lution. All of these things can only be understood as functioning elements within the life-process to which they bear an intimate connection. This does not mean, of course, that they may not function at times in imperfect and very disadvantageous ways, for the mind, as an organ of adaptation, is, even in man, still incompletely developed. It does indicate, however, that the mind and all of its processes must be regarded as a "control" over the adaptive operations of life. Now if the function of the mind is to bring about rapid, shortcut adaptations of the organism to its environment, then, manifestly, it must select among the countless stimuli which surround the organism those which need attention for the maintenance and development of life. Hence, intelligence is selective. From the first, therefore, mental activity is more or less purposeful, which means that the mind is concerned not merely with the passive adaptation of the organism to its environment, but with bending and shaping the environment to meet the needs of the organism. In the higher reaches of mental life the mind seems especially concerned with the active adaptation of the environment to the organism, that is, with the transformation of the environment. Most of the activities of man, which we call cultural, are of this sort; that is, they are purposeful. Whether purposeful activity is a form of mechanical reaction or not, as the materialists claim, it is a fact, and one which is of peculiar importance for understanding human society. Purposeful activity, then, is a result of the selective method of mind as an organ of adaptation. As we have indicated, the mind selects the stimulus to which it responds. Moreover, in the higher creatures the stimuli to which responses are made are more and more actively sought. This shows that the purposeful becomes increasingly important as we ascend in the scale of life and mind, and so, also, in the scale of social evolution. Human society, for instance, has become increasingly an expression of purposeful activity until, at the level of our present civilization, we may properly say that it is dominantly so. This purposive activity is particularly revealed in the social sciences, which aim to replace the action of blind forces and 2 Compare McDougall's statement: "Purposiveness seems to be the essence of mental activity" (Outline of Psychology, p. 49). See also McDougall's paper, "Purposive Striving as a Fundamental Category of Psychology" in The Scientific Monthly for September, 1924. Compare also the statements of Woodworth (Psychology, pp. 70-72) in which he defines purpose in effect "an internal state that lasts for a time and directs action." circumstances in human social life by the action of intelligently formed purposes. 30. Relation of Educational Sociology to Educational Psychology [PAYNE, E. George, "The Relation of Educational Sociology to Educational Psychology," School and Society, June 7, 1924, Vol. 19, No. 493, pp. 653-657.] (Abridged.) The development of psychology and sociology as sciences has been so recent that we may well expect that there should be much confusion as to what each science includes and where lies the line of demarcation between the two. The writers upon the subject have generally pointed out that psychology is concerned with the individual and sociology with the group or association of individuals. Professor Smith notes the fundamental distinction between them which he regards as clear enough for educational sociology, as follows: "Sociology is properly concerned with man only in his social aspects, psychology in his individual aspects. The primary interest is in the study of social relations, while the primary interest of psychology is in the study of individual mental life. The unit of a study of sociology is therefore the social group, that of psychology the individual man." (Smith, Introduction to Educational Sociology, p. 21). . . . The difficulty in distinguishing between sociology and psychology, or educational sociology and educational psychology, lies in the fact that both sciences deal with consciousness and its operations. Association is as much a conscious experience as visual sensation or perception arising out of observation of color or material objects. The fact of group life, of association, is psychological, and therefore the data of sociology are psychological data. I am perfectly aware here of the fact that all science deals with conscious facts, but the facts of psychology and sociology are alike in that the subject-matter of both relates to the mental life itself as opposed to the physical sciences whose facts must be referred to the external world. Association itself is psychological, and society exists only in the minds of individuals. It is the feeling or consciousness of one's relation to others, his dependence upon them and his obligation and duties toward them that is the essential feature of the science.. There is, however, a definite distinction between these twe sciences, as well as a very obvious relationship. Psychology, for instance, clearly seeks to find the laws which will help to explain the conduct of human beings. Psychology seeks to discover and explain the functions of the organ of sense, the muscles, the glands, the nervous system and in fact all other bodily organs in the determination of behavior. It seeks to classify and describe all kinds of behavior of which the normal individual is capable. Not merely this, but it attempts to ascertain what bodily organs are involved in the process of walking, of fear, of anger, and in speaking, acting or thinking. It proposes to explain in what way the bodily organs are concerned in these activities. Psychology also concerns itself with individual differences, with capacities to learn, with temperamental differences, with moral traits and with special abilities of every kind. Furthermore, it concerns itself with the problems of how the special characteristics and capacities operate in learning to speak, to read, to solve problems in algebra, to develop an appreciation of music. And, finally, it attempts to discover what forms of behavior are present without learning-such as crying, vocalization-and what are the relations of these forms of activity to those which are to be learned by