Yes, the "method of double stimulation" described in Valsiner's book on
Soviet Developmental Psychology seems to me to be designed to induce
breakdown or, in Dewey's terms, to induce a state of inquiry.
Pentti wrote:
>If I understand the context correctly I would not draw the same
>conclusions as Tim. I read the original in technical terms: how an activity
>is carried out in actions and how these action units are divided into
>a chain of smaller actions or bigger molar units. This fluctuation
>of the unit size happens according to Leont=E9v on the level of
>psychic representations or schemes, too. I think it is not possible to
>read in this part of the text on reflection. Leont=B4ev talks about
>difficulties in carrying out actions by using the developed operations.
The model of breakdown we were proposing vis a vis Leont=E9v's general
structure of Activity was one in which a disruption of a practiced chain of
operations becomes fragmented into individual actions with conscious goals.
In the original quote I sent to the list, I was equating conscious
(intermediate) goals with reflective practice. Was this the part that you
found problematic?
>I think it would be necessary to consider the relevance of motive/goal
>discrepancy as a source reflective practice. Leont=B4ev deals with this
>problem a lot.
I'm not following you here, but that may be a function of my admittedly
shallow grasp of Leont=E9v's writings. The distinction between motives and
goals, as I understand it, is one of subordination---a motive is a goal
that is subordinate to no other goal. I'm not quite sure how breakdown and
reflective practice fit in here.
---Tim