From the author: Date of publication: 10/15/2013More articles - I recently read psychological articles on one of the sites and realized that I like some and don’t like others. I do not want to indicate the site or somehow discuss specific texts by specific authors. I want to describe the criteria for a quality article that, thanks to all this, I was able to formulate for myself. But first, a saying... A saying. Every society, every culture, has its own explanatory paradigms - what I will call “social worldview.” This worldview includes answers to most questions regarding what is happening in life. This worldview is supported, shared and disseminated by the vast majority of people. If you analyze the Russian (and not only) “public worldview”, you will notice its pronounced infantilism and irresponsibility. The cornerstone of our reality is the well-known question “who is to blame?” And everyone is to blame: the government, bad weather, traffic jams, Putin, parents, genetics, magnetic storms, poor ecology, etc. Everyone is to blame but ourselves. You can easily find confirmation of this thesis if you read any discussion of any problem on the Internet. Our “social worldview” is structured in such a way that everything that happens in our lives and everything we do can be explained by alien influences of which we are the result. On the one hand, such an approach relieves us of the burden of responsibility and allows us to experience a pleasant feeling of being right and righteous anger. On the other hand, it deprives almost any opportunity to be the creator of your life. After all, if I don’t take responsibility for my actions and for my life, if I don’t manage it, then someone does it for me. And this is not the fault of this “someone” - this is my internal decision and my responsibility. Bad articles It is important to understand that any text published in a public place is a tool of influence. A tool for influencing the “public worldview.” There are articles and authors that support and reinforce the existing “public worldview.” They either find new options for irresponsibility or justify old ones. So in psychological texts you can find statements that genetics is to blame for male infidelity, parental education is to blame for current life difficulties, and the dominance of the left hemisphere is to blame for poorly developed creative abilities. And this list can be continued endlessly. The common features will be irresponsibility, blaming others and the inability to independently change your life in the desired direction. Another version of the same thing is the low-quality (in my opinion) articles that glossy magazines love so much, from the “10 ways to...” series. Articles imbued with specific advice, most often based on the existing irresponsible “social worldview” and in most cases not leading to a solution to people’s psychological problems, but aggravating their life situation. There are many similar articles on the Internet. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the authors really think the way they write. Or perhaps they are trying to earn public approval by providing the irresponsible majority with the information they need - something that would explain and justify their position in life. For psychologists, such endorsements are important and can ultimately be converted into real profits. Good Articles The most important problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. Albert EinsteinWhat then are good articles? Offhand I could identify 3 criteria: 1. Responsibility Good articles draw our attention to our own responsibility. On our ability to influence, create, change our lives. Often such attention causes resistance and is unpleasant for the reader. After all, if you really are responsible for your life, you will have to admit that the authors.