the individual. So far we have included in this enumeration of the facts with which psychology is concerned no mention of the stimulus or situation which calls forth behavior in the individual. Is not the situation to be included? If so, may not the situation be social? May not the individual's behavior be determined by the sort of social groups with which he is connected? Obviously, psychology does include a consideration of both the situation and response as they are involved in any behavior act. The individual may have a tendency to coöperate which is called forth only through association, and in this case the examination of the tendency, and the behavior growing out of the tendency is a matter for psychological consideration, while the fact of association itself is a sociological fact. Psychology is concerned with the individual aspect of the stimulus-response situation, while sociology is concerned with the group aspect; both are psychological. Sociology, therefore, has to do with behavior. It concerns itself with the laws which explain human association, and human associations are always a matter of behavior. It states the laws and principles underlying human relations and provides the basis for the interpretation of group life. The implication in the term "group life" is that of behavior. Our activities, for example, take the form of work or play, enjoyment or drudgery, leisure or vocation. In the performance of these activities we are brought into groups. We engage in these activities as members of groups. In some of these groups, as citizens of the nation, we may be only faintly conscious of associations, while in the family, club, church, or factory we may be clearly conscious of our relationship. But in any case . . . behavior is the essential feature that characterizes our relationship and sociology is concerned with our behavior in these groups and in the relationship of these groups to society as a whole. ... Educational psychology is an applied science and lies in the field of applied psychology. It is concerned primarily with the laws of psychology applied to the acquisition, organization and evaluation of experience or learning. It seeks to answer the question: "What is the optimum condition for learning and how can this best be realized?" Educational sociology, on the other hand, is likewise an applied science in the field of sociology. It is concerned not with the method of acquisition and organization of experience, but with the effect of learning upon group life, and in turn the effect of smaller group life upon the larger society. It seeks to explain how education as a social process may under optimum conditions eliminate social defects, perpetuate desirable institutions, group activities, group forms and practices, and attain for society the ideals and standards it aims to achieve. What, then, is the subject-matter of the two youthful sciences of educational psychology and educational sociology? The subject-matter is not mutually exclusive. For example, let us take educational method. It is usually assumed that method lies. wholly in the province of psychology. This is not so. Psychology will determine the most economical method of learning, but will not discover for us the effect of the method of procedure involved in the learning process upon group life or society. Educational psychology might discover by experimentation that children learn most rapidly when the teacher or school authorities set up standards of achievement and then test the pupils at stated periods, thus making the learning process a sort of contest of the pupil with himself for standard attainment. The Dalton and Winnetka plans attempt to do this with a part of the curriculum, the Winnetka plan, by outlining grade, term and month objectives, putting these in the hands of the pupils, helping them individually as they need help to realize the goals. The problem of method in this case is that of setting up standards, stimulating children to strive to attain them, giving them help and direction and measuring the results. But educational sociology might find weaknesses in the group life resulting from such a method, such as inability to coöperate, lack of team work, insensitiveness to community needs and a thousand and one other weaknesses that educational psychology itself might not display.. Psychology can never determine these social weaknesses nor provide in detail all the essentials of method in the elimination of the weaknesses. The method itself must be fundamentally social. The educator must, therefore, always check psychological experiments over against educational sociology to determine whether the ways of effective learning are adequate for the social demands. Both sciences must have a say as to method. Many regard the chief function of educational sociology as that of aim and curriculum. . . . Others feel that educational sociology is chiefly concerned with the determination of educational objectives. . . . However, this subject-matter, which is regarded as so exclusively a matter for the educational sociologist, does not belong exclusively to his field. Educational psychology must determine the objectives that are appropriate to the needs of children. It must determine whether the child's ability would permit him to pursue that which is socially desirable and in what way the objective should be pursued. The point of this discussion, then, is simply this: That whatever the problem in education may be there are two fundamental sciences that must be called upon to determine ways of educational procedure and both are equally indispensable. . . . Educational procedure, whether it be in administration, supervision, teaching or what not must rely upon the two basic sciences of educational psychology and educational sociology, and all problems of administration, supervision, method, etc., must be referred to both for rules of procedure. 31. Educational Biology and Educational Psychology CHARLES E. SKINNER Educational psychology and educational sociology are generally regarded as the basic subjects for the proper understanding of the problems of school administration, supervision, and principles of teaching. There is a still more fundamental and basic science known as educational biology. It is more funda |