Time: 9am, Pacific Standard Time, Tuesday Dec 17
Facilitator: Francine Smolucha
Guest Speaker: Nikolay Veraksa, Igor Shiyan, and Olga Shiyan.
Summary: This session follows Nikolay Veraksa’s presentation on The Development of Dialectical Thinking (held on Dec 10). In this session, we will discuss how dialectical thinking emergences from pretend play to enable us to creatively reconcile different points of view on the personal level, internationally, theoretically, ideologically, or artistically. Dialectical thinking (being able to reconcile opposing ideas) can develop along with, and be used in co-ordination, with analytic logic (where only one idea can be right). From a Vygotskian perspective, dialectical thinking as an elementary psychological function can develop into a consciously directed higher psychological function and operate in a coordinated system along with other higher psychological functions.
Contact Francine Smolucha at lsmolucha@hotmail.com for the ZOOM link to join the session.
Readings:
Shiyan, O., Shiyan, I., & Vorobyoba, I. (2016).Dialectical thinking of University students and the possibilities of it’s development through positional method of teaching https://www.europeadultdevelopment.org/uploads/6/5/0/0/6500090/shiyan_shiyan___vorobyova._dialectical_thinking_of_university_students.pdf [europeadultdevelopment.org]
Veraksa, N., Belolutskaya, A., Vorobyeva, I., Krasheninnikov, E., Rachkova, E., Shiyan, I, and Shiyan, O. (2013). Structural dialectical approach in psychology: problems and research results https://interdevelopmentals.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Structural-dialectical-approach-in-psychology.pdf [interdevelopmentals.org]
Shiyan, O, and Shiyan, I. (2022). The Development and Amplification of Dialectical Thinking in Preschoolers. In Shannon, N., Mascolo, M., and Belolutskaya, A., (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of Dialectical Thinking.
Other Perspectives:
In response to the previous session, Andy Blunden has offered a critique of the overgeneralization of the concept of dialectical thinking, particularly regarding its use in early childhood contexts. His perspective raises important questions about the distinction between primitive cognitive abilities and true dialectical thinking as a higher-order psychological function. See here.
**Check the session recording here:**
Just a point of clarification, the commentary between Andy Blunden and Michael Cole (that took place 20-22 days ago) pertained to the first session with Nikolay Veraksa on Dec 10 (but it appears here under the 2nd session Dec 17). Here is the link to the Dec 10 video https://culturalpraxis.net/the-development-of-dialectical-thinking-with-prof-nikolay-veraksa/
In the Dec 17th video, Nikolay continues his slide presentation, followed by a slide presentation by Olga and Igor Shiyan.
A number of us, all fresh from the ISCAR Summer School in the Blue Mountains of NSW, participated in the first sesion, kindly scheduled at 7pm Melbourne time for our convenience.
After listening to Nikolay and others, and making several observations, I concluded my contribution by observing that we were speaking at cross purposes. Neither Nikolay nor any of his co-workers saw fit to explore the possibility that we were speaking at cross purposes (or enquired as to the meaning of this term).
How this lack of interest in any different of views reflects dialectical thinking remains a mystery to me,
I have only listened to the first hour, Andy. Even with the slides, I had some difficulty following the presentation in detail, and of course, you only got half way (?) through.
The point you are making about attributing “dialectical thinking” to a 1 1/2 to 2 year old child has its analog/parallel in DAvid Kellog’s argument that only the form of imagination that emerges in adolescence coincident with formal operations/theoretical thinking deserves the use of the term “imagination.” The fact that at present I am exploring the precursors of the form of imagination that appears in early childhood is misguided from David’s perspective. Ditto the limits on middle school children’s imagination in the activity created by Paul Harris which is recorded in an early Imagination and Creativity seminar.
I have to bail to make dinner. But NB** I am not certain that even all the members of your seminar are participating in this exchange. When I get time I will post a note on xlchc – redux to tell people that it is going on here.
I’ve sent a page or so on my view to Chi. I don’t think dialectical t thinking is “like” imagination, but sure, of course, the roots of DT lie in infancy, but if it’s development is completely disconnected with concept formation, then this is something different from DT as I know it.
And no, I doubt if any of my group is following culturalpraxis.net though I have recommended it.
So far as I can tell, Andy, no one on xlchc or on culturalpraxis.net or both has received a notice that there is a discussion here. Francine and I are trying to
get the committee in charge of CP to resolve the difficulties of communication we face. Meantime, I will encourage people to attend to this channel.
Yes, I had to go and look to “See if Mike replied.”
Mike, Imagination is ubqitous in human perception and thinking. It is present in infancy and in the highest reaches of Science. (Hegel agrees BTW). Dialectical thinking (a) in the form of someone accepting a dialectical move, (i.e., a line of reasoning which contradicts formal logic) comes fairly early because the subject may not understand formal logic. I don’t think that can be called “dialectical thinking,” (b) someone understanding a line of reasoning which contradicts formal logic probably comes along with acquisition of true concepts, (c) Someone consciously using dialectical logic is altogether rare.
I remain of the view that dialectical thinking cannot be taught by direct instruction. This lecture about “reconciling opposing points of view” never even asked what my view was when I told them I had a different point of view and if Nikolai had been allowed to complete his prsentation there would have been no discussion at all. Kudos to Francine on that.
And note that my first contribution was appreciation of his definition of “dialectical thinking” in the circulated paper. I diidnt just reject his idea.