Pt<i/r/i<)io(/u'ftl InvcHtiijnlioHH 255 



but they have ceased to have any meaning for the hulk of the population 

 to-day; its problems are essentially economic, and it will acce|)t as an in- 

 tellectual faith any doctrine which ap[)arently offers better economic con- 

 ditions'. The error is that we assume j^reat j)rogress in the intellectual views 

 of the leaders of thought in a nation always corresjx^nds to some mental de- 

 velopment, or to some change in the culture of the mass of the [K-oj)le. 



Cialton concludes tliis section (p. 182) by stsiting that while we know "that 

 the bulk of the respective provinces of nature and of nurture are totally 

 different, and although tlie frontier between them may l)e uncerUvin," yet "we 

 are perfectly justified in attemi)ting to appraise their relative importance." 



C)ur author now turns to Associations. He writes: 



"The furniture of a man's mind chipHy consi.sts of his recollcx;tion.s and the iMinds that 

 unite tlioni. As all this is the fruit of exjwrience, it must differ givjitly in different minds 

 according to their individual experiences. I have endeavourtnl to take stock of my own mental 

 furniture in the way descril)Oil in the next chapter, in which it will be set-n how largo a part 

 consists of childish recollections, testifying to the |iernianent effect of many of the rcMults of 



eArlj' wluciitiou." (p. 182) "The character of our abstract ideas, tbereforo, depends to a 



considerable degive on our nurture." (p. 183.) 



I think in these remarks Galton does not allow adequately for the dif- 

 ference in receptivity in the material educated. Galton and his brothers, 

 Darwin and Erasmus, had very similar early nurtures, but what made the 

 elder brothers merely country gentlemen in ideius and habits, and the younger 

 brother a foremost man of science of his day? Surely it was a ditt'erentiated 

 receptivity, which caused Francis to store his mind — from practically the 

 Siime enviroiunent — in a wholly different way; and there can l)e little doubt 

 that this receptivity, which stored experiences wholly otherwise than his 

 brothers did, wius an innate faculty, a result of natme not of nurture. Again, 

 many lads had the training of a classical school and of a iniiversity, pre- 

 cisely as Charles Darwin had, but their receptivity was very different in its 

 selection from his, and the result left them largely mediocriti&s. That biisal 

 distinction wivs one of nature. Again, it is not only the selective action in 

 storing experiences, but the manner in which the brain associates them, 

 which is important. I cannot think, therefore, that because Galton in his 

 Psychometric Kxperiments' found many of his associations were from early 

 childhoml that this denotes a large part played by nurture in mental effi- 

 ciency. I think the efflsctiveness of the brain in summoning fitting associa- 

 tions is recognised by (Jalton in the following section of his book entitled 

 Antechamber of Consciousness. Here he writes: 



' A recent talk with a Russian Soviet professor from Moscow threw some light on the 

 idealist views of the Soviet leaders. The results of modern science were to be broadcasted 

 among the people, and the ecclesiastics who opposed this were to be removed; it was to be 

 science for the people as against theological bondage, but the new scientific faith was to be 

 associated with an economic revolution, which would benefit the masses. There cert-ainly is 

 a philosophic reading of history — what we might term an anthropological sense — in this com- 

 bination. And 1 iiwait with greater interest and more understJinding the outcome of these 

 idealistic scientists and p<iliticians! 



' He reproduces largv'ly his papers on this subject (see our pp. 233-36) in pp. 185-203 

 of the Inquiries. 



