Balancing Internal Nurturing and External Adaptation

When it comes to managing development, two distinct yet complementary approaches emerge. The first type acts as an internal mentor, focusing on shaping the potential of the subject much like a teacher who fosters personal growth from within. This approach involves actively influencing the development process through nurturing and correction, with an emphasis on profound internal transformation.

In contrast, the second method is oriented toward leveraging external conditions to achieve success. Here, the focus is on mastering the environment—both favorable and less favorable factors—which, when skillfully applied, can stimulate adaptation and enhance the subject’s characteristics. It is essentially an adaptation to external challenges, where success directly depends on managing conditions such as soil, climate, or the deliberate implementation of corrective measures.

Both methods find their application in different situations: one helps identify and develop inherent potential, while the other effectively utilizes external resources to improve the final outcome. A comprehensive understanding of these principles allows us to view the process of development from a new and deeper perspective—not only from the standpoint of internal nurturing but also in terms of skillfully adapting to the realities of the external world. This balanced approach can inspire us and teach that the future is always shaped by a harmonious combination of internal work and external conditions.

How can the psychological difference between the approaches referred to as “Mikhurinetz” and “Agronom” be interpreted?

From a psychological standpoint, the difference between the “Mikhurinetz” and “Agronom” approaches can be seen as the contrast between an inwardly directed, nurturing strategy that focuses on shaping and correcting internal potential (“Mikhurinetz”) and an externally oriented, pragmatic method that relies on the influence of surrounding conditions (“Agronom”).

Thus, “Mikhurinetz” is based on the idea of actively “nurturing” the subject. In one passage it is stated:
"... The parent plant, in this way, fulfilled the role of a nurturer, or mentor. During the pollination of varieties... the hybrid had, as a result of incomplete dominance... and the hybrid cutting was later grafted onto a cherry tree crown where, under the influence of the mentor, it was ‘corrected’" (source: link ).

This model allows us to interpret “Mikhurinetz” as a person or approach that seeks to influence development from within, guiding the subject just as a teacher or mentor corrects and reveals the potential of their pupil.

On the other hand, the “Agronom” approach focuses more on external factors—conditions, fertilizers, climate, soil, etc. For example, the following passage states:
"... To manage dominance, Mikhurin also used other nurturing techniques: applying fertilizers at a specific stage of development, planting hybrids of southern and northern plants in open ground at the earliest stages of development. The impact of harsh soil and climatic conditions led to the dominance of traits associated with winter hardiness..." (source: link ).

From this perspective, the “Agronom” represents an approach where success depends less on internal potential and its guiding influence and more on the ability to properly adapt to and utilize external circumstances to one’s advantage.

Thus, from a psychological viewpoint, the difference can be interpreted as follows: the “Mikhurinetz” is the one who internally shapes, corrects, and directs development—similar to a mentor or nurturer—while the “Agronom” is the practitioner who leverages external conditions, modifies the environment, and stimulates development through adaptation.