{"title":"皮亚杰悖论:适应、进化和能动性","authors":"Denis Walsh","doi":"10.1159/000534306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Piaget’s <i>Behaviour and Evolution</i> (1976) sought to reconcile the view that organismal adaptiveness – in the form of equilibration – could contribute to human behavioural, cognitive, and epistemic evolution with the prevailing evolutionary orthodoxy of the time. He was particularly concerned to demonstrate that human behaviour, cognition, and knowledge acquisition could be drivers of human evolution. Piaget hypothesised constructive role for organisms in evolution was significantly at variance with the prevailing modern synthesis orthodoxy of his time (and ours). He looked to Conrad Hal Waddington’s genetic assimilation as a model for how equilibration could generate evolutionary novelties which become fixed by subsequent evolution. I make two claims. Firstly, that Piaget’s appeal to Waddington fails to reconcile his views of human evolution with the modern synthesis. Secondly, the newly emerging agential conception of evolution, in which the purposive activities of organisms are the principal causes of evolution, offers strong support to Piaget’s model of “organisational” evolution.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Piaget’s Paradox: Adaptation, Evolution, and Agency\",\"authors\":\"Denis Walsh\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000534306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Piaget’s <i>Behaviour and Evolution</i> (1976) sought to reconcile the view that organismal adaptiveness – in the form of equilibration – could contribute to human behavioural, cognitive, and epistemic evolution with the prevailing evolutionary orthodoxy of the time. He was particularly concerned to demonstrate that human behaviour, cognition, and knowledge acquisition could be drivers of human evolution. Piaget hypothesised constructive role for organisms in evolution was significantly at variance with the prevailing modern synthesis orthodoxy of his time (and ours). He looked to Conrad Hal Waddington’s genetic assimilation as a model for how equilibration could generate evolutionary novelties which become fixed by subsequent evolution. I make two claims. Firstly, that Piaget’s appeal to Waddington fails to reconcile his views of human evolution with the modern synthesis. Secondly, the newly emerging agential conception of evolution, in which the purposive activities of organisms are the principal causes of evolution, offers strong support to Piaget’s model of “organisational” evolution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Development\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534306\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534306","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
皮亚杰的行为与进化</i>(1976)试图将有机体适应性——以平衡的形式——可以促进人类行为、认知和认知进化的观点与当时盛行的进化论正统观点相协调。他特别关注证明人类的行为、认知和知识获取可能是人类进化的驱动力。皮亚杰假设生物体在进化中起着建设性的作用,这与他那个时代(以及我们这个时代)盛行的现代综合正统论有很大的不同。他把康拉德·哈尔·沃丁顿(Conrad Hal Waddington)的遗传同化理论作为一个模型,来解释平衡如何产生进化上的新事物,这些新事物在随后的进化中被固定下来。我有两点主张。首先,皮亚杰对沃丁顿的呼吁未能使他的人类进化观点与现代综合理论相协调。其次,新出现的进化的代理概念,其中生物体的目的活动是进化的主要原因,为皮亚杰的“组织”进化模型提供了强有力的支持。
Piaget’s Paradox: Adaptation, Evolution, and Agency
Piaget’s Behaviour and Evolution (1976) sought to reconcile the view that organismal adaptiveness – in the form of equilibration – could contribute to human behavioural, cognitive, and epistemic evolution with the prevailing evolutionary orthodoxy of the time. He was particularly concerned to demonstrate that human behaviour, cognition, and knowledge acquisition could be drivers of human evolution. Piaget hypothesised constructive role for organisms in evolution was significantly at variance with the prevailing modern synthesis orthodoxy of his time (and ours). He looked to Conrad Hal Waddington’s genetic assimilation as a model for how equilibration could generate evolutionary novelties which become fixed by subsequent evolution. I make two claims. Firstly, that Piaget’s appeal to Waddington fails to reconcile his views of human evolution with the modern synthesis. Secondly, the newly emerging agential conception of evolution, in which the purposive activities of organisms are the principal causes of evolution, offers strong support to Piaget’s model of “organisational” evolution.
期刊介绍:
Distinguished by its international recognition since 1958, "Human Development" publishes in-depth conceptual articles, commentaries, and essay book reviews that advance our understanding of developmental phenomena. Contributions serve to raise theoretical issues, flesh out interesting and potentially powerful ideas, and differentiate key constructs. Contributions are welcomed from varied disciplines, including anthropology, biology, education, history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.