AI vs. the Living Word: At the "ORIENTIRY DETSTVA 6.0" Forum, scholars tested what artificial intelligence knows about Vygotsky

One of the forum's key events was a roundtable discussion that balanced the line between rigorous academic inquiry and a technological experiment. For the first time, questions posed by the Preschool Education Today Journal were answered not by a guest speaker, but by an Artificial Intelligence trained on the works, drafts, and letters of the renowned scholar. It fell to legends of Russian psychology—direct heirs and continuators of Vygotsky’s teachings—to evaluate the accuracy of this "digital twin."

The roundtable was moderated by Elena Izotova, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Head of the Department of Developmental Psychology at the Moscow State Pedagogical University (MPGU), and Head of the Laboratory for Preschool Education Development at the Russian Academy of Education (RAO). The voice of the AI-Vygotsky was provided by Sergey Plakhotnikov, CEO of BABASHKI LLC, an educator, psychologist, and expert in preschool and primary education.

Zhanna Sadovnikova, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences and Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Education, delivered the opening remarks, outlining the central theme of the discussion. She reminded the audience that the teachings of Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky serve as a living instrument upon which modern preschool education is built. Digitalization, new social conditions, and changing lifestyles do not negate the fundamental laws of development; a child enters the world today just as they did decades ago. The task of the professional community is not to dismantle the established scientific foundation, but to carefully integrate it into new realities. 

Ekaterina Rybakova—President of the Rybakov Foundation, founder of the "PRO Women" community, author of the book *A Word in the Feminine Gender*, and recipient of the Forbes "Philanthropist of the Year" award for her contributions to education—described Vygotsky as "our heritage, a name we are all proud of." She recounted how, ten years ago when the Rybakov Foundation was established, Vygotsky’s theory formed the basis of the "School as a Community Hub" concept and the "Big Game" initiative—a project that has engaged 170,000 participants over the past decade. The game aims to create a supportive and developmental educational environment involving not only educators but also parents, partners, and alumni.

The Person. "What was he like?" Withdrawn or sociable?

The very first question addressed to the AI-Vygotsky set the tone for the entire discussion: "What kind of person were you to those close to you? They say you were quite withdrawn."

The algorithm responded with a quote fr om a letter to Luria—"I suffer fr om an inability to communicate spontaneously"—adding that at home, Vygotsky "did not hold forth, but simply lived," and that his wife, Roza, was the only person with whom he could "share a mutual understanding of everything."

Gennady Kravtsov reacted sharply: "I have a profound distrust of artificial intelligence when it is applied where it doesn't belong. Psychology, the education system, the humanities, human interaction..."

Lev Kravtsov, Lev Semyonovich’s great-grandson, disagreed with the portrayal of the man as someone struggling painfully to overcome communication barriers. In his view—based in part on the recollections of his grandmother, Gita Lvovna Vygotskaya—this reputation for aloofness was largely a myth. The scholar easily found common ground with senior colleagues, knew how to win people over, and—crucially for an educator—found a special way to connect with children. Participants noted that the famous remark about an "inability to engage in direct communication," addressed to Alexander Luria, was actually deeply ironic. Against the backdrop of Luria’s phenomenal, almost supernatural sociability—he spoke over twenty languages—anyone else might have appeared withdrawn. "It was said with the kind of irony inherent to the concept of mediation," explained Sergey Plakhotnikov. 

Graphological analysis: handwriting reveals character

According to AI analysis, Vygotsky experienced rage during the final years of his life and feared he would not have time to complete the research he had begun. Galina Stepanovna Perevoshchikova was called upon to comment on this claim; she presented a graphological analysis of Vygotsky’s personality based on two manuscripts—one fr om his youth at age 16 and another fr om his maturity at age 34.

Handwriting of the 16-year-old Vygotsky:

• connected, flowing script with narrow letter spacing—a sign of sociability and an inclination toward close personal interaction;

• small script with wide line spacing—indicates a person who is more natural and at ease within the family circle;

• straight left margin—firm convictions, conservatism in the positive sense;

• dominance of the upper zone of letters (intellect, spirituality, creativity);

• legibility—respect for others and oneself, self-sufficiency; A tense left margin ("mother's zone," the zone of the past) — an assertion of boundaries expressed in a cultured manner.

