JEAN PIAGET

JEAN PIAGET HOME
JEAN PIAGET The Psychology of Intelligence First pages and selected excerpts CHAPTER I INTELLIGENCE AND BIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION EVERY psychological explanation comes sooner or later to lean either on biology or on logic (or on sociology, but this in turn leads to the same alternatives). For some writers mental phenomena become intelligible only when related to the organism. This view is of course inescapable when we study the elementary functions (perception, motor functions, etc.) in which intelligence originates. But we can hardly see neurology explaining why 2 and 2 make 4, or why the laws of deduction are forced on the mind of necessity. Thus arises the second tendency, which consists in regarding logical and mathematical relations as irreducible, and in making an analysis of the higher intellectual functions depend on an analysis of them. But it is questionable whether logic, regarded as something eluding the attempts of experimental psychology to explain it, can in its turn legitimately explain anything in psychological experience. Formal logic, or logistics, is simply the axiomatics of states of equilibrium of thought, and the positive science corresponding to this axiomatics is none other than the psychology of thought. With the tasks thus allotted, the psychology of intelligence must assuredly continue to take account of logistic discoveries, but these will never go so far as to dictate to psychology its own solutions ; they will merely raise problems for it. So we must start from this dual nature of intelligence as something both biological and logical. The two chapters that follow aim to define these preliminary questions and, in particular, will attempt to reduce to the greatest unity possible in the present state of knowledge these two fundamental but at first sight irreducible aspects of human thought. THE PLACE OF INTELLIGENCE IN MENTAL ORGANIZATION Every response, whether it be an act directed towards the outside world or an act internalized as thought, takes the form of an adaptation or, better, of a re-adaptation. The individual acts only if he experiences a need, i.e., if the equilibrium between the environment and the organism is momentarily upset, and action tends to re-establish the equilibrium, i.e., to re-adapt the organism (Clapar&de). A response is thus a particular case of interaction between the external world and the subject, but unlike physiological interactions, which are of a material nature and involve an internal change in the bodies which are present, the responses studied by psychology are of a functional nature and are achieved at greater and greater distances in space (perception, etc.) and in time (memory, etc.) besides following more and more complex paths (reversals, detours, etc.). Behaviour, thus conceived in terms of functional interaction, presupposes two essential and closely interdependent aspects: an affective aspect and a cognitive aspect. There has been much discussion on the relations between affect and cognition. According to P. Janet, a distinction must be drawn between " primary action " or the relation between sijbjgct and object (intelligence, etc.) and " secondary action " or the sulSfect's reaction to his own actions ; this reaction, which constitutes elementary feelings, consists of regulations of primary action and ensures the release of the energy available inside the organism. But besides these regulations, which determine the energetics or inner economy of behaviour, we must, it seems, take into account those which govern its ends or values, and such values characterize an energetic or economic interaction with the external environment. According to Claparfcde, feelings appoint a goal for behaviour, while intelligence merely provides the means (the " technique "). But there exists an awareness of ends as well as of means, and this continually modifies the goals of action. In so far as feeling directs behaviour by attributing a value to its ends, we must confine ourselves to saying that it supplies the energy necessary for action, while knowledge impresses a structure on it. Thus arises the solution proposed by the so-called Gestalt psychology : behaviour involves a " total field " embracing subject and objects, and the dynamics of this field constitutes feeling (Lewin), while its structure depends on perception, effectorfunctions, and intelligence. We shall adopt an analogous formula, with the reservation that feelings and cognitive configurations do not depend solely on the existing " field," but also on the whole previous history of the acting subject. We shall simply say then that every action involves an energetic or affective aspect and a structural or cognitive aspect, which, in fact, unites the different points of view already mentioned. [...] [...] Thus, as we have seen, sensori-motor intelligence arrives at a kind of empirical grouping of bodily movements, characterized psychologically by actions capable of reversals and detours, and geometrically by what Poincaré called the (experimental) group of displacement. But it goes without saying that, at this elementary level, which precedes all thought, we cannot regard this grouping as an operational system, since it is a system of responses actually effected; the fact is therefore that it is undifferentiated, the displacements in question being at the same time and in every case responses directed towards a goal serving some practical purpose. We might therefore say that at this level spatio-temporal, logico-arithmetical and practical (means and ends) groupings form a global whole and that, in the absence of differentiation, this complex system is incapable of constituting an operational mechanism. At the end of this period and at the beginning of representative thought, on the other hand, the appearance of the symbol makes possible the first form of differentiation: practical groupings (means and ends) on the one hand, and representation on the other. But this latter is still undifferentiated, logico-arithmetical operations not being distinguished from spatio-temporal operations. In fact, at the intuitive level there are no genuine classes or relations because both are still spatial collections as well as spatio-temporal relationships: hence their intuitive and pre-operational character. At 7–8 years, however, the appearance of operational groupings is characterized precisely by a clear differentiation between logico-arithmetical operations that have become independent (classes, relations and despatialized numbers) and spatio-temporal or infra-logical operations. Lastly, the level of formal operations marks a final differentiation between operations tied to real action and hypothetico-deductive operations concerning pure implications from propositions stated as postulates.” […] “A response is thus a particular case of interaction between the external world and the subject, but unlike physiological interactions, which are of a material nature and involve an internal change in the bodies which are present, the responses studied by psychology are of a functional nature and are achieved at greater and greater distances in space (perception, etc.) and in time (memory, etc.) besides following more and more complex paths (reversals, detours, etc.).”

