Part 6 (1/2)
Partridge, in his ”Outline of Individual Study,” gives an account of methods whereby the teacher may a.s.sist the young child in discovering his or her particular physical and mental const.i.tution. The book contains a brief outline for such study and enumerates many pages of words descriptive of human nature. The main aspects of the mental life of children are taken up in successive chapters and discussed in a general way, with suggestions in the way of tests, problems, questions, points of observation, etc.
The ”Family History Book” (Bulletin No. 7) of the Eugenics Record Office contains a scheme, arranged by Drs. Hoch and Amsden, for the examination of the personality of persons suspected of mental abnormality. This scheme is further elaborated by Wells in an outline to be referred to at a later point in this chapter. In the ”Trait Book” (Bulletin No. 6) of this same office there is to be found a long list of traits descriptive of human beings, including physical and physiological as well as nervous and mental characteristics. These traits are cla.s.sified for convenient reference and record according to a decimal key. The pamphlet also contains cla.s.sified lists of diseases, crimes, and occupations. Various other bulletins issued by the Eugenics Record Office will also be found both interesting and suggestive to those interested in the study of self-a.n.a.lysis, heredity and individual differences. They contain nothing, however, of immediate vocational applicability.
Dr. F. L. Wells has made a comparative study and synthesis of the schemes proposed by Cattell, Hoch and Amsden, Heymans and Wiersma, and Davenport, supplementing these at certain points and suggesting a method of giving more or less quant.i.tative form to the characterizations. It is obvious that an outline of this sort can be used in expressing the personality of another individual as well as for the purposes of self-a.n.a.lysis. Such an outline is of value not only for general knowledge or for vocational study but also in the examination into questions of mental health, pathological tendencies and trends, predispositions leading to or favoring mental instability, etc. Wells describes fourteen phases or aspects of human personality, and under each phase presents guiding questions, suggestive clues, and sub-features. Especially convenient and helpful is the method of giving an approximate quant.i.tative statement which facilitates comparison and summation. Suitable marks a.s.signed to the several different characteristics under each of the fourteen main headings (there are in all about ninety-five subtraits) serve to indicate marked, distinct or doubtful presence, or marked, distinct or doubtful deficiency or aversion.
The main headings given by Wells are as follows:
1. Intellectual Processes (5 subtopics) 2. Output of Energy (4 subtopics) 3. Self a.s.sertion (7 subtopics) 4. Adaptability (5 subtopics) 5. General Habits of Work (5 subtopics) 6. Moral Sphere (6 subtopics) 7. Recreative Activities (16 subtopics) 8. General Cast of Mood (3 subtopics) 9. Att.i.tude Toward Self (4 subtopics) 10. Att.i.tude Toward Others (7 subtopics) 11. Reactions to Att.i.tude Toward Self and Others (12 subtopics) 12. Position Towards Reality (5 subtopics) 13. s.e.xual Sphere (9 subtopics) 14. Balancing Factors (6 subtopics)
The complete outline, accompanied by much suggestive discussion and comment on the const.i.tution, development and types of human personality, is published in the issue of the _Psychological Review_ for July, 1914. It should be carefully read by all interested in this type of individual a.n.a.lysis.
One of the most carefully planned, easily available and concretely serviceable outlines for self-a.n.a.lysis is that recently formulated and published by Yerkes and LaRue under the t.i.tle ”Outline of a Study of the Self” (Harvard University Press, 1914). The authors of this outline have found that a study of ancestry, development and present const.i.tution is an extremely profitable task. They present this guide as an aid to such systematic and thorough study. The purpose of such study is threefold: (1) to help the individual understand himself or herself; (2) to help the individual understand and sympathize with others; (3) to arouse interest in the study of heredity, environmental influences, eugenics and euthenics.
The ”Outline” is put together on the looseleaf system, with blank pages for records and replies. Under the heading ”Ancestral History of the Self” are given the ”Record of Family Traits” of the Eugenics Record Office, and many supplementary questions concerning physical, mental, moral and social traits of near relatives, with suggestions as to their cla.s.sification and evaluation. Under ”Development or Growth of the Self” and ”The Self of Today” the prenatal, infantile, childhood and adolescent periods and the present time are each provided with questions concerning characteristics, influences, growth, temperament, inclinations, habits, capacities and social relations. Under ”The Significance of the Characteristics of the Self” are given questions concerning vocational demands, equipment, and ambitions; marital propensities and fitness; responsibilities and preparation for parenthood; and the ”Index to the Germ Plasm” of the Eugenics Record Office is considered. A final section invites reflection on ”The Duties of the Self as a Member of Social Groups” in the light of physical and mental const.i.tution, moral and religious tendencies, vocational abilities, and marital and parental relations and duties.
Such attempts to present suggestive outlines for self-a.n.a.lysis or for the inventory of the traits of others are both commendable and timely. That they are but beginnings in the right direction their authors commonly recognize. Their supporting idea is not that employers, teachers or physicians should take the individual's replies to these questions as embodying information which the individual did not previously know about himself. The individual, in attempting to express and a.n.a.lyze his inclinations and reactions, may find them clarified and ordered in the process. He is likely to discover at a very early point in his record how little he is really able to say about himself with a.s.surance. If this should induce a humility which would lead him to more careful self-scrutiny, such value as this subjective stock-taking may have will surely tend to be enhanced.
THE JUDGMENT OF a.s.sOCIATES
No less important than the correct evaluation of the individual's self-a.n.a.lysis is the problem of evaluating the judgments which his acquaintances pa.s.s on his mental const.i.tution and qualifications. Not only does the youth often determine his choice of a vocation by relying on the advice of his a.s.sociates, teachers, and friends, but his success in securing an opportunity to undertake any kind of work whatsoever often depends on the oral or written estimate of some other person of whom inquiry is made. Selection on the basis of the testimonial and the recommendation has come to be a traditional vocational step.