Handwriting of Vygotsky at age 34 (1930):

• exceptionally even lines — willpower, diligence, and purposefulness;

• emphasis on the upper zone: the letter "V" with a middle section 2.5 times the size of the upper section; the letter "D" with a loop pointing upward rather than downward — existential development.

• fading pen pressure, smudges, cross-outs, a recurring letter "A" — a sign of ruminating thoughts, the "I can, I must, I need to" zone;

• absence of a right margin (the margin of the future) — the person "lives between heaven and earth";

• a "fox tail" at the end of lines — writing to the lim it of one's strength.

Galina Perevoshchikova’s main conclusion: rage was not characteristic of Vygotsky. His internal self-control, developed capacity for reflection, spirituality, and sense of duty precluded uncontrolled outbursts of anger. She compared the heroic effort of Vygotsky’s final years to the experience of Viktor Frankl: "The concentration camp was illness in the physical sense, persecution in the psychological sense, and spiritual growth in the spiritual sense."

The scientific workshop: From Hegel to Freud

The central part of the discussion focused on the theoretical foundations of cultural-historical psychology. When asked about Hegel’s influence, the artificial intelligence gave an answer in the spirit of dialectics: "Development is not growth or mere addition. Development is *sublation*—where the new does not cancel out the old but absorbs it, restructuring the entire system."

Nikolai Veraksa—Doctor of Psychological Sciences, professor, editor-in-chief of the journal Preschool Education Today Journal, rector of IPAPE, and a scholar renowned for his research on dialectical thinking—offered a detailed commentary. He noted that Hegel considered formal logic insufficient for grasping the truth, as truth is always substantive. In his quest to construct a system of categories based on a single foundation, Hegel arrived at dialectics, centered on the "part-whole" relationship. This relationship, emphasized Veraksa—became pivotal for Vygotsky as well, who wrote that the whole can be greater than its parts. However, the fundamental difference lies in the vector: Hegel attempted to reduce reality to a system of concepts, whereas Vygotsky, conversely, sought to perceive living reality beyond that system of concepts.

Vladimir Kudryavtsev, Doctor of Psychological Sciences and a professor at MSUPE, clarified the common view regarding Vygotsky’s alleged Hegelianism. According to him, there is no convincing evidence that the scholar quoted Hegel fr om memory at length; indeed, references to the German philosopher are virtually absent from his works. Spinoza was Vygotsky’s favorite philosopher—his portrait hung on the wall. Yet, in V.T. Kudryavtsev’s view, it was from Hegel that Vygotsky adopted the central category of development—a concept that, prior to him, had remained merely a background element in global psychology rather than an independent phenomenon.

Gennady Kravtsov supplemented the discussion with personal recollections of Daniil Borisovich Elkonin, his academic supervisor. He recounted how Elkonin once confided in his son: "I don’t feel I’m lagging behind my colleagues. And do you know why? I possess something Vygotsky had, too—an instinct." He added that whenever he faced creative blocks, he would pull a volume of Vygotsky’s work off the shelf: "I read a paragraph, and a completely different meaning reveals itself to me. Vygotsky uses few words, yet the meaning far exceeds the words themselves." G.G. Kravtsov also described another telling moment: at a conference, Elkonin began his speech by saying how incredibly fortunate he was to have met a genius during his lifetime, comparing the experience to the way the Moon shines with the reflected light of the Sun. 

The conversation then turned to Vygotsky’s attitude toward the legacy of Sigmund Freud. Artificial intelligence framed it this way: "Freud’s achievement lies in having forced psychology to gaze into the abyss. Before him, mental life was flat... Freud sought the source of development within the individual, yet a human being is not confined to a biological cauldron. One’s destiny is determined not in the basement of the unconscious, but in the space between people."

