re ee ees 
‘ea eee 
se ba Sa ae NT eee 
SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—J. A471 
It is with respect to ends (natively or volitionally determined goals) and means 
to ends that volitional and conative processes are directed by cognition; but items 
and relations are only cognised as ends and means to ends in so far as they have 
teleological significance. And that significance may be largely subconscious, as is 
particularly shown in the results of the first and last experiment treated. 
Dr. Wi114M Brown.—The Mathematical and Experimental Evidence for the 
Existence of a General Factor (q). 
If a number of sufficiently dissimilar mental tests be applied to a group of indi- 
viduals and correlation coefficients calculated, it is found that these correlation 
coefficients are related to one another in such a way that for any four (or ¢etrad) of 
them the following relation holds good, within the limits of random sampling, viz. :— 
T1s%o4 — T1473 = O. 
We owe both the discovery of fact and the devising of the criterion to Prof. C. 
Spearman. The inference drawn from this is that the abilities measured by the 
mental tests are divisible into two factors each, the one being common to all (the 
general factor, 7), while the other is in each case specific and independent (s). 
The tetrad criterion is free from the effects of ‘attenuation’ upon coefiicients, 
and therefore escapes criticism of mine to which previous criteria were susceptible. 
But its applicability involves certain mathematical and statistical presuppositions to 
which the present paper addresses itself. 
The argument is illustrated by detailed statistical analysis of three groups of 
correlation coefficients, including one of thirty-six coefficients (giving 378 tetrads) 
resulting from nine tests of mathematical ability applied to eighty-three public 
school boys. 
A mathematically adequate proof (or disproof) of Spearman’s theory would involve 
the application of at least twenty suitable non-overlapping mental tests to a group 
of at least 300 suitable individuals (7.e. forming an adequately homogeneous ‘ random 
sample’). As Prof. Karl Pearson has pointed out, ‘ short series involve such large 
probable errors that a mere statement that theory and observation are in accordance 
within the limits of the probable errors can carry no conviction with it’ (Biometrika, 
vol. xix, 1927, p. 261), 
I am orgafiising an extensive research on these lines at Oxford, with a psycho- 
pathological counterpart at Bethlem Royal Hospital, which should ultimately give 
definitive results. The 14,535 tetrads will give a reliable frequency-distribution from 
which all the necessary statistical constants can be calculated with adequately small 
probable errors. The result should also settle the exact mathematical relationship 
_ between y and s, whether additive as at present assumed, or obeying some more 
complicated formula. 
Mr. A. W. Wotters.—Some Considerations with regard to Conceptual 
Thinking. 
The psychological investigation of thought processes would have fared better 
had the traditional terminology of logic been avoided. It seems useful now to stress 
the conative aspect of thinking, and, while accepting the current views as to the 
character of the observable contents of the process, to concentrate more upon the 
_ nature of the process as such. It is suggested that if thought be thus taken as a form 
of mental behaviour, instructive analogies can be found in so-called practical 
behaviour; it may even be held that the distinction between ‘ practical’ and 
‘intellectual’ behaviour is relatively unimportant to the psychologist. If this can 
be established the concept may be regarded as a method of thinking, rather than 
‘a thought.’ Asin the practical sphere we find generalised reaction tendencies which 
become specialised to meet particular situations, so there exists a schematic readiness 
to deal with thought situations of a given type. Whether this readiness shows itself 
as an observable conscious content depends upon the circumstances of the moment. 
If this view of conceptual thinking be accepted, the question may be raised whether 
there is any fundamental distinction between volitional and intellectual decisions. 
And is animal behaviour conceptual ? Probably it would be better to banish the 
terms concept and conceptual from psychology. 
