1896.] Psychology. 951 
carefully noted that the statements just given of these reasons do not 
tell us how ‘red,’ a sensation, differs from ‘ pleasantness,’ an affection, 
in mental experience. They are sufficient indication that a real differ- 
-ence exists; but the difference — cannot be described—it must be 
experienced.” 
It remains to be seen how this theory, or rather Prof. Titchener’s re- 
statement of it, will be met by the adherents of the Wundtian view. 
As to the verbal innovation, the terms pleasantness and unpleasantness 
would be more welcome if the proposed meanings accorded better with 
ordinary usage. Both words, especially the second, are suggestive of a 
very mild form of feeling; and until we became accustomed to the 
-change it would excite our sense of the ludicrous to call the feeling con- 
nected with a violent toothache or an intense abdominal pain unpleas- 
-ant.—H. C. WARREN. 
Further Comments on Prof. Baldwin’s ‘‘ New Factor in 
Evolution.’’—Ina “ Note” in THE AMERICAN NATURALIST, October, 
1896, Prof. Baldwin declares that I have grossly misunderstood his 
views, and that, to quote his words, “ Dr. Nichols’ home thrusts are 
-all directed at my view of pleasure and pain, which he considers, quite 
mistakenly, the point of my ‘paper. On the contrary, the ‘factor’ is 
entirely the influence of the individuals adaptation on the course of 
evolution ; not at all the particular way in which the individual makes 
its adaptation.” 
This quotation is typical of the author’s style of thinking and writ- 
ing ; of which his critics unanimously complain. The word “ influence ” 
‘is frequently misused by careless writers, as in the above, to denote the 
results of a factor, rather than the factor itself. A “factor” is a set of 
influences or circumstances contributing to produce a result. It is true 
that an author, if of expansive mind, may run ahead of his subject. It 
is true, as Prof. Baldwin above declares, that his mind was chiefly on 
the results supposed by him to be worked by his factor. But he should 
not forget that he declared himself, in his title, to be writing about his 
“new factor”; and it was quite correct that be should write about it, 
since one ought, in Science, to establish the existence of a thing before 
discussing its effects. It was this last I had in view when, in my paper, I 
directed my discussion toward demonstrating that his new factor, as 
specificly described by Prof. Baldwin, was a myth. 
directed my discussion against Prof. Baldwin’s views of pleasure 
-and pain because he completely identified his “ factor” with his par- 
-ticular and all-expansive views of pleasure and pain. On p. 451 of his 