”The problem of judgment of character is one which is continually confronting people of all cla.s.ses and stations. In many instances the correct estimate of a person's character is of vital importance. The success of officers of administration from the President of the United States to the school superintendent of a small village depends often on their ability to choose for their subordinates persons of the proper character. In everyday life one's happy choice of friends, one's ability to sell goods, to persuade people to accept a new point of view or doctrine, to get on harmoniously with people in general in all the various occupations of life, depend upon one's ability to estimate the powers, capacities, and characteristics of people. To those who have to make personal recommendations or to make use of those made by others, this question of judgment of character is a grave one. Is it possible for one to judge at all fairly the character of another?”[8]
We are concerned here not with inference from physiognomic features and anthropometric measurements, but with impressions based on the observed conduct, expression and achievement of the individual who is in question, his or her characteristic behavior, att.i.tudes, activities, reactions, and accomplishments. When the individual being judged is a total stranger and the judgment is immediate, estimates of character are of course merely of the type discussed in preceding sections on phrenology and physiognomy.
Professor Cattell once requested twelve acquaintances of five scientific men to grade these five men in the various traits of character to which we have referred on page 127. The grades a.s.signed were to represent the position of the individual in his group. Thus a grade of twenty-five per cent would mean that the individual belonged in the lowest one-quarter of the total group of scientific men in the country, in the trait so marked, three-fourths of the group being superior to him in this trait. A grade of one hundred per cent would mean that the individual so graded would belong among the highest one per cent of all the scientific men in the country, in the trait so marked. When these records were compiled it was seen that in the case of certain traits, such as energy, perseverance, efficiency, the twelve judges differed much less among themselves than when judging other traits, such as cheerfulness, kindliness, unselfishness. It is interesting to note that the traits on which the judges agreed closely represent the individual's reactions to objective things, whereas the traits on which they disagreed most represent the individual's reactions toward other people.
There are, of course, several reasons for this result. In the first place the reactions of an individual to objects, as displayed in his daily work, are matters of common knowledge and are likely to leave objective and even measurable evidence such as wealth, books, buildings, etc. Reactions to other individuals are more likely to vary with the occasion and with the companion, and are also likely to be deliberately controlled, inhibited or a.s.sumed, in the interest of more objective and remote ends. This would mean that whereas in the first case all the judges were dealing with much the same material, in the form of actual products of the traits in question, in the second case they were more or less likely to have in mind rather different reactions or occasions of a more strictly personal character.
The problem of the validity of judgments of the various traits was considered in a more detailed way by Norsworthy, from whose account of her inquiry we have already quoted. She chose the traits enumerated by Cattell, and performed several experiments to determine the reliability of judgments of this sort. Thus she had five intimate acquaintances independently grade a sixth person for her possession of these twenty-four traits, on two different occasions several weeks apart.
Two things were clearly shown. In the first place the individual judges, in their second trials, did not diverge far from their first ratings. In the second place the double judgments of the five different judges did not diverge far from each other. These two facts ”prove that the ratings do stand for some actual quant.i.tative value and are not subject to mere chance. The validity of the judgments, in the sense of their correspondence with the actual character of X is then only a matter of the impartiality of the group of judges.”
Similar results were found in the judgments of nine members of a college society by five of their comrades, and in the judgments of a teacher by two hundred college students. It was apparent also that judges differ from one another in the general accuracy of their gradings. Some of them agree closely with the consensus of opinion, while others depart, in varying degrees, from the average or correct estimate. It was also seen that, in estimating certain individuals, judges with presumably equal acquaintance with those being judged agreed closely with one another. Other persons had produced quite different impressions on the different judges and this was revealed in the greater divergence of the grades a.s.signed to such persons.
As in the case of Cattell's results, figures are presented showing the degree of divergence among the judges in estimating the different traits.
In the table on page 139 these figures are given, as shown in the records of five judges in one of Norsworthy's experiments, and the records of the twelve judges in Cattell's investigation. The average variability or degree of divergence for all the twenty-four traits is taken as the standard and each trait compared with this standard. A variability of one hundred thus indicates the average amount of disagreement. Figures smaller than one hundred indicate that the agreement was closer than average, and figures larger than one hundred indicate that here the judges disagreed by more than the average amount.
Naturally, there is not perfect agreement in these two cases, since the one set of data is from a group of girls judging one another on the basis of their acquaintance as social comrades and fellow students, while the other set is from scientific men judging one another on the basis of less constant a.s.sociation and largely on acquaintance in lecturing, research, teaching and the writing of articles and books. Moreover, results from groups of only five judges in the one case and only twelve in the other are subject to considerable variable error. In spite of these facts, interesting suggestions are afforded by the comparison.
TABLE 1
VARIABILITY IN JUDGING DIFFERENT TRAITS
------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Divergence of Different Judges Trait
-------------------------------------------
Cattell,
Norsworthy,
Average of Both
12 Judges
5 Judges
Experiments ----------------+-----------+------------+------------------ Efficiency
75.0
92.4
83.7 (Close Originality
95.2
77.2
86.2 Agreement) Quickness
90.0
88.0
89.0 Intellect
95.2
92.0
93.6
Perseverance
75.0
101.0
88.1 Judgment
100.0
78.7
89.4 (Fair Will
85.1
98.1
91.8 Agreement) Breadth
100.0
92.4
96.2 Leaders.h.i.+p
90.0
102.9
96.5
Clearness
104.9
75.7
90.3 Mental Balance
110.2
81.8
96.0 Intensity
85.1
113.7