cates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. Please note that when this experiment is made I am to be allowed to specify the way they are to be brought up and the type of world they have to live in. 19. Unlearned Equipment; Have We Any Instincts? [WATSON, J. B., Behaviorism, pp. 84-86, 104. New York, People's Institute Publishing Co., 1925.] A Lesson From the Boomerang.-I have in my hand a hardwood stick. If I throw it forward and upward, it goes a certain distance and drops to the ground. I retrieve the stick, put it in hot water, bend it at a certain angle, throw it out again-it goes outward, revolving as it goes for a short distance, turns to the right and then drops down. Again I retrieve the stick, reshape it slightly and make its edges convex. I call it a boomerang. Again I throw it. . . . Suddenly it turns, comes back and . . . falls at my feet. falls at my feet. It is still a stick, still made of the same material, but it has been shaped differently. Has the boomerang an instinct to return to the hand of th thrower? No? Well why does it return? Because it is made in such a way that when it is thrown upward and outward with a given force it must return (parallelogram of forces). Let me call attention to the fact here that all well made and well thrown boomerangs will return to or near to the thrower's feet, but no two will follow exactly the same forward pathway or the same return pathway, even if shot mechanically with the same application of force and at the same elevation, yet they are called boomerangs. ... Notice that not until the boomerang is hurled into space does it exhibit its peculiarities of motion. Change its form or . . . structure, or alter greatly the material . . ., and its characteristic motion may markedly change. But man is made up of certain kinds of material-put together in certain ways. If he is hurled into action (as a result of stimulation), may he not exhibit movement (in advance of training) just as peculiar as ... that of the boomerang? ... This brings us now to our central thought. If the boomerang has no instinct (aptitude, capacity, tendency, trait, etc.) to return to the hand of the thrower; if we need no mysterious way of accounting for the motion of the boomerang, if the laws of physics will account for its motions-cannot psychology see in this a much needed lesson in simplicity? Can it not dispense with instincts? Can we not say that man is built of certain materials put together in certain complex ways, and as a corollary of the way he is put together and of the material out of which he is made-he must act (until learning has reshaped him) as he does act? . . . What Has Become of Instincts?-Are we not ready to admit that the whole concept of instinct is thus academic and meaningless? Even from the earliest moment we find habit factors present-present even in many acts so apparently simple that we used to call them physiological reflexes. . . . The infant is a graduate student in the subject of learned responses (he is multitudinously conditioned) by the time behavior such as James describes-imitation, rivalry, cleanliness, and the other forms he lists can be observed. Actual observation thus makes it impossible for us any longer to entertain the concept of instinct. We have seen that every act has a genetic history. Is not the only correct scientific procedure then to single out for study whatever act is in question and to watch and record its life history? Take smiling. It begins at birth-aroused by intra-organic stimulation and by contact. Quickly it becomes conditioned, the sight of the mother calls it out, then vocal stimuli, finally pictures, then words and then life situations either viewed, told or read about. Naturally what we laugh at, whom we laugh at and with whom we laugh are determined by our whole life history of special conditionings. No theory is required to explain it-only a systematic observation of genetic facts. ... Again take manipulation. It starts at 120 days, becomes smooth, sharp and facile at 6 months. It can be built up in a thousand ways, depending upon the time allowed for it, the toys the infant plays with, whether the infant is hurt by any of its toys, whether it is frightened by loud sounds often at the time it is handling its toys. To argue for a so-called "constructive building instinct" apart from early training factors is to leave the world of facts. 20. Number of Instincts [JAMES, William, Principles of Psychology, Vol. II, p. 440. New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1890.] James names twenty-eight special human instincts, with "Some will, of course, find the nine subordinate varieties list too large, others too small. With the boundaries of instinct fading into reflex action below, and into acquired habit or suggested activity above, it is likely that there will always be controversy about just what to include under the class-name." 21. Classification of Instincts [WARREN, H. C., Elements of Human Psychology, p. 238, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1922; and Psychological Review, May, 1919, Vol. 26, pp. 197-203.] 22. McDougall's Classification [MCDOUGALL, William, Introduction to Social Psychology, Chap. iii. Boston, John W. Luce Co., 1923.] McDougall, the distinguished psychologist at Harvard, recognizes seven principal instincts in man, each of which is NOTE: Names in brackets denote a more primitive form of the same instinct. associated with an accompanying emotion. follows: These are as The instinct of flight associated with the emotion of fear The instinct of repulsion associated with the emotion of disgust The instinct of self-assertion associated with the emotion of elation The secondary instincts are, reproduction, gregariousness, acquisition, and construction. 23. Classification of Instinctive Responses [THORNDIKE, E. L., Educational Psychology, Vol. I, pp. 50-109; 137144. New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1913.] (Adapted.) The older psychologists usually divided instincts into several large groups of responses, such as individual, racial, and social, and regarded them rather as general tendencies than as specific responses. The Thorndikian conception of instincts is to regard them as specific responses with inherited neural mechanisms which will be set into action by specific stimuli or situations. On this basis, the classification consists of an enumeration of as many definite, identifiable, unlearned reactions to specific situations as can be observed and as can be recognized in human beings prior to training and education in each particular type of activity. Accordingly, Thorndike enumerates forty or more different types of instinctive reactions as follows: I. Food getting and protective responses 1. Eating 2. Reaching, grasping, and putting objects into the mouth 3. Acquisition and possession 4. Hunting 5. Collecting and hoarding 8. Habituation 9. Response to confinement 10. Migration and domesticity 11. Fear 12. Fighting 13. Anger II. Responses to behavior of other human beings 14. Motherly behavior 15. Gregariousness 16. Responses of attention to other human beings 18. Responses to approving and to scornful behavior 21. Display 22. Shyness 23. Self-conscious behavior 24. Sex behavior 25. Secretiveness 26. Rivalry 27. Coöperation 28. Suggestibility and opposition 29. Envious and jealous behavior 30. Greed 31. Ownership 32. Kindliness 33. Teasing, tormenting, and bullying 34. Imitation III. Minor bodily movements and cerebral connections 35. Vocalizations 36. Visual exploration 37. Manipulation 38. Cleanliness 39. Curiosity 40. Multiform mental activity 24. Bases of Classification [DUNLAP, Knight, The Elements of Scientific Psychology, pp. 218-219. St. Louis, C. V. Mosby Co., 1922.] The drawing up and discussing of lists of "instincts" is interesting, and may be useful, if we remember that the classifications are: (1) teleological, that is, determined by the ends or results of reactions, as these ends are discriminated, not by |