SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—J. 541 
aversion. It was hoped that, in spite of historical accidents operating 
to determine many friendships and antipathies, some systematic trend, 
according to temperament and character similarities or differences, would 
be perceptible. 
Indications of such relationships were found, particularly with p, c and w. 
(The scatter of g was so small in this examination-selected group as to make 
any analysis in this respect useless.) There is also an indubitable tendency 
for popularity (number of friends) to vary with p and w. Thoughthe causes 
of these trends are obscure, confirmation and extension of these findings 
would make profitable discussion possible and, at the same time, throw light 
from a new angle on the natures of p, c and w. 
Mr, F. C. THomas.—A _ simplified synthesis of the factor and noegenetic 
theories (2.45). 
After a brief introduction, it is assumed that the existence of general and 
specific cognitive factors (g and the s’s) is now adequately proven. These are 
regarded as determining only a person’s maximum performance at a given 
task. Factors of other kinds may, and normally do, intervene ; causing 
his actual performance on any given occasion to fall short of what his g—s 
equipment alone would lead us to expect of him. These ‘ quantitative 
determinants ’ of cognition fall into three classes, as follow: (1) per- 
severation, oscillation, constancy of cognitive output, persistence of motive 
and conative control of cognition—which limit achievement by affecting g; 
(2) Fatigue and retentivity, which affect the s’s; (3) ‘ Basic constitution ’ 
(= primordial potency), or factors of age, sex, heredity, and health, which 
affect the other quantitative determinants. The three noegenetic processes 
are then regarded as being the tasks that g performs when, under the 
restraint of the quantitative determinants, it activates the s’s. 
Dr, P. E, Vernon.—The applicability of quantitative methods to traits of 
temperament and personality (3.30). 
A temperamental or personality trait differs in many respects from an 
aptitude or ability. It cannot be defined solely in terms of objective 
behaviour, but is dependent upon the observation and interpretation of 
such behaviour by human mentalities. A man’s traits are not so much his 
own ‘properties,’ as relations between him and the persons who observe 
him. The trait is a name for a very general class of behaviour, hence its 
content is extremely ambiguous, It is impossible to find distinct dividing 
lines between different traits, or to isolate any one trait as more fundamental 
than another. 
A single test, or set of ratings, cannot give an adequate measure of a trait; 
instead a variety of diverse tests should be combined into a crude composite 
score. In personality testing, unlike aptitude testing, no objective criterion 
of validity is available ; but the inter-correlations within such a composite 
indicate its theoretical validity. Though the tetrad difference technique 
may be applied to these composites of personality tests, yet elaborate 
Statistical treatment and factorial analysis are unjustifiable owing to the 
inherent subjectivity of the trait concept. 
Mr. F. H. Gace.—The quantitative aspect of brightness in visual sensations 
(4-15). 
At the meeting of the British Association last year, there was a discussion 
on the quantitative relation of physical stimuli and sensory events. The 
