The most complex theories in psychology. Psychology. New ideas, interesting theories. Your personality is relatively stable throughout your life

Recently, on various discussion platforms, incl. On the Internet, you can find groups of psychologists divided into two flanks.

The first claim that everything in psychology has long been invented, and there are several basic areas that should be developed.

Others refute this opinion and argue that there are a huge number of new ideas, theories and various discoveries that can change the entire psychology and bring something radically new.

Psychology is the science of the soul. And the soul is infinite. IMHO;)

SPA psychotherapy, the use of psychotherapy techniques for healthy people not for the purpose of treatment, but to relieve emotional stress and simply relax.

After using the concept “SPA” many times, it is necessary to give its exact definition. In 1991, the International SPA Association (ISPA) was created, and it was through the efforts of experts from this organization that the definition of “SPA” was formulated five years later.

This was done primarily for potential clients. So that clients can have a clear idea of ​​the range of services offered, and what advantages this type of service brings. “SPA” is a whole system for maintaining a high quality of life, preventing diseases, maintaining a high level of health and rehabilitation after exercise using natural means and methods.

So, a spa is an establishment designed to improve the overall well-being of a person through a variety of professional services, which, among others, may include skin care, body treatments, fitness, healthy eating, spiritual practices that contribute to the well-being of the body, mind and soul of a person ( quoted by E. Bogacheva). Basically, in the psychological relaxation room, breathing exercises, meditative techniques and the same light and sound stimulation of the brain are used.

I believe that, like any science, psychology does not stand still. It is constantly evolving. Various schools and directions are emerging. It is very important that they are built on basic concepts and discoveries.

The emergence of new directions has nothing to do with throwing away everything old and radically changing everything. There is no need for such hysteria. In Russia, unfortunately, due to the lack of a legislative framework, pseudoscientific trends are emerging. Anyone can declare themselves the founder of any school, a Teacher, etc. Therefore, I personally take classical schools seriously. And everything else is politics and quackery.

I think that knowledge of the classics does not exclude the search for new approaches, but it would not hurt to first become familiar with at least part of the rich heritage of psychologists of the 20th century in order to be competent and effective in practice.

If we consider something new that is little known among us and at the same time works in practice, then I was very interested in getting acquainted with the concept of psychoanalyst Harry Guntrip, which he sets out in the book “Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relations and the Self.”

He uses the concept of “anti-libidinal ego” to designate that part of the psyche that, during trauma, takes on control functions, thanks to which a person generally copes with life, but feels alienated, unemotional, and not fully alive. In the process of psychotherapy, this part gradually gives way to the libidinal ego, that is, the part that expresses our deepest needs and feelings.

Guntrip writes that at this stage people often become infantile, feel extreme anxiety and even unconsciously strive to go to hospitals in order to cultivate in peace and safety that part of the psyche that has remained blocked for so long. Thus, healing occurs through a frightening stage of defenselessness and increased vulnerability, but it is necessary.

I believe this concept is very useful to everyone involved in the psychotherapeutic process in explaining some of the observed phenomena.

I respect the supporters of classical psychology, but I myself use an integrative approach in my work.

I studied in the Russian-Austrian project for the training of child and adolescent psychotherapists; it is fundamentally different from that adopted in our country. First of all, the child is seen as part of the family system. The approach is based on attachment theory, research by Ainsworth, Bowlby, Daniel Stern, Petzold and others. The approach is called integrative because it works with both the child’s intrapsychic world and the interpersonal one, i.e. with his surroundings.

When you understand what you are doing and why, the methods don’t really matter. For example, I am a supporter of the psychodynamic approach; some of my colleagues use Gestalt therapy methods; when working with children, we always use play therapy, art therapy, sand therapy, and fairy tale therapy. The main thing is to understand what you are doing and why.

This topic is relevant.

Recently, the science and practice of psychology has been replenished with new methods research, diagnostics, therapy...

As for new theories and discoveries in the field of psychology, perhaps they will come soon, and this will be facilitated by the latest instrumental and hardware research methods, which are increasingly being introduced into modern psychological science and practice. In particular, computer techniques for creating various models of the human psyche: first artificial intelligence, and now on the way to modeling human emotions (although, of course, this idea is still very far from being realized...).

I think that with the introduction of technical and computer technologies into psychological science We are on the threshold of new discoveries in psychology...

The new method originates from the old one, plus something already known that is added.

