ABSTRACT
IN an oft-quoted passage, too frequently torn from its context, Dr. Groos contends 1 that "the idea of consciousness must be rigidly excluded from any definition of instinct which is to be of practical utility," since "it is always hazardous in scientific investigation to allow an hypothesis which cannot be tested empirically." I take it, however, that the question before Dr. Groos, when he wrote these words, was that of origin. The question was not: Does consciousness accompany instinctive performance? The question was: Does instinctive performance owe its genesis to the guidance of consciousness? or, as Dr. Groos himself puts it, in words immediately preceding those which I have quoted: "Is this useful adjustment attributable to conscious will?" It is to this question that he gives a negative answer. His whole thesis implies an accompaniment of consciousness; "the feeling of pleasure," he says, "that results from the satisfaction of instinct is the primary psychic accompaniment of play" (p. 288). It is abundantly clear from a perusal of Dr. Groos' work, that his contention is that the origin of instinct is to be sought in the field of biological inquiry; that within this field the idea of consciousness as exercising guidance in origin is to be excluded; but that the consciousness which accompanies instinctive performance affords data for intelligent modification of behaviour through practice and exercise.
