To Express The Same Idea

Much Research In Psychology Has Been More Concerned With How Large Groups Of People Behave Than About The Particular Ways In Which Each Individual Person Thinks... Too Statistical. I Find This Disappointing Because, In My View Of The History Of Psychology, Far More Was Learned, For Example, When Jean Piaget Spent Several Years Observing The Ways That Three Children Developed, Or When Sigmund Freud Took Several Years To Examine The Thinking Of A Rather Small Number Of Patients.

The Current State Of Knowledge Is A Moment In History, Changing Just As Rapidly As The State Of Knowledge In The Past Has Ever Changed And, In Many Instances, More Rapidly.

Before Games Are Played In Common, No Rules In The Proper Sense Can Come Into Existence. Regularities And Ritualized Schemas Are Already There, But These Rites, Being The Work Of The Individual, Cannot Call Forth That Submission To Something Superior To The Self Which Characterizes The Appearance Of Any Rule.

If A Baby Really Has No Awareness Of Himself And Is Totally Thing-directed And At The Same Time All His States Of Mind Are Projected Onto Things, Our Second Paradox Makes Sense: On The One Hand, Thought In Babies Can Be Viewed As Pure Accommodation Or Exploratory Movements, But On The Other This Very Same Thought Is Only One, Long, Completely Autistic Waking Dream.

The Discussion Of The Game Of Marbles Seems To Have Led Us Into Rather Deep Waters. But In The Eyes Of Children The History Of The Game Of Marbles Has Quite As Much Importance As The History Of Religion Or Of Forms Of Government. It Is A History, Moreover, That Is Magnificently Spontaneous; And It Was Therefore Perhaps Not Entirely Useless To Seek To Throw Light On The Child's Judgment Of Moral Value By A Preliminary Study Of The Social Behaviour Of Children Amongst Themselves.