192 
is not and what is not psychology. Press re- 
porters, magazine writers, novelists, drama- 
tists, preachers, popular lecturers, and adver- 
tising experts, are responsible for much psy- 
chological heresy that is so deeply rooted in 
the lay mind. But equally pernicious is the 
influence of teachers, yes, even academic col- 
leagues in other disciplines, who, though their 
tutelage in psychology dates back to a previous 
generation, flaunt their opinions on the sub- 
ject as if antiquity of the vintage were a guar- 
antee of acceptability of the doctrine. Coupled 
with these agencies for the propagation of 
malefiec and subversive statements is the hu- 
man, almost inhuman, tendency to conjure 
with words and phrases that are suggestive of 
possibility but, among those so using them, not 
redolent with meaning or precise in definition. 
Thus have “ psychology ” and “ psychological ” 
suffered immensely. For what member of an 
English-speaking community can fail to be 
impressed, if not inspired, by the sound of the 
expression, “the psychological moment”! 
What greater distinction can be accorded an 
insignificant alienist in court than to whisper 
with bated breadth or to state in bold type that 
he is a famous “ psychologist”! It has been 
said that officers in camp frequently explain 
the inexplicable in similar terms. Indeed, a 
current committee of the American Psycho- 
logical Association has found it necessary to 
indicate restricted usages of the term “ psy- 
chological ” even among professional psycholo- 
gists. But to my mind the most insidious of 
all baleful influences are to be found in con- 
nection with such commercialized undertakings 
as impose upon the ignorance of the general 
public to the extent of taking advantage of its 
credulity. Whether the intention of doing this 
is present or absent, is difficult of proof and, 
moreover, not to the point: the effect is the 
same. 
The week’s mail brought to my notice an at- 
tractively printed pamphlet describing the 
aims and scope of an incorporated “ National 
Psychological Institute.” Hence the occasion 
for these remarks. The individual whose name 
appears on the title page is the medical adviser 
and a trustee of the institute. His credentials 
SCIENCE 
[N. §. Vou. XLVIII. No, 1234 
indicate that he is a member of several med- 
ical societies, fellow of the American Medical 
Association, member of the American Associa- 
tion for the Advancement of Science, and of 
the National Geographic Society. No affilia- 
tion with any psychological association is men- 
tioned. The institute “was organized in the 
firm realization that the Science of Life and 
an intelligent appreciation of the relationship 
between the visible and the invisible world, 
constitutes not only the highest form of re- 
ligion but also falls within the domain of sci- 
entific endeavor” and for the purpose of carry- 
ing on “ experimental research in normal and 
abnormal psychology and demonology . . . , to 
develop and instruct psychic-sensitives, as in- 
termediaries in above stated experimental re- 
search, and grant certificates to same when 
proficient,” ete. “ Despairing mortals, on the 
brink of a suicide’s grave, are especially urged 
to communicate (strictly confidentially) with 
the institute for advice regarding so serious a 
step.” We are told that “ research in abnormal 
psychology has unmistakably demonstrated 
that ignorant or mischievous discarnated hu- 
man entities do frequently play a serious role 
in all manner of functional mental aberrations 
and insanity, the ravages of which, according 
to eminent authorities, are threatening the 
very social fabric.” More specifically the 
symptomatology of shell shock “suggests ob- 
session or possession by spirits of dead soldiers 
. as the exciting cause.” 
These quotations and other uncited but 
similar statements speak for themselves. It is 
not my purpose to decry earnest endeavor to 
gain knowledge in fields in which its pursuit 
has not so far been very fruitful. For many 
years, a8 my students can no doubt abundantly 
testify, my attitude toward psychie research 
has been respectfully sympathetic. In my re- 
views of publications on the subject, moreover, 
I have been no more critical than are the fore- 
most investigators in this field. Nor do I in- 
tend to charge this institution with an attempt 
to defraud the public for financial gain. Rep- 
resentations in the pamphlet indicate that the 
organization is benevolent and humanitarian 
in character and not established for profit. 
