hand, he tries to give his followers relatively good advice (do not waste time in gadgets, work more, devote time to relationships, read books, etc.), and some of his reasoning does not even contradict the generally accepted ones in scientific psychology. He reminds me a lot of Savelyev with his Cerebral sorting. But as for me, they are both “villains”, because pseudoscience always has more negative consequences (some of my friends read his books, then I had to explain for a long time why Kurpatov was wrong).
Most importantly, Kurpatov was able to promote himself insanely and earn substantial sums on all this. In this regard, he really turned out to be cooler and more successful than most psychologists.
The usual charlatan this Kurpatov. Pyromida Academy of Meaning, almost a sect for young people.Mr. Kurpatov has long been out of private practice. Consultants who still practice under the name of a well-known doctor are accepted in Moscow only on weekends; they work in Northern Palmyra on weekdays. Moscow “clinic” is just a rented office, which is located in an ordinary apartment on the first floor of a residential building. And this is the famous Kurpatov Clinic? People involved in consultations, apparently, are loyal fans of the ” author's method “, which is not aimed at getting rid of symptoms. In a private conversation, “specialists” give everyday advice based on purely personal experience, which they do not hide; arrogance in conversation with the client, humiliation and ridicule over his problems in this “clinic” are the norm, as I was able to see in a conversation with several people who visited “specialists”, whose reviews I read on the Internet. Antidepressants and the suggestion to find a psychotherapy group ( and this is the advice of a “specialist” !) – that's the whole simple set of help. This is what all therapy consists of. A one-and-a-half-hour appointment costs at least 6000 rubles. A warning that has survived for centuries is very true: “Do not create an idol for yourself” If you have at least 64 hours of free time, an extra 15 thousand rubles and absolutely no one to communicate with, you can join this community. An organization with the solid name ” Intellectual Cluster “under the auspices of the” Higher School of Methodology ” hardly meets the elementary minimum requirements for training courses. Classes are taught by graduates of the same courses – so-called Mentors who have no other education in psychology, pedagogy, neurophysics and other disciplines, whose knowledge is allegedly limited to courses with the same high-sounding name “Red Pill”, “Halls of Reason”and ” Trinity”. It is assumed that they do not need much education, since they mostly read Kurpatov's letters in the classroom. The mentor of the group that my friend got into, at the first lesson, happily reported that one of her hobbies was “pumping ass”. In the classroom, she talked about what she needed to “do stupidly” to get rid of”stupid mental chewing gum.” There is no need to talk about mistakes in manuals and homework assignments, and there are enough of them in published books. If you grew up in a village, don't have a general secondary education, or are under the age of 20, the course will probably be useful to you. You will learn, oh miracle, that people think differently, have their own beliefs, and see things differently from you. What bloggers do (really?!) they post photos on Instagram that don't always reflect their life. The course is replete with statements like “we are all idiots”, “there is no meaning to life” and the like. Immediately there was an idea that such a course must be selected With a questionnaire for depressive disorder, since the postulates of the course of an impressionable person can bring (or have already brought) to a deep depression. However, there is no such testing, and the course only requires an interview with the same mentors who are half-educated. I went to the interview after a friend, as I was shocked by his stories about the courses. At the interview, I showed clear signs of depression to exactly half of the mentors – I told them that relations with everyone had broken down, problems at work, in the family, sometimes I don't see the point in continuing all this further, with the other half I was emphatically playful. This is bipolar disorder. Bottom line: I was successfully enrolled in the course. I am glad that after this experiment and the arguments I gave, my friend left the courses (money for the remaining “classes”, of course, is not returned.I don't like this Kurpatov at all. An unpleasant and strange type that aims to cut loot. There is no professionalism in his programs, the formula of programs is initially incorrect: a person's psychological problems cannot be solved in 20 minutes of chatter. Sometimes it takes years of psychotherapy, rather than months, to solve problems. So it's just cheap shows and nothing more. And it is impossible to listen to his lectures, no talent of the speaker, the manner of presentation is crumpled, information is lost for unnecessary words. The constant impression that he himself feels uncomfortable on stage. Watching this is just a waste of time, and it's better to spend it reading a worthwhile book on psychology. And certainly not Kurpatovskaya.
Does he have any research papers? I don't see it. Household reading material, no more. I think that Kurpatov is simply not interesting to serious psychologists. And even after his broadcast on television, I did not have the desire to get to know him better and criticize him.