November 14, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



275 



an unprincipled person might make of the ascendancy gained over 

 the subject. These warnings, frequently repeated, are not with- 

 out reason, as the annals of crimes committed during the last 

 sixty years abundantly prove. 



But these are not the only sources of danger ; for experience 

 has abundantly shown that the subject himself may be prompted 

 to commit theft and other species of crime after emerging from 

 the hypnotic condition. This fact has become the subject of spe- 

 cial judicial enactment in several countries. 



P'inally, the repeated hypnotization of the subject is liable to be 

 followed by more or less dangerous consequences to himself. In- 

 ordinate emotionality, impairment of volition, and a tendency to 

 become spontaneously hypnotized, or at least excessively drowsy, 

 are some of the more obvious features of this post-hypnotic condi- 

 tion. Dr. J. Leonard Corning has at the present time under his 

 care, as we learn from the Medical Record of Nov. 8, a gentleman 

 who exhibits this neurosis — for neurosis it certainly is —in a strik- 

 ing manner. He is a man of rare gifts, he has maintained and 

 still enjoys a high position in the community, and yet his mental 

 decrepitude is so obvious that it is a matter of astonishment that 

 he has been able to disguise its source so long. Currently he is 

 regarded as a sufferer from mental overwork, and Dr. Corning 

 confesses that he should have had great difficulty in arriving at 

 the true nature of his difffculties, had the patient not confessed 

 that he had been hypnotized scores of times, and that his present 

 infirmity had come on as the direct result of these abuses, for 

 abuses they certainly were. 



Such a person as this is, of course, exposed to manifold dan- 

 gers; for he had become so susceptible, that not only is it possible 

 for any one to hypnotize him, but he is able without further as- 

 sistance to induce in himself the sleep-like state. 



Here, then, are the more manifest dangers of hypnotism. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



*#* Correspondents are requested to be as brief as possible. Hie vjriier^s name 

 is in all cases required as proof of good faith. 



The editor will be glad to publish any queries consonant with the character 

 of the journal. 



On request, twenty copies of the number containing his communication will 

 be furnished free to any correspondent. 



Origin of Right-handedness. 



Professor Baldwin, in Science for Oct. 31, gives some inter- 

 esting observations of his own on the development of right-hand- 

 edness in an infant. He thinks the fact that the right hand began 

 to be used in preference to the left only when the movement re- 

 quired an effort, is an argument in favor of those " feelings of 

 innervation " whose existence many psychologists disbelieve, and 

 challenges me (as a disbeliever) to explain the phenomena in any 

 other way. 



Why, asks Professor Baldwin, should the baby prefer her right 

 hand for strong movements, unless previous experiences of using 

 both hands had left behind them the sense that the nervous dis- 

 charge that actuated the right one was stronger than that which 

 actuated the left f 



I admit that this is a possible way of explaining the facts; but 

 yet, if a memory of the previous superior effectiveness of the right 

 hand is what determines now the choice of it for these move- 

 ments, it does not seem in any way clear that the memory in 

 question need be of the efferent current of discharge (the printer 

 has made Professor Baldwin say "afferent" instead of "effer- 

 ent ■'). Why may it not be of the greater promptitude, security, 

 and ease of the right hand's movement, as apprehended in an 

 afferent way, during previous performances? Professor Baldwin 

 gives no grounds for his rejection of this equally possible alterna- 

 tive. But to my mind it is by no means evident that memories of 

 any sort of past performances play a part in the preference ac- 

 corded to the right hand. On any theory we have to suppose an- 

 tecedently to all memory a natural prepotency in the paths of 

 discharge into the right arm. Professor Baldwin's own idea, that 

 discharges into this arm leave images of their superior strength 

 behind, implies that they have greater strength to begin with. 

 Why, now, with this organic peculiarity, may they not also have 



greater readiness to discharge when the stimulus reaches a certain 

 amount? He who conceives of the mechanism of all these early 

 movements as in principle the same as that of reflex action, 

 ought, if he bears in mind the extraordinarily elaborate way in 

 which different stimuli are correlated in the organism with differ- 

 ent paths of discharge, to have no difficulty in believing the nerves 

 which ran down into the right arm to be, on the whole, the most 

 permeable paths of exit from the brain of such currents as run in 

 from objects offered to the baby at a certain distance off. Grasp- 

 ing at such objects was the sort of performance which Professor 

 Baldwin seems most to have observed. It is obviously an instinc- 

 tive or semi-reflex act; and I should much rather explain it di- 

 rectly by connate paths alone, than by connate paths plus memo- 

 ries p/ws choice, after Professor Baldwin's fashion. 



I must therefore conclude that Professor Baldwin's observations 

 fail, in my opinion, to throw any positive light at all on the vexed 

 question of whether we feel our motoi'-nerve currents as they pass 

 out of our brain. In themselves, however, these observations seem 

 very interesting as showing how strong stimuli may produce more 

 definitely localized re-actions than weaker ones. The baby 

 grasped at bright colors with the right hand almost exclusively. 



William James. 



Harvard University, Nov. 5. 



Mount St. Elias. 



As the National Geographic Society will shortly discuss the most 

 recent observations on Mount St. Elias. with the full data of 

 Messrs. Russell and Kerr as a basis, I have determined to refrain 

 from taking any part in the newspaper discussion in regard to the 

 height of this mountain or the respective value to be assigned to 

 the different sets of observations due to different observers. This 

 is the only scientific method to pursue; and it is due to those well 

 qualified and energetic explorers that their results, when they 

 are finally made known, should form the basis of discussion, 

 rather than opinions, surmises, or guesses prior to their final com- 

 putations. The only thing which can be definitely stated at 

 ])resent is that they are of the opinion that the mountair. is lower 

 than the height of late accepted for it, and the very rough pre- 

 liminary computation of their observations appears to sustain this 

 view. The weight to be assigned to their observations, and the 

 final outcome of the revised computations, are matters for the 

 future. 



But the article by Professor Heilprin on the Mexican mountains, 

 which you have reprinted (p. 260) under the title of the " Cul- 

 minating Point of the North American Continent," no doubt un- 

 intentionally, but nevertheless seriously, misrepresents the methods 

 by which my results of 1874 were arrived at; and, in the interest 

 of a clear understanding of the subject, it is perhaps desirable that 

 some of its fallacies should be pointed out. 



Professor Heilprin is no geodesist, as his discussion of deter- 

 minations of heights of over 17,000 feet, based on a single pocket 

 aneroid barometer, is sufiScient to show. A little inquiry in 

 proper quarters would have made it clear to him that observations 

 taken with such an instrument are far from determinative. If 

 they happen to closely approach accuracy, it is merely accidental; 

 and a range of 500 feet in thi; results would reflect in no way on 

 the care of the observer or the known reputation of the instru- 

 ment. They bear to the mercurial barometer much such a rela- 

 tion as sextant angles taken at sea for vertical heights do to those 

 taken on land with a vertical circle or geodetic transit. 



This want of familiarity with the subject has led Professor 

 Heilprin into a singular misconception of the relative values of 

 observations cited in my " Report on Mount St. Elias" printed in 

 the " United States Coast Survey Report for 1875," and of the 

 data which are given therein with absolute frankness and full de- 

 tail. 



In that report I aimed to embody every thing which might 

 possess even an historic interest, and therefore printed results 

 which I stated to be more or less unreliable for reasons which 

 would be accepted by every competent judge of such matters. I 

 stated that these results were not adopted by me nor incorporated 

 into the work depending upon observations of a higher class. But 



