The author agrees with many theses in the A. Gostev’s speech and with the conclusion which finishes the article of the latter: «If psychology wants to be a science which is adequate to its name, it should not only acknowledge the «God’s made» status of the human soul and its metaphysical relation with the universe but also to compare itself with the present spiritual and moral condition of people». But the author notes that, again, we are offered the universal and the only correct interpretation of man, the Christian and «Holly Paternal» interpretation this time, as if our culture were homogenous and there were no different cultures and subcultures within, different types of socialization of man, different types of people and psyche. Contrary to anthropological approach of Gostev another approach emerges which proceeds from notions of transitivity of our time, «fluid sociality», plurality of ways of human development and types of modern personality.