ABSTRACT
The term aptitude has been used through most of recorded history, and various conceptions about the nature and nurture of aptitude have been carried down through educational and social philosophies to the present century (see, for example, Snow, 1982a). Modern philosophers remain concerned with clarifying these conceptions because they are deemed of central importance in education and in many areas of social policy and planning, as well as in the social sciences in general (see Scheffler, 1985). Indeed, educational, personnel, clinical, and counseling psychologists, both researchers and practitioners alike, grapple with problems of aptitude every day, whether or not these are recognized or labeled as such. Some medical and health scientists have begun to do the same. And experimental psychologists have begun to analyze individual differences in information processing under the heading “aptitude” or “aptitude for learning,” as part of the development of cognitive theory. There are also long-standing biological and sociological questions about aptitude that intersect with the psychological, philosophical, and practical ones. In short, aptitude is an old term for an old concept still widely used, but also widely misused and misunderstood, in much scientific, professional, and public parlance today.
