FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   >>   >|  
d is given by the very brightest children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the definition in a satisfactory manner. REMARKS. The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had anything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heard all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years. Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly any trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excels that of the 9- or 10-year level. This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstract meanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them. Unlike such words as _tree_, _house_, etc., the ideas they contain are not the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childish intelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondary product of relationships between other ideas. They require the logical processes of comparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, for example, but one is often confronted with situations in which justice or injustice is an element; and given a certain degree of abstraction and generalization, out of such situations the idea of justice will gradually be evolved. The formation and use of abstract ideas, of one kind or another, represent, _par excellence_, the "higher thought processes." It is not without significance that delinquents who test near the border-line of mental deficiency show such inferior ability in arriving at correct generalizations regarding matters of social and moral relationships. We cannot expect a mind of defective generalizing ability to form very definite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownership rights, etc.; and if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, the rules of conduct based upon them cannot make a very powerful appeal.[69] [69] See also p. 298 _ff._ Binet used the words _charity_, _justice_, and _kindness_, and required two successes. In the 1911 revision he shifted the test from year XI to year XII, where it more nearly belongs. Goddard also places it in year XII and uses Binet's words, translating _bonte_, however, as _goodness_ instead of _kindness_. Kuhlmann retains the test in year XI
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

justice

 

processes

 

abstract

 
ability
 
abstraction
 

correct

 
generalization
 

relationships

 

kindness

 

situations


children
 

intelligence

 

arriving

 

expect

 

generalizations

 
inferior
 

social

 

matters

 

higher

 
represent

formation

 
evolved
 

gradually

 

excellence

 

border

 

mental

 

delinquents

 
significance
 

defective

 

thought


deficiency

 

appeal

 

revision

 

shifted

 

charity

 

required

 

successes

 

belongs

 

Goddard

 

goodness


Kuhlmann

 

retains

 

places

 

translating

 

ownership

 

rights

 
fairness
 

definite

 

notions

 

fairly