The first series was conducted using object comparison tasks. The version of the methodology we developed required a comparison of 12 pairs of objects, selected so that among them there were both easily comparable, homogeneous objects, and very far from each other, heterogeneous ones.
Pairs of objects were presented to subjects with the instructions:
“Tell what these objects have in common and how they differ” in the following sequence:
- copper - gold;
- sparrow - nightingale;
- bus - tram;
- mouse - cat;
- sun - earth;
- pear - cucumber;
- violin - drum;
- plate - boat;
- shoe - pencil;
- globe - butterfly;
- cloak - night;
- clock - river.
The instructions provided complete freedom to choose the basis for comparison and did not limit the subjects in the number of properties used.
Using this method, 50 patients with schizophrenia and 50 healthy individuals were studied. When comparing the results of the study, it is noteworthy that patients find much more opportunities than healthy ones to compare (generalize and differentiate) objects. If healthy people quickly declare that they can no longer compare a given pair of objects (and in cases of dissimilar objects they often immediately refuse to generalize them), then patients make comparisons with greater ease. The generalizations they offer give the impression of being “strange” and “inadequate”. Let's give a few examples.
Bus - tram - “have different stops”, “have windows”.
Mouse - cat - “amenable to training”, “see in the dark”, “used for scientific purposes”.
Plate - boat - “do not allow liquids to pass through”, “may break”, “inedible”.
Shoe - pencil - “leave marks”, “make sounds”.
Globe - butterfly - “can spin in one place”, “symmetrical”.
Cloak - night - “appear in the absence of the sun”, “hide the outline of the figure.”
The clock - the river - is “modified by man”, “goes in a closed circle”, “connected with infinity”.
If all healthy subjects find 263 different ways for comparison (generalization and differentiation) of the proposed items, then in patients this number increases by more than 2 times (556).
Analysis shows that this number is not increasing due to an increase in the tendency towards specific situational connections. Patients make generalizations based on finding that compared objects have the same property that is objectively inherent in them.
“Schizophrenia, clinical picture and pathogenesis”,
edited by A.V. Snezhnevsky
As the available information about an identifiable object increases, the difference in the performance results of sick and healthy people decreases. The explanation for this dependence is that with a change in the degree of uncertainty of the situation (incompleteness of available information about the stimulus), the proportion of the disrupted link in the structure of the recognition process changes, which determines the degree of change this process in general, manifested by the degree of differences in performance results...
Patients with schizophrenia, whose activity is characterized by a deterioration in selectivity, an expansion of the range of information attracted from memory and a smoothing of the preference for its actualization, can in some cases receive a “gain”, experiencing less difficulties than healthy people; if necessary, use and attract from memory “latent”, insignificant ones. based on past knowledge experience. However, the “loss” is immeasurably greater, since in the vast majority of everyday situations...
Attempts to explain the results by the peculiarities of the patients’ focus would lead to the conclusion that the patients’ focus is such that it sometimes worsens the results of their activities, sometimes does not affect them, sometimes even improves them. From the point of view of the characteristics of emotions (the most common attempts to connect violations cognitive activity with “indifference”, absence or change in “attitude” of patients with schizophrenia) one would have to admit that...
The pattern of violations we have identified cognitive processes allows us to understand why, in a certain range of experiments, it could actually be possible to interpret the data obtained as a result of a “violation of interpersonal relationships” (Cameron, etc.) or as a consequence of a violation of “filtering of incoming information” (Chapman, Payne, etc.). New factual characteristics of the characteristics of cognitive processes identified by the study in schizophrenia and more general pattern their violations...
Experimental data indicate a violation of the influence of past experience on the current activity of patients with schizophrenia. However, the results obtained show that the matter is not in “disconnection”, not in the separation of the experience of the past from the present, but in a change in the specific role of past experience, in weakening the influence of past experience on the selectivity of updated knowledge used in the process of one or another activity. The unusual nature of schizophrenia...
Ah!.. You can’t even imagine how much I don’t want to tell this nasty story about small galoshes. It happened just the other day in the front of our large apartment, in which there are so many good people and things. And it’s so unpleasant for me that this all happened in our front room.
This story began with trifles. Aunt Lusha bought a bag full of potatoes, put them in the hall, next to the coat rack, and left.
When Aunt Lusha left and left her wallet next to her galoshes, everyone heard a joyful greeting:
- Hello, dear sisters!