The Psychology of Intelligence

First pages and selected excerpts

CHAPTER I
INTELLIGENCE AND BIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION

EVERY psychological explanation comes sooner or later to lean either on biology or on logic (or on sociology, but this in turn leads to the same alternatives). For some writers mental phenomena become intelligible only when related to the organism. This view is of course inescapable when we study the elementary functions (perception, motor functions, etc.) in which intelligence originates. But we can hardly see neurology explaining why 2 and 2 make 4, or why the laws of deduction are forced on the mind of necessity. Thus arises the second tendency, which consists in regarding logical and mathematical relations as irreducible, and in making an analysis of the higher intellectual functions depend on an analysis of them. But it is questionable whether logic, regarded as something eluding the attempts of experimental psychology to explain it, can in its turn legitimately explain anything in psychological experience.

Formal logic, or logistics, is simply the axiomatics of states of equilibrium of thought, and the positive science corresponding to this axiomatics is none other than the psychology of thought. With the tasks thus allotted, the psychology of intelligence must assuredly continue to take account of logistic discoveries, but these will never go so far as to dictate to psychology its own solutions ; they will merely raise problems for it. So we must start from this dual nature of intelligence as something both biological and logical. The two chapters that follow aim to define these preliminary questions and, in particular, will attempt to reduce to the greatest unity possible in the present state of knowledge these two fundamental but at first sight irreducible aspects of human thought.

THE PLACE OF INTELLIGENCE IN MENTAL ORGANIZATION

Every response, whether it be an act directed towards the outside world or an act internalized as thought, takes the form of an adaptation or, better, of a re-adaptation. The individual acts only if he experiences a need, i.e., if the equilibrium between the environment and the organism is momentarily upset, and action tends to re-establish the equilibrium, i.e., to re-adapt the organism (Clapar&de). A response is thus a particular case of interaction between the external world and the subject, but unlike physiological interactions, which are of a material nature and involve an internal change in the bodies which are present, the responses studied by psychology are of a functional nature and are achieved at greater and greater distances in space (perception, etc.) and in time (memory, etc.) besides following more and more complex paths (reversals, detours, etc.). Behaviour, thus conceived in terms of functional interaction, presupposes two essential and closely interdependent aspects: an affective aspect and a cognitive aspect.

There has been much discussion on the relations between affect and cognition. According to P. Janet, a distinction must be drawn between " primary action " or the relation between sijbjgct and object (intelligence, etc.) and " secondary action " or the sulSfect's reaction to his own actions ; this reaction, which constitutes elementary feelings, consists of regulations of primary action and ensures the release of the energy available inside the organism. But besides these regulations, which determine the energetics or inner economy of behaviour, we must, it seems, take into account those which govern its ends or values, and such values characterize an energetic or economic interaction with the external environment. According to Claparfcde, feelings appoint a goal for behaviour, while intelligence merely provides the means (the " technique "). But there exists an awareness of ends as well as of means, and this continually modifies the goals of action. In so far as feeling directs behaviour by attributing a value to its ends, we must confine ourselves to saying that it supplies the energy necessary for action, while knowledge impresses a structure on it.

Thus arises the solution proposed by the so-called Gestalt psychology : behaviour involves a " total field " embracing subject and objects, and the dynamics of this field constitutes feeling (Lewin), while its structure depends on perception, effectorfunctions, and intelligence. We shall adopt an analogous formula, with the reservation that feelings and cognitive configurations do not depend solely on the existing " field," but also on the whole previous history of the acting subject. We shall simply say then that every action involves an energetic or affective aspect and a structural or cognitive aspect, which, in fact, unites the different points of view already mentioned.

[...]

[...]

Thus, as we have seen, sensori-motor intelligence arrives at a kind of empirical grouping of bodily movements, characterized psychologically by actions capable of reversals and detours, and geometrically by what Poincaré called the (experimental) group of displacement. But it goes without saying that, at this elementary level, which precedes all thought, we cannot regard this grouping as an operational system, since it is a system of responses actually effected; the fact is therefore that it is undifferentiated, the displacements in question being at the same time and in every case responses directed towards a goal serving some practical purpose. We might therefore say that at this level spatio-temporal, logico-arithmetical and practical (means and ends) groupings form a global whole and that, in the absence of differentiation, this complex system is incapable of constituting an operational mechanism.

At the end of this period and at the beginning of representative thought, on the other hand, the appearance of the symbol makes possible the first form of differentiation: practical groupings (means and ends) on the one hand, and representation on the other. But this latter is still undifferentiated, logico-arithmetical operations not being distinguished from spatio-temporal operations. In fact, at the intuitive level there are no genuine classes or relations because both are still spatial collections as well as spatio-temporal relationships: hence their intuitive and pre-operational character. At 7–8 years, however, the appearance of operational groupings is characterized precisely by a clear differentiation between logico-arithmetical operations that have become independent (classes, relations and despatialized numbers) and spatio-temporal or infra-logical operations. Lastly, the level of formal operations marks a final differentiation between operations tied to real action and hypothetico-deductive operations concerning pure implications from propositions stated as postulates.”

[…]

“A response is thus a particular case of interaction between the external world and the subject, but unlike physiological interactions, which are of a material nature and involve an internal change in the bodies which are present, the responses studied by psychology are of a functional nature and are achieved at greater and greater distances in space (perception, etc.) and in time (memory, etc.) besides following more and more complex paths (reversals, detours, etc.).”