Doctor of Psychology Evgeny Subbotsky suggested viewing this debate from a broader perspective. He agreed that, regarding development, the positions of Freud and Vygotsky were diametrically opposed: for the former, culture is the product of internal, deep-seated processes, whereas for the latter, the unconscious itself is shaped by cultural influence. However, when considering mature, fully formed consciousness, E.V. Subbotsky believed the two thinkers were remarkably close: both identified two fundamental realms—the unconscious and culturally mediated consciousness (what Vygotsky termed "higher mental functions," or what Freud called the "Ego" and "Superego"). Yet, E.V. Subbotsky posited that neither genius gave sufficient weight to a third realm: "living consciousness." This is a private, subjective space—not intended for display to others—where the laws of logic and society do not apply, and wh ere genuine works of art are born. "Take Pushkin’s brilliant poems. Is that a restructuring of experience? No, it does not come from experience. It comes from nothing," he emphasized.

"Psychology of the heights" and creativity

Dmitry Leontiev, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, explained this by noting that Vygotsky simply ran out of time. The psychology of personality did not emerge until the late 1930s. Vygotsky formulated the concept that "personality is mastery." He contrasted "peak psychology" with depth psychology and surface psychology. Almost simultaneously—and without knowledge of one another—Viktor Frankl was developing the same ideas. It was a convergence that would only fully materialize half a century later. The work of Kahneman, Mischel, and Carver represents a rediscovery of the distinction between involuntary and voluntary processes—a distinction originally articulated by Vygotsky.

The discussion then turned to the topic of creativity. Dmitry Leontiev drew a distinction between the natural, spontaneous creativity of a child—which flourishes if not "stifled"—and the higher, socially mediated creativity of an adult, the value of which is defined by its contribution to culture. N.E. Veraksa sharpened the issue by noting that if genuine creativity is not merely a restructuring of existing experience, then it constitutes the creation of something that "does not yet exist." This, in turn, cannot be explained by cause-and-effect relationships; rather, it requires acknowledging the phenomenon of self-causation—akin to the physical process wh ere virtual particles emerge from a vacuum.

The Paradox of the "Norm" and the power of not knowing

One of the key principles championed by Lev Vygotsky was the imperative to treat a child with any form of anomaly, first and foremost, as a normal child. They were not to be viewed as a sick person requiring treatment or a lagging student needing to catch up, but rather as a fully realized individual with a developmental path that—while different—was no less complete or valid. A deficit within this frame of reference is not a sentence, but rather a unique path wh ere certain functions assume the roles of others.

Emilia Leongard, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences and a pioneer of the Russian school of deaf education, cited a striking example demonstrating the validity of this principle. Due to a shortage of specialized staff, teachers from mainstream schools were invited to work at a school for deaf children. These teachers lacked expertise in deaf education and—crucially—were unaware of what these children were supposedly "incapable" of doing. The results were astounding. Wh ere experienced special education teachers often stopped, hitting the ceiling of known limitations, the "ordinary" teachers pushed further—simply because they saw no invisible barriers and conveyed a belief in the children's limitless potential.

This approach is directly linked to another key concept of the cultural-historical school: *amplification*. The term, later extensively developed by Alexander Vladimirovich Zaporozhets, signifies "expansion" or "enrichment." The essence of the method lies not in forcing development or attempting to "drill" a child in skills alien to them, but in maximizing their potential through accessible channels of perception, creativity, and dramatization. Leongard strongly warned against artificial acceleration—the attempt to speed up development at any cost. She described this as a "terrible thing" that disrupts the natural mechanisms of psychological maturation.

How exactly does this enrichment occur? Through play. Leongard shared findings from a surprising experiment: deaf children who had received this type of instruction often interpreted complex images better than their hearing peers. However, this skill is not developed through rote memorization, but through role-playing games. A young child cannot yet step outside their own perspective; yet, precisely through play—by trying on different roles and transcending the boundaries of the self—they learn to grasp the underlying meanings of images, actions, and emotions. First comes transformation, then understanding, and only then—on this prepared soil—does the word take root.

Yet there is one factor capable of destroying this fragile ecosystem: the adult who "knows the right way." E.I. Leongard described a scene that is typical—and tragic—for children's creativity. A child is drawing. The adult fails to recognize the intended image and, wishing to "help" or "make it look nice," picks up the pencil and begins adding details, making corrections, and imposing their own rules. "That is the worst part," she emphasized. "When an adult's hand intrudes upon a child's work, a breakdown occurs." The child gives up, loses the initiative, and says, "I can't do it." At that moment, creativity dies.