For example: art therapy = psychoanalysis + drawing,
body-oriented therapy = work through the body + psychoanalysis,
treating autistic children by communicating with dolphins = body therapy + dolphins...

I like to use knowledge of socionics in the Gestalt method. Many people think that this is not science, but it gives me the opportunity to quickly diagnose the situation of relationships in the family and work with clients easier and faster. Knowing a person’s psychotype (this is a genetic prerequisite), one can see disturbances in his personality and problems associated with them.

Many people do not accept themselves as they are, and try to remake themselves, reshape themselves - this is the wrong step towards themselves and a delusion. The genotype cannot be altered; it can be somehow supplemented with something, corrected, but in no case changed. It's like making a snowdrop out of a cactus. No matter how you pray over him, he will never be a snowdrop; he was created from a different material.

Therefore, for me, the combination of these two areas helps in working with a client; the client can accept himself and move through life in accordance with his personality, without betraying himself, thereby not suffering and without looking for more of himself in others.

The crisis of the psychotherapy method is the invention of eclectic methods or modification of existing ones.

I think that's what's happening now. More and more modifications of existing trends in psychotherapy and psychology are being created. This can have both positive and negative sides.

Nowadays psychology and psychotherapy are increasingly becoming a business. And very often people forget that the client is a suffering person, and it is important to help him first of all.

Anything new requires proof of effectiveness, but it is also important to remember about the people who seek help. After all, by and large, many people are absolutely indifferent to the method, the main thing is the result, and the result depends not only on the technology and method, but also on the personality of the specialist.

If we talk about psychology as a whole, as a science, then, on the one hand, it is still in its infancy, since supporters of different directions, schools and concessions have not yet even decided on a single conceptual apparatus. This encourages controversy out of nowhere and does not contribute to the development of science at all. On the other hand, it is actively developing, already having a good base of ideas and theories.

It seems to me that the future of psychology lies in physiological and psychological research, and major theories will originate precisely from this approach to research. The very methods of psychological research, which are widely used in psychology, are still often simply unfounded. It is important to understand that no single research method is self-sufficient in psychology, and its results require confirmation by at least two others.

When a person is viewed as a set of individual qualities and divided into simplified categories, each of which is studied separately without taking into account the others, this leads to the fact that the psychologist behind them does not see the main thing - the person himself.

The world's main scientific directions have become closer to each other in recent years, and this is encouraging. The Cognitive-Behavioral approach has already changed greatly; modern Psychoanalysis has become more and more similar to the Gestalt approach, moving away from orthodox concepts that are outdated in society and people, which were relevant a century ago.

You can talk about this for a long time, but it is important to understand that both man and the society in which we live are changing, and therefore, the science of man is changing along with him. Completely new problems are coming to the fore, requiring new considerations and research methods.

If we consider the techniques used in working with clients, they are constantly developing and supplemented with new ones. I myself am a developer of new approaches, like my other colleagues. It is difficult to talk about something fundamentally new here, since it is simply impossible to keep track of all the trends and findings. That is why the tendency to unite and create associations of psychologists from different directions enriches the participants.

I am for Integration, but not a spontaneous mixture of theories, thoughts and ideas, but for a reasonable exchange of effective approaches in the study of man and society, as well as for the use of clear and precise concepts and definitions.

"There is no limit to perfection". In my opinion, this statement applies to such concepts as the universe, soul and human body.

After all, how much humanity still doesn’t know about the structure of the brain, for example. Scientists still cannot explain some phenomena and facts of the universe.

The same applies to the science of the soul. Yes, the “old” methods still work, new ones appear and only enrich or transform the already known ones. This is how psychology develops as a science as well.

“Everything in psychology was invented a long time ago and it should be developed” - I don’t agree with this. Many discoveries in science occur by chance, when errors are discovered, failures, etc. But you cannot invent them in advance and cannot predict them.

Development is always in conditions of uncertainty. And, therefore, it does not fit into the framework of “everything has already been invented.”

The topic is undoubtedly relevant and interesting.

Psychology as a science has never stood still. New schools, methods, directions and techniques are constantly appearing. Some actually work and have both scientific and practical backing. Others cannot always boast of being scientific and are mainly supported and argued only by the words of the author (or authors).

In any case, fundamental psychology as a science is changing (it is not clear, however, in which direction), and no one forbids any person with a diploma in psychology (and perhaps not even a psychologist) to create his own school of psychology and promote it as the best and most effective.

