SUMMARIES AND CORRELATIONS. 247 



normal performance. There is, however, one exception to this rule, 

 and that is the eye-reaction. Here, at least, there seems to be a definite 

 corroboration of the Kraepelin contention that the choice reaction is 

 facilitated by moderate doses of alcohol. The case will receive our 

 most careful attention (see pages 250 and 251). 



But granting the exception as a real one, there can be no doubt con- 

 cerning the general experimental depression of the various processes. 

 With only one apparent exception (the eye-reaction after dose A), 

 alcohol regularly tends to depress neuro-muscular action. But so does 

 sleep. The statement of the tendency gives no clue to its physiological 

 character. Depression of neuro-muscular action may be due to any 

 one of a considerable variety of antagonistic conditions. The same is 

 true of facilitation. The unanalyzed question whether alcohol effects 

 a positive or negative increment in the capacity of the subject for any 

 specific mental performance or group of performances is scientifically 

 crude. We would not appear to deny the practical importance of such 

 a question. Both morally and economically it may be useful to know 

 whether an individual can do more or harder work after taking alcohol 

 as a part of his food or as a condiment. But the practical capacity for 

 effective work of any definite sort is scientifically the product of an 

 indefinite number of interacting neural facilitations and inhibitions. 

 In this complex and relatively unexplored interplay of psycho-physio- 

 logical processes, the balance in any direction can rarely be predicted 

 with scientific accuracy. In no single case do we know accurately 

 either the number or the relative force of the various factors. Con- 

 versely, any specific outcome may be the resultant of an indefinite 

 number of various configurations of the polygon of forces which may 

 be in operation. In ergographic accomplishment, for example, a 

 specific increase in the work done may be due to an actual increase of 

 the available muscular energy, to a spurt, to increased interest and 

 determination; or it may be due to decreased susceptibility to the 

 normal inhibiting influence of muscular discomfort or pain. Similarly, 

 a decreased reaction time may be due to increased attention, to real 

 facilitation of the motor discharge ; or it may be due to careless reaction 

 to some accidental pre-stimulation cue that the true stimulus is about 

 to come, or even to some arbitary simplification of the reaction modes, 

 such as the change from a sensory to a motor type. Only correlated 

 data can determine which of the interacting tendencies is actualty 

 responsible for the increased output. The naive assumptions that 

 increased physiological action is always organically beneficent, as well 

 as that depression of physiological action is always organically disad- 

 vantageous, are merely popular prejudices. 