True pedagogical ethics, according to Vygotsky, demand immense tact and humility from the adult: one must not impose one’s own templates of perception or "finish drawing" the child's world for them, but rather create a safe environment wh ere they can express their own self. It is within this space of free expression that the "psychology of the heights"—the vision Lev Semyonovich dreamed of—is born: a psychology not of deficits and limitations, but of expanding possibilities.

The Zone of proximal development: What Artificial Intelligence didn't say

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is one of Vygotsky’s most frequently cited concepts. Olga Shiyan, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, drew the audience's attention to the slide and noted that the artificial intelligence had made a characteristic error typical of ...a tendency common among many popularizers: he reduced the ZPD to a "framed action" model. The main oversight, in Olga Alexandrovna’s view, is that the ZPD cannot be understood in isolation from play—the central activity of the preschooler. "The key battles in the development of education are playing out precisely around the format of play," she emphasized. "To understand what the zone of proximal development is, we must read Vygotsky’s lecture on play with the understanding that it is not about play *per se*, but about general development." O.A. Shiyan offered a harsh critique of the "digital Vygotsky" and of those who think in schematic terms: "There is neither affect nor the child themselves here. Without this, we cannot understand the zone of proximal development; instead, we end up talking about training a child rather than fostering their development."

Gelena Khovrina, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, continued this line of thought by recalling the work of L.S. Vygotsky’s granddaughter, Elena Kravtsova, who dedicated many years to the ZPD. "Elena Evgenievna spent her life studying the zone of proximal development in the realms of mathematics, music, and art. The zone of proximal development varies. It is important to see not an abstract child, but an individual with a unique growth trajectory."

Muttering fading into silence: egocentric speech

The discussion participants addressed another practical issue related to the digitalization of childhood. Today, children increasingly rarely verbalize their actions while playing; that very "egocentric speech"—once described by Jean Piaget and later reinterpreted by Vygotsky as a transitional stage toward inner speech—is gradually disappearing. A child interacts silently with a screen, following pre-set instructions.

Lev Kravtsov, Candidate of Psychological Sciences and great-grandson of L.S. Vygotsky, offered a detailed analysis of this phenomenon. He noted that egocentric speech is a classic topic in the history of psychology. "Vygotsky brilliantly devised an elegant approach: by studying how a preschooler's egocentric speech changes, we can see how inner speech emerges from it," he observed. In his view, by placing the spoken word at the forefront, Vygotsky may have underestimated the reciprocal process: while the full development of activity is impossible without language, mastering one's own inner speech is a separate, highly complex task that a child resolves gradually, typically by the time they reach early primary school age.

Evgeny Subbotsky summarized the topic in his characteristic aphoristic style: "Undoubtedly, inner speech is the foundation from which reflection and positive solitude grow. If a person is neither bored, frightened, nor repulsed when alone with themselves, they develop a capacity for reflection and an inner plane of consciousness. Others walk around wearing headphones, binge-watch TV series, and pay for communication training courses."

V.T. Kudryavtsev drew an unexpected parallel, citing the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. "He spoke in a truly Vygotskian vein, only more forcefully: 'The unconscious is the speech of the Other.' 'Infiltrators' have long been speaking through us," he quoted, illustrating that Vygotsky’s idea of ​​the internalization of speech as a mechanism for the formation of consciousness extends far beyond child psychology and resonates across a wide range of intellectual traditions.

Can AI understand Vygotsky?

An experiment at the forum demonstrated that artificial intelligence is capable of brilliantly compiling texts, constructing logical frameworks, and reproducing terminology. It accurately grasps the "letter" of cultural-historical theory.

However, living science—as the roundtable participants demonstrated—exists in the "gaps" between concepts. The renowned psychologist Daniil Elkonin, a student and associate of Vygotsky’s followers, once remarked that understanding Lev Semyonovich requires a special "instinct"—an ability to read between the lines and perceive a living, paradoxical, and constantly evolving thought behind the dry text.

Vygotsky’s legacy today is not a static collection of quotes for neural networks, but an ongoing dialogue between generations of scholars—a capacity to ask new questions and to uphold the human right to genuine creativity that is not determined by algorithms.