And this, it seems to me, is the main weak point of science - any uninitiated can get in and make changes for their own commercial benefit. I’m already tired of seeing advertisements like “A psychic psychologist will help you lose weight in an hour” or books on the psychology shelves in a bookstore with the title “How to become a bitch.” It's a shame for science!

In the question it is not at all clear what is called “psychology”.

We can talk about psychology as a science that studies the patterns of mental development - and this is one story. As a science, psychology has a very short history, starting with Wundt’s laboratory (1879), and the field of knowledge is endless; moreover, with the development of the methodological basis for research, theories will also develop.

Now scientists know very, very little, for example, about the patterns of dreams, about intuition, about unconscious processes, and in general the human brain has been little studied - because there are few ways to look inside. With the development of all technologies, science also develops. First, scientists see a certain reality, record it, and then try to establish patterns, and, as a result, new theories arise.

You can call the word “psychology” such a narrow part of science as personality theory. There are indeed a lot of "basic" theories here - and most of the subsequent theories either rely on the previous ones or complement them.

However, it is very important to remember that a theory always remains only a theory - that is, a kind of map that describes the area. Even the most detailed map will not equal the terrain. Therefore, there are many theories, the landscape of the human soul is also very diverse.

Moreover, the human soul also changes - due to changes in human society, and these changes also give rise to the need for new theories and new descriptions of reality. In addition, theories do not exist on their own, but also within society, so often old theories are retold and adapted to new times, to a new language.

And the third thing that can be called the word “psychology” is psychology as a practice, in the narrow sense - psychological help. Here I would like to note once again that a person is “integrated” into society and depends on social changes, therefore, with changes in society, the structure of disorders, their features, and, consequently, the theories that describe them and the methods of working with them change.

In Freud's time, the "hysterical arc" was often observed in the clinic; now it is almost never seen anywhere, but there are many patients with anorexia. Previously, society was filled with some norms of sexuality, now they are completely different.

Freud opened up the possibility of talking about sexuality - and this became a method of treatment and relief for patients, now it’s rather the opposite - people are overwhelmed with fragmentary information, conversations, diagnoses, and often talking about sexuality happens much easier than talking about other areas of life.

If Perls had to “break” the client’s stereotypical behavior, his too rigid idea of ​​himself and the world, and Perls used this as a method of treatment, now it is more likely to collect clients from pieces, helping to create a holistic idea of ​​themselves and the world.

Saying that nothing changes is like trying to stop a river. Yes, the river remains a river. However, it flows. And somewhere the river flows faster, somewhere quieter, somewhere deeper, somewhere shallower, somewhere deeper... In the same way, “psychology” is both as a science, and as a theory about man, and as practice - changes, fills, narrows, expands - changes over time. And that's part of life.

On the topic of the emergence of new ideas and theories, I would like to speculate about the sources of inspiration for their authors. Since I am not a theorist, but a practitioner, I will talk about the practice of counseling and psychotherapy.

And the first thought that came to my mind was that in one way or another we, consulting psychologists, are engaged in innovation every day. Because even a strong commitment to any school of counseling/therapy does not negate an individual approach to each new client and his individual situation. Any technique, methodology, training program can - and, I am sure, should - be changed to suit the client’s current needs, his request or situation.

But certain needs and requests may arise not only from individual clients, but also from a large part of our target audience. And then a new master class, a new training, a new technique, and even a new school may arise.

With all my personally contradictory attitude towards such a phenomenon as, for example, “Orthodox psychology”, I must admit that its appearance was a response to the urgent need of a significant part of our potential clients to explain spiritual things from the point of view of psychology and vice versa, and also to be sure that the consultant will not question their values ​​in life.

And another thought - I thought that we often owe many new methods, techniques, and developments in practical areas in consulting to such a completely mundane thing as the need to promote our services on the market.

So “reality transurfing”, “system-vector psychology”, “mandala therapy”, “gymnastics of Slavic enchantresses” arise; “specialists in improving the quality of life” and “interpersonal relationships” are breeding. I would also include coaching, which is extremely fashionable these days, here.

Sometimes this is a really smart “detune” from colleagues and a witty way to attract the attention of the target audience, who are often still afraid of the words “psychologist”, “psychotherapy” and do not distinguish psychologists from psychiatrists.

But sometimes, alas, the methods of attracting clients are very questionable from the point of view of ethical standards, and at times they are no different at all from sects.