Who do you think greeted whom in this way?
Don't rack your brains, you'll never guess. This was greeted by large pink potatoes and new rubber galoshes.
- How glad we are to meet you, dear sisters! - the round-faced Potatoes shouted, interrupting one another. - You are so Beautiful! How dazzlingly you shine!
The galoshes, looking disdainfully at Potatoes, then arrogantly flashing their varnish, answered rather rudely:
- First of all, we are not your sisters. We are rubber and varnish. Secondly, the only things we have in common are the first two letters of our names. And thirdly, we don't want to talk to you.
The Potatoes, shocked by Kalosh's arrogance, fell silent. But the Cane began to speak instead.
It was a highly respected Scholar's Cane. She, being with him everywhere, knew a lot. She had to go with the scientist to different places and see extremely interesting things. She had something to tell others. But by nature, the Cane was silent. This is precisely why the scientist loved her. She didn't stop him from thinking. But this time the Cane did not want to remain silent and, without addressing anyone, said:
“There are such arrogant people who, when they just get into the front hall of a metropolitan apartment, turn up their noses in front of their simple relatives!”
“That’s right,” confirmed the Drape Coat. “So I could have become proud of my fashionable cut and not recognized my own father, the Fine Fleece Ram.”
“Me too,” said the Brush. “And I could deny my kinship with the one on whose backbone I once grew stubble.”
At this, the frivolous Galoshis, instead of thinking and drawing the necessary conclusions for themselves, laughed loudly. And it became clear to everyone that they were not only petty and arrogant, but also stupid. Stupid!
The scientist’s cane, realizing that there was no need to stand on ceremony with such proud people, said:
- What a short memory Kalosh has, however! She was apparently eclipsed by their varnish shine.
-What are you talking about, you old gnarled stick? - The Galoshi began to defend themselves. “We remember everything very well.”
- Ah well! - exclaimed Cane. “Then tell me, ladies, where and how did you come to our apartment?”
“We came from the store,” answered the Galoshis. “A very nice girl bought us there.”
—Where were you before the store? - Cane asked again.
— Before the store, we baked in the oven of a galosh factory.
- What about the stove?
“And before the oven, we were rubber dough from which we were molded at the factory.”
—Who were you before the rubber test? - Cane interrogated in the general silence of everyone in the hallway.
“Before the rubber dough,” the Galoshi answered, stuttering slightly, “we were alcohol.”
—Who were you before alcohol? By whom? - Cane asked the last, decisive and murderous question to the arrogant Galoshes.
The galoshes pretended that they were straining their memory and could not remember. Although both of them knew very well who they were before becoming alcohol.
“Then I’ll remind you,” the Cane announced triumphantly. — Before you became an alcoholic, you were potatoes and grew up in the same field and, perhaps, even in the same nest with your sisters. Only you grew up not as large and beautiful as they are, but as small, inferior fruits, which are usually sent for processing into alcohol.
The cane fell silent. It became very quiet in the hall. Everyone was unpleasant that this story happened in an apartment where they lived very good people who treated others with respect.
It pains me to tell you about this, especially since the Kaloshis did not ask for an apology from their sisters.
How small galoshes there are in the world. Ugh!..
Humanity has achieved everything that it is at the moment, not only thanks to its physical abilities, the basis of all discoveries and inventions has become mental activity. Nowadays, there are many diseases and deviations from normal development that can be diagnosed and treated. And it helps to identify many problems with mental activity psychological testing.
Comparison method
The basis of psychological testing included the main ones such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, generalization, abstraction and specification. All of them are capable of showing different aspects of the basic activity of human thinking.
Through comparison, a person is able to compare objects and phenomena in order to find similarities and differences between them. While searching for similarities, you may notice that many objects are similar in one way and different in another, and some have nothing in common. But similarity or difference is determined depending on what characteristics of the object are significant in a given period of time. Very often a person perceives the same things and actions differently, depending on the situation.
Comparison tests, or What do a pencil and a shoe have in common?
Throughout life, first at school, then at higher education educational institution and sometimes when applying for a job, a person is asked to take this test. In childhood, using the concepts of comparison, children are tested for the development of their creative potential and determined what kind of thinking prevails in the child. In later life this test can be offered to test how healthy a person's thinking is.
Categories of words in the test
One of the most common questions in this case is the comparison of disparate items. A. R. Lury suggests dividing these words into three different categories. The simplest of them is a comparison of two words belonging to the same category, for example, tram - bus or horse - cow.
