Lmills] development OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY 19S 



Mr. Hobhoiise was one of the first to recognize clearly, though I 

 do not say adequately, that the success of the animal in certain situa- 

 tions depends largely on the degree to which it can attend to anything 

 in hand. It is not sufficient that an animal be stimulated, as by 

 hunger and the sight of food — to instance a favourite stimulus used 

 by the laborators — the animal must, if it would succeed in certain 

 complicated situations, be able to exercise an inhibitory influence and 

 direct its attention to the essential points in the solution of a pro- 

 blem, and in this respect, not only do groups but individuals differ 

 greatly. Speaking generally, the poodle has the poAver of attention 

 above every other breed of dogs, so far as the learning of tricks is 

 concerned, yet in the hunting field the pointer or setter is incompar- 

 ably his superior, even in this matter of attention. But there is much 

 in ]\tr. Hobhouse's generalization, " that an animal can shift its atten- 

 tion to this or that object, or change within the sphere of perception, 

 but it apparently cannot follow out the structure of any complex 

 object with any minuteness and accuracy," and I would add that it is 

 just here that man is so far in advance of the animal and some indivi- 

 duals, especially among men, superior to others. 



The experimental examination of this point, so far as animals are 

 concerned, offers an inviting and possibly fruitful field. Mr. Hobhouse 

 found the Rhesus monkey less attentive than his dog, and not more so 

 than the cat. But attention can be cultivated, as was shown by the 

 improvement of this writer's dog Jack. Both the dog and the cat, 

 he tells us, showed a general appreciation of what was to be done, they 

 became excited when preparations were made for a fresh experiment, 

 even if it was of a new kind. Speaking of another dog, Mr. Hobhouse 

 says, " but apparently she was guided by what in the human being we 

 should call common sense," an opinion, which of itself, suffices to show 

 that though conservative he does not belong to the extreme agnostic 

 school of comparative psychology. On p. 222 of his book, Mr. Hob- 

 house presents the following summary : " On the whole, then it would 

 seem that animals are influenced by similarity of relations. î^ot that 

 they dissect out the common element which constitutes a class 

 identity; they have not solved the problem which has baiïïed logicians; 

 it is rather that they have a concrete perception of the man or animal, 

 house or locality, with which they are familiar; that such an objest 

 contains many objects in various relations, and that when they meet 

 another object, similar in general character, i.e., really in its con- 

 stitutive relations to the first, they know how to deal with it. This 

 implies that they have the power of grasping an object as a whoile 

 including distinct elements which I have called Concrete Experience, 

 and the power of applying this experience, which I have called 