Without removing personal responsibility for the activities of this kind of “colleagues,” I have to admit that this problem is systemic. As long as psychological counseling and training are separated by a comma from the activities of magicians, psychics and healers in the rubric of types of activities for entrepreneurs, nothing will change significantly.

And the point, of course, is not the rubricator, but the fact that it fully reflects the public attitude towards psychological counseling, which Rollo May and other humanistic psychologists called “art.”

Therefore, to summarize my reasoning, I will not invent anything new: you have to create every day, and the only boundaries of this creativity can and should be ethical standards for treating clients.

I can, citing my own experience of studying classical and modern psychology, say that the point is not whether different directions are good or bad. What is more important is how well they match, approaches and tools. To what extent can they help resolve the problems a person has encountered? To what extent do they correspond to the characteristics of individual development, life history, of a particular person.

I leave great importance in joint work to areas in which previously it was too difficult for a person to think and feel. It is also important how much the couple, you and the other person, can work together. To come to restoration, to healing, to liberation from old destructive programs.

It is useful to become familiar with different approaches. Practice them for a while. To understand which one is yours. Become strong in theoretical and practical training. Of course, it is good to maintain curiosity, remaining open to everything new in understanding human nature.

One of the new, interesting areas, for example, is psychoneuroimmunology.

Now there is active integration of many areas at once. Training is available, including remotely, if only there were funds. It turns out that almost every psychologist in his work is already working in a new direction he has created, only not voiced out loud and not patented.

My opinion is that the work should be tailored to the client’s request and his capabilities. If a psychologist feels comfortable where he works with a person, and confidence that he can help, and also senses the limits of possibility, then this is enough. If only for the good.

The human psyche holds no less mysteries than the depths of space, but scientific research still makes it possible to at least slightly lift the veil of secrecy.

1. The word “Psyche” is of Greek origin, derived from the word ψυχικός, which is translated as “spiritual”.

2. Previously, it was believed that short-term memory was capable of storing no more than 5-9 elements at a time. Today, scientists are even more skeptical and talk about 3-4 available blocks of information.

3. Strong emotions distort memory and create false memories. This was confirmed during interviews with eyewitnesses of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.

4. Every second our brain is attacked by 11 million individual units.

5. Idleness makes a person feel uncomfortable.

6. If a person is afraid that his talents and abilities will not be recognized, he, contrary to common sense, deliberately belittles them. Thus, he immediately puts himself in a position from which it is difficult to be underestimated.

7. A person’s ability for social connections is determined by the “Dunbar number”. As a rule, it ranges from a maximum of 100 to 230 people.

8. Research by psychologist Heidi Halvorson has proven that people prefer things “with history.” According to the psychologist, preconceived notions and inertia, supported by fear of change, are the main reasons why people do not try to change something in their lives.

9. According to a study by the University of Cambridge, “it’s not very easy to do in the first place. Smaoe vaonzhe, this is sotby perevya and nesdyalya bkuva blyi na sviokh metsah"

10. Most people in an unfamiliar place make a right turn. Knowing this fact is useful: if you don’t want to be in a crowd or stand in line for a long time, feel free to go left or take the line to the left.

11. Research conducted by Cleveland University in 1991 showed that those who are often late are much more in need of the care of others and are susceptible to increased anxiety.

12. In psychology, there is such a term as “fundamental attribution error” - that is, the tendency to blame the behavior of other people on internal personality traits, and one’s own behavior on external factors.

13. In 1957, American psychologist Leon Festinger voiced the theory of cognitive dissonance, which dealt with the psychological discomfort that arises when conflicting ideas and actions collide in a person’s mind. For example, a smoker knows that nicotine kills, but this does not force him to give up his bad habit.

14. Scientists have concluded that phobias may be memories that are passed on from generation to generation using DNA.

15. Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their studies proved that between two identical situations, a person chooses the one in which, as it seems to him, losses are minimized. To completely eliminate losses and “delight your brain”, you only need to do one thing - do nothing!

16. The “21 day theory,” during which a person develops a habit, was invented by plastic surgeon Maxwell Moltz, but it is speculative and has now been refuted. Habit formation is an individual process and can take from 18 to 254 days.

17. Psychological tests show that most people will go with the group and not contradict the group's opinion, even if they believe that the group is wrong.

18. American scientists conducted an experiment in which a group of volunteers wore glasses for 30 days, turning their vision of the world upside down. When the volunteers took off their glasses, they spent another 30 days getting used to the usual vision of the world, and at first they saw the world upside down. This suggests that even our perception of reality is rooted in established habit.