In the second category, more complex comparisons predominate, they are more different than the same. An example of such a comparison is “crow - fish”. The third group is the most difficult. It presents different concepts, and comparing them should cause mental conflict. That is, their differences are stronger than their similarities. For example, what do a pencil and a shoe have in common?
The operational side of thinking and its violations
If a person experiences a decrease in the functions responsible for the level of generalization in judgments, then he begins to evaluate objects and phenomena quite extensively. In other words, instead of highlighting some general feature, they select a specific situation. That is, if you compare a book and a sofa, then healthy man will say that it can be read on it, without taking into account the factors that normal person will be more logical and reflect the specific similarities of these items. The main reason for the decrease in such thinking is epilepsy, lesions of the central nervous system and problems after head injury. Using psychological testing, one also checks whether the generalization process is distorted.
In this case, one can notice that a person is looking for overly generalized signs between objects, without seeing the most important similarity. Basically, the affected consciousness tries to avoid performing the assigned tasks, starting to search for formal, completely random associations. At the same time, they completely do not take into account real similarities and differences, not using them as control and verification of their own judgments. As an example of what a pencil and a shoe have in common, it is more often said that they leave marks. Such disturbances in the thought process characterize schizophrenia. But it is worth noting that this is not a necessary sign of a mental disorder. A similar answer can also be given by a person with a width slightly wider than that of ordinary people.
Examples of answers to the question about what a pencil and a shoe have in common (schizophrenia)
Some of the people's responses were recorded. When considering the various concepts of people with schizophrenia, one can see a detached perception and overly abstract concepts. When comparing two vehicles, a bus and a tram, patients note the presence of windows, wheels and various stops. When it comes to comparing animals such as mice and cats, unhealthy people point out that they are trainable, can see in the dark and are used for scientific purposes, completely missing the main signs of similarity. When asked the most common question about what is common between a pencil and a shoe, patients highlight similarities such as leaving marks, reproducing sounds and the presence of rubber in the structure.
When comparing a boat and a plate, a person with impaired thinking pays attention to such properties as the ability to not allow liquid to pass through and the likelihood that these two objects can break, or they talk about the inedibility of these objects. Having asked the patient to compare a globe and a butterfly, the scientists received the following answer: the ability to spin in one place or the symmetry of objects. But in fact, he will answer that these concepts have nothing in common. Comparing a cloak and the night, patients with schizophrenia note the appearance of these objects in the absence of light and their ability to hide the outlines of figures. When comparing a clock and a river, it is said that these two objects can be changed by man, can go in a vicious circle, and also note their connection with infinity.
Conclusion
Many similar answers can be given, but it is worth considering that a healthy person will answer such questions as “what is common between a rooster and a glass” that they are incomparable. But the patient will try to find signs that make these concepts similar. For example, he will highlight that it belongs to the kitchen or will pay attention to the presence of ribs (specifying that the glass is faceted).
In any case, such tests must be carried out comprehensively, and only then can the true ones be identified and a clear description of what exactly is damaged in a person’s consciousness possible. Answering only some questions makes it impossible to see the whole picture.
Answers to the simplest questions can tell a lot about a person and what is going on in his head. Psychologists all over the world use this technique to understand whether this person is a genius or needs treatment.1. What do a teapot and a steamer have in common?
Steam.
2. What do a racing car and a tornado have in common?
The car and the tornado are moving in a circle.
3. What do a shoe and a pencil have in common?
Both leave a mark.
And now the most interesting part: who are you?
If you couldn't answer these questions, don't worry: your thinking is absolutely healthy. Well, if doing this turned out to be as easy as shelling pears, then you have a predisposition to mental illness and, perhaps, it is worth turning to a competent specialist with a quiet voice and a penetrating gaze.
This test is called the “method of oppositions” and is used to identify expanded consciousness. If to an ordinary person will be asked the question: “What does a raven and a desk have in common?”, he will answer: “Nothing.” And to some extent he will be right. In general terms, these are completely incomparable things. Schizophrenics immediately look for smaller and deeper options: they can immediately say that letters are being written on the table, and the raven has a pen with which to write.
But how to distinguish a schizophrenic from a real genius? The difference is that the first respond immediately, while brilliant individuals need to strain themselves, discard head-on, uninteresting options and produce a truly unique result.
Source www.adme.ru