July 20, 1883.] 



SCIENCE. 



81 



not psychologists niaj- be able to furnish to 

 the psychologist important and trustworthy 

 data. 



We do not remember that our author is quite 

 plain in defining one of the safeguards needed 

 to make this metliod useful. He says, in de- 

 scribing his researches into mental imagery 

 (p. 87), "The conforinilv of replies from so 

 many different sources, which was clear from 

 the first, the fact of their apparent trust- 

 worthiness being on the wiiole much increased 

 by cross-examination, and the evident effort 

 made to give accurate answers, have convinced 

 me that it is a much easier matter than I had 

 anticipated, to obtain frustwortliy replies to 

 psychological questions. Many persons, es- 

 pecially women and intelligent children, take 

 pleasure in introspection, and strive their very 

 best to explain their mental processes. I 

 think that a delight in self-dissection must be 

 a very strong ingredient in the pleasure that 

 many are said to take in confessing themselves 

 to parish priests." But tliere is an obvious 

 moral from all this. The method, with its ques- 

 tions and cross-questions, with its interested 

 subjects and their pleasure in confessing them- 

 selves, is indeed fruitful ; but the outcome 

 must be controlled by tlie maxim that the sub- 

 ject's statements, when he is not himself an 

 expert, must be trusted implicitly only when 

 they are out of relation to an}' preconceived 

 theory of his own about his minil, and equally 

 out of relation to any popular prejudice or 

 superstition that could influence him. Gener- 

 ally Mr. Galton seems to follow this maxim 

 without explicitly recognizing it. The sim- 

 plicity of his questions is itself a security. If 

 you ask about one's mental picture of his 

 breakfast-table or of his hat, you can be tol- 

 erably sure that he has no prejudices or su- 

 perstitions that will affect his answer. But 

 it is another thing, in case one is inquiring 

 about the 'visions of sane persons,' and men- 

 tions some great man, sa^- Napoleon, who 

 is declared by some one to have had visions 

 of his ' star,' and to have boasted thereof. 

 Here such evidence as can I)e got would be 

 worthless, even if the great man in (jues- 

 tion were not a notorious liar. For super- 

 stition, once for all, attributes stars to great 

 men ; and, when a stor\' exactly corresponds 

 to a known and wide-spread superstition, we 

 may usually disregard the story save for 

 the purposes of folk-lore. Yet, on p. I'li, 

 Mr. Galton makes a story of this sort the 

 basis of reflections that of course may pos- 

 sibly' be true ; so that his caution is not quite 

 perfect. 



In fact, we should be disposed to apply the 

 maxim just stated yet more carefully ; namclj', 

 if the subject shows an uncommon visualizing 

 power, he is both instructive and dangerous, 

 and ought to be treated very tenderly. He can 

 furnish many facts, but his replies are by so 

 much the more apt to be influenced b\- some 

 theory of his own. Accustomed all his life to 

 his vivid imtigery ; very possibl^y a member of 

 a famil}' several of whom are uncommonly 

 gifted in this respect; accustomed, therefore, 

 to notice and talk about his power, and per- 

 haps to boast of it, — he may have formed 

 alread}- some vain-glorious idea of what he can 

 do or ought to do; and, when you set him at 

 the task of talking about himself, you must be 

 careful how you accept all that it may occur 

 to him to say. A brief experience with one 

 such subject as we have just described has 

 convinced us that serious danger would arise 

 from applying Mr. Gallon's method to him 

 without great care. And if w^e intended to 

 publish any of his experiences, we should con- 

 fine him strictly to commonplaces, should not 

 publish his stories of what he used to see 

 when a child, and should not introduce any 

 thing that he connected witii ' elevated spir- 

 itual experiences,' or with an^- other artistic 

 excellence of which he seemed to feel proud. 

 We fear that some of Mr. Galton's subjects 

 needed more such watching. In fine, though 

 Mr. Galton's researches on mental imager}', 

 since their first publication in the form of 

 memoirs, have greatly helped intros|)eetive 

 psychology, no one, doubtless, would fear or 

 deplore more than himself any misuse of them 

 that should tend once again towards the myth- 

 ological. Our suggestion is intended to help 

 to ward off such a sad result, which, for the 

 followers whom Mr. Galton is certain to have, 

 might not be ver}' far off. What might not 

 our author have to mourn over, if ' psychologi- 

 cal associations ' were to become fashionable 

 in country towns, and were to produce acres 

 of manuscript or printed proceedings contain- 

 ing elevated spiritual visualizing experiences 

 by old maids and semi-spiritualistic reform- 

 ers? Yet, in these days of popular science and 

 associations, who knows what Mr. Galton's 

 pleasing wa}' of speech might not produce, if 

 he does not add to every new chapter of facts 

 a note strenuously insisting that the exact and 

 cautious methods that are commonplaces for 

 him should be studie<l and followed by every 

 ambitious one that would do likewise, however 

 simple the subject-matter investigated may 

 seem to be? 



Mr. Galton can claim especial credit for his 