19. Scientific research by the Pentagon proves that the human brain is able to continuously perceive received information (and most importantly, “process” it correctly) for only a maximum of 18 minutes. Moreover, this applies to people with high intellectual abilities.

20. According to family psychotherapist Roger S. Gil, stress can be caused not only by problems, but also by joyful, positive moments in life, including those that a person deliberately “provokes.” This means that any change in your “usual routine” could potentially result in stress.

22. The human mind is able to “rewrite” the monotonous, boring speech of the interlocutor so that the information seems interesting and is better perceived.

23. More than 400 phobias are known in psychology.

24. NSF (US National Science Foundation) estimates that the human brain produces between 12,000 and 50,000 thoughts per day.

25. In terms of chemical reactions, romantic feelings are indistinguishable from obsessive-compulsive disorder.

26. In the old days, it was believed that the human soul was located in the depression between the collarbones, the dimple in the neck. It was customary to keep money in the same place on the chest. Therefore, they say about a poor person that he “has nothing in his soul.”

27. After the release of the film “The Truman Show” in 1998, psychologists began to talk about the syndrome of the same name. Psychologists the Gold brothers describe it as a type of polythematic delusional disorder - a combination of delusions of persecution and ideas of grandeur.

28. There is a mental phenomenon, the reverse of déjà vu, and a rarer one called jamevu. It consists of the sudden feeling that you are encountering a situation or person for the first time, although in fact they are very familiar to you. One can put on a par with them the phenomenon of presquevue - a well-known state when you cannot remember a familiar word that is “on the tip of your tongue.”

29. Psychological experiments have proven that people cope more successfully with the same task within the same room than when the final goal is in another room. This is called the doorway phenomenon.

30. Micropsia is a condition when a person perceives objects and objects of a significantly smaller size than they actually are. In general, an object appears far away or extremely close at the same time. This disorder is also called Alice in Wonderland syndrome.

31. When ancient doctors discovered the significance of nerves in the human body, they named them by their resemblance to the strings of musical instruments with the same word - nervus. This is where the expression for annoying actions came from - “playing on your nerves.”

32. One of the most effective manipulation techniques is Benjamin Franklin's trick. He liked to say that someone you ask for a favor is more likely to do it again than someone you oblige to do it.

33. Most of our decisions are formed in the subconscious, as our brains are confronted with more than 11 million individual bits of data every second.

34. Today, scientists no longer doubt that in high performance sports the role of the psyche is no less important than the role of physics. Tim Knox, a professor at the University of Cape Town, has shown that the brain has a subconscious self-preservation mechanism that is triggered to prevent the body from getting too close to dangerous limits. Knox calls this mechanism the “central regulator.” In his opinion, fatigue is more of a protective emotion rather than a reflection of the physiological state of the body.

35. Conscious copying of a person’s appearance and behavioral traits involuntarily endears him to the imitator. According to researchers, this adds confidence to a person and flatters his sense of self-worth. As a result, the “original” becomes dependent on the “copy”.

36. The environment can seriously influence our decisions. This was proven in 1951 by a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Solomon Ash. He conducted an experiment in which participants had to compare the lengths of segments of different lengths depicted on cards. It turned out that three people are enough for the subject to have an internal conflict, forcing him to accept the point of view of the majority.

37. Body dysmorphic disorder is a disorder in which a person (most often a teenager) is very concerned about his body and experiences feelings of anxiety due to its defects or characteristics. Now, in the era of selfies, this disorder is becoming more common.

38. Research has proven that false memories are very easy to create artificially. Especially if you influence several types of human perception at once (auditory, visual, tactile).

39. Long-term studies have proven that 50-70% of visits to the doctor are explained not by physical, but by psychological reasons.

40. The computer age has already brought a lot of phobias to humanity. Such, for example, as “trollephobia”, “tradephobia” (fear of commenting), “selfiephobia”, “imagephobia” (fear that the sent emoticon or picture will be misinterpreted), “socyonetophobia” (fear of social networks), “nomophobia” (fear of being left without a smartphone).

Knowledge of the psychological characteristics of people helps to communicate in any field, to better understand both close people and casual acquaintances, colleagues and clients

Knowledge of the psychological characteristics of people helps to communicate in any field, to better understand both close people and casual acquaintances, colleagues and clients. Here are three interesting psychological theories that will help you better interact with people and understand yourself and others.

