continue. The "pattern" or model is not the action of the other
person. The whole situation requires that each should adapt his
action in view of what the other person has done and is to do.
Imitation may come in but its role is subordinate. The child has
an interest on his own account; he wants to keep it going. He
may then note how the other person catches and holds the ball in
order to improve his own acts. He imitates the means of doing,
not the end or thing to be done. And he imitates the means
because he wishes, on his own behalf, as part of his own
initiative, to take an effective part in the game. One has only
to consider how completely the child is dependent from his
earliest days for successful execution of his purposes upon
fitting his acts into those of others to see what a premium is
put upon behaving as others behave, and of developing an
understanding of them in order that he may so behave. The
pressure for likemindedness in action from this source is so
great that it is quite superfluous to appeal to imitation. As
matter of fact, imitation of ends, as distinct from imitation of
means which help to reach ends, is a superficial and transitory
affair which leaves little effect upon disposition. Idiots are
especially apt at this kind of imitation; it affects outward acts
but not the meaning of their performance. When we find children
engaging in this sort of mimicry, instead of encouraging them (as
we would do if it were an important means of social control) we
are more likely to rebuke them as apes, monkeys, parrots, or copy
cats. Imitation of means of accomplishment is, on the other
hand, an intelligent act. It involves close observation, and
judicious selection of what will enable one to do better
something which he already is trying to do. Used for a purpose,
the imitative instinct may, like any other instinct, become a