New-York tribune., 1903-04-18
PSYCHOLOGY.
Three Books of Unusual Interest.

DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTION; BY James mes
FRAGMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY AND sCIENCE- Ts
By Sses aHer MsTk si3b6sTa gf5aSla sons pn D. pp
DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY AND PS1- ss
GEOLOGY. Written by Many Hands and and Ed Ed
Cooperation and Assistanee Of an interna9nal
sossd 3a of Bbosaphy In three
The Macmillan Company
Professor Baldwin's right TO be placed in the
front rank Of American psychologists is so gen
orally recognized that any volume by MIN is
certain TO receive respectful consideration HIS
"Developmert of Evolution is especially worthy
of attention inasmuch as II is an e&posi-
ton of the new theory Of evolution that de-
pends for its validity upon the doctrine OF or
ganic selection, a doctrine which In part owes
its being to him. AS the author himself says
the book is q necessary sequel to his carrier
works Mental Development in the Child and
the Race" and Social and Ethical Interpreta-
tons" for in these was outlined the principle
which he now seeks not only to elucidate, but to
maintain.
There are at present three distinct types OF
the theory Of deterninate evolution That
which exclusively employs the doctrine o1
natural selection. the survival of the nttest'
as Herbert Spencer puts it is called Welsmann-
ism or Neo-Darwinisn; that giving large
SCOPE TO use-inheritance. the influence OF IN
herited habits is known as Lamarckism- The
present one which rests upon the principles OF
organic selection and social transmission-itsef
a. sor, Of organic seIectfon-and was reached in
5ependentlv and at about the same time by Pro-
fessors Baldwin. c. Lloyd Morgan and h r
Osborn. might aptly be named BaldWinlsn'
since the term organic selection originated with
the Princeton psychologist Baldwinism IN
brief. aims at meeting current objections 10
evolution by supplying factor TO account IoF
the paraIlelisms between the progressive gains
Of evolution and the continued accommodations
of individuals to their environment Indeed.
Baldwinisn might almost be termed an exalta-
ton Of environment at the expense of heredity
II takes into account, OF course, the fact OF
physical heredty. but 1t asserts that physical
heredity has much less influence upon indl-
viduals than the Lamarckians contend, and that
what the individual inherits is not acquired
characteristics but the ability to adapt himself
to his environment. This is the principle men
toned above, which has variously been termed
social transmission social heredity" and
tradition" Professor Baldwin puts il thus;
In the childs personal development, his ento-
genesis his life history, he works out a falthIul
representation OF his social conditions he is,
from childhood up, excessively receptive TO So
cial patterns. The essential to TINS IN ms heleu
ity, is very great Elasticity, cereordi oaiahce
and equilibrium, q readiness TO oveTfloW INTO
the new channels which his social environment
dictates. He has to learn everything for MIN
self and TO do this, he must begin in a state
Of great Elasticity and mobility. Now, my point
y,uT brief;v is that these social lessons which
he learns for himself take the place largely OF
the heredity OF particular paternal acquisitions.
The father must have been plastic TO learn ana
this Elasticity is. so far as the evidence goes
the nervous condition of consciousness; thus the
father learned through his consciousness, from
his social environment. the chlld ooes ole
same. What he inherits Is the nervous pas
ticitv and the consciousness He learns par
ticuIar acts for himself and what he learns ls'
sr its main lines, what his father learned 80
he is lust as well of, the child of Darwinisn-
as il he was physical heir to the ACQUISITIONS
which his father made This process has peen
called ''social heredity," seeing that the child
really comes into possession Of the details; but
he comes by them socially. through TINS process
Of social growth, rather than by direct physicai
inheritance
1t is Professor BaIdwin's contention that were
such principle not brought into play the devel-
opment of the individual would cease and evo-
tuition would no longer be progressive His ar
gument is that the inheritance of acquired
habits would so tend to bind up the individuals
nervous substance that he would have less, or,
possibly no plastic substance wherewith to
learn anything. Such hxity. he points out, oc-
ours in the animals in which instinct is largely
developed, they being possessed of instinct and
little else. II would appear that he here lays
himself open to criticism. since in another chap
ter he argues with equal vehemence against
instinct being the result of inherited habits.
To understand the workings Of organic selection
# is needful to keep ever in mind this doctrine
Of social transmission Organic selection itself
is defined by Professor Baldwin the process
Of individual accommodation considered as
keeping single organisms alive, and so, by also
securing the accumulation Of variations. deter
mining evolution in subsequent generations"
In other words. organic selection tries to show
that although
inherited furnish guiding force in evolution,
since they preserve the life of the individual by
adapting him TO his new conditions until
genital variations Of the proper kind appear.
This may be made still clearer by citing il
lustration given by Professor Osborn in an ad-
dress before the American Society for the Ad-
vancenlent Of Science:
II The human infant were brought up in the
branches Of a tree as an arboreal type, instead
Of terrestrial bipedal type, there is little
doubt that some OF the well known early adapta-
tions 70 arboreal life Csuch the turning in
Of the soles Of the feet and the grasping OF the
hands, might be retained and cultivated; thus
a profoundly different type Of man would be
produced. Similar changes in the action OF en-
vironment are constantly in progress in nature.
since there is no doubt that the changes of
environment and the habits which IL brings
about far outstrip all changes in constitution
II goes without saying that the theory Of or
eanic selection has met and Will meet with
severe criticism; the hand II is accused
Of doing away with natural selection, and on
the other hand the assertion is made that It
both admits and denies Lamarckisn. Professor
Baldwin endeavors TO refute both charges. It
may be said that he clearly shows how organic
selection not only does not do away with nat
ural selection, but explains the processes of
natural selection. 1t is rot so evident that he