Dunbar number

Researcher Robin Dunbar linked activity in the neocortex, the main part of the cerebral cortex, with the level of social activity.

He looked at the size of social groups in different animals and the number of partners involved in grooming (an important part of courtship in animals, such as grooming in primates).

It turned out that the size of the neocortex is directly related to the size of the social group and the number of individuals that groom each other (constantly communicate in human terms).

When Dunbar began researching people, he found that social groups numbered about 150 people. That is, a person has approximately 150 people whom he can ask for help or provide something to them.

A closer group is 12 people, but 150 social connections is a more significant number. This is the maximum number of people with whom we maintain social connections. If you have acquaintances above this number, some of your past connections go away, and you stop communicating with them.

To put it another way, it looks like this:

Writer Rick Lax tried to challenge Dunbar's theory, and wrote about his attempt to do so:

“In trying to challenge Dunbar's theory, I actually confirmed it. Even if you decide to disprove Dunbar's number and try to expand your circle of acquaintances, you will be able to interact with more people, but that large number is precisely 200 people or even less."

After my experiment, I gained respect for:

1. British anthropology

2. To my real friends.

I realized that there are not many of them, but now I treat them much better and appreciate them more.

Dunbar's number is especially useful for marketers and people working in the field of social media and branding. If you know that each person can only interact with 150 friends and acquaintances, it will be easier to respond to rejection.

Instead of getting angry and upset that people don't want to communicate with you and support your brand, think about the fact that they only have 150 contacts, and if they choose you, they will abandon some of theirs acquaintances On the other hand, if they make contact, you will appreciate more that they chose you.

But what about social networks, where many people have more than a thousand friends? On the other hand, how many of them do you have any communication with? Surely the number of such people is close to 150. And as soon as you make new contacts, the old ones are forgotten and simply “hang” among your friends.

Many people periodically “clean” their list and delete those with whom they will not communicate, leaving only close people, and this is not entirely correct. The fact is that not only strong connections are important, that is, your immediate environment. Morten Hansen’s book “Collaboration” describes how important weak ties (in particular, connections made through social networks, for example, friends of friends, followers) are for a person. Hansen writes that such connections are the key to new opportunities.

The study showed that for human development, it is not so much the number of connections that is important, but their diversity: people with different points of view, with different experiences and knowledge. And such a diverse contingent can easily be found on a social network.

Weak ties are useful because they take us into unfamiliar areas, while strong ties exist in areas we have already explored.

Hanlon's razor

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

In Hanlon's razor, instead of the word "stupidity" you can put "ignorance", that is, a lack of information before making a decision or taking any action. And this is how this razor works: when you think someone is treating you with malice or doing something “out of spite,” first dig deeper and find out if it is due to ignorance.

For example, if you received an e-mail from an employee in which he strongly opposes your idea, perhaps he simply did not understand the essence of it, and his indignation was not directed against you, but only against an idea that seemed stupid or dangerous to him.

In addition, it often happens that people try to help a person using their own methods, but he perceives this as evil machinations and harm. Humans are not naturally evil creatures, so every perceived harm may turn out to be a desire to help that is simply ridiculous and ignorant.

Herzberg's Motivation Factors

The latter theory can help you communicate at work with co-workers and colleagues, and maybe even friends and spouses. This theory was put forward in 1959 by Frederick Herzberg and its essence is that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are measured differently and are not two ends of the same line.

The theory suggests that job dissatisfaction depends on “hygiene factors,” such as working conditions, wages, relationships with superiors and colleagues. If they are not there, there is dissatisfaction.

But job satisfaction does not arise from the presence of the above factors, but from the next group of reasons, “motivation”: pleasure from the work process, recognition and opportunities for growth.

What we can take away from this is that if you work in a high-paying job with comfortable working conditions, you can still feel like crap if, for example, you have no responsibility and you never feel successful.

And vice versa - the fact that you receive recognition and understand that you are creating something valuable and worthwhile will not compensate for the fact that you are paid pennies for it, and you can’t imagine worse working conditions.

This theory is especially useful to those who are responsible for personnel in the company. Now you will understand why people, despite good conditions, still quit their jobs.

For those who are themselves dissatisfied with their work, this theory will help to figure out what causes dissatisfaction and how to deal with it. And one more thing: if your friends, family or acquaintances complain about work, you will never tell them: “But they pay you so well there! You’re freaking out, stay.” And this could be very important for their future.