This book is D r d below IStfccrgtDe educational jttonograpl}0 EDITED BY HENRY SUZZALLO PROFESSOR OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INDIVIDUALITY BY EDWARD L. THORNDIKE PROFESSOR OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2.333^? HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY BOSTON, NEW YORK AND CHICAGO Cbe fiiuerjjiue pre??, CambriDoe a 3 33 O COPYRIGHT, IOII, BY HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED i ■ . • T CONTENTS Editor's Introduction v I. The Nature of Individual Differ- ences i II. The Causes of Individual Differences 29 III. The Significance of Individual Dif- ferences ........ 49 Outline 53 EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION The teaching profession is showing signs of a somewhat violent reaction against the uniform- ity of method that for so long clutched and mechanized the schools. Long before teachers realized the deadening effects of uniformity, there had been many protests from outside the teaching fold ; but they had availed little in fo- cussing professional attention. Parents had no- ticed that vigor and freshness were departing from the teaching in our public schools. Youth at high schools and colleges had in their own way filed their protest by turning from the un- appealing work of classrooms to affairs of their own invention, to school sports and sociability. But the professional consciousness was not deeply penetrated until the teachers themselves were caught in the iron machinery of their own making. When the supervision of teachers be- came as inflexible and as unindividual as the teaching of children, the problem of individu- v EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION ality in education became an acute professional one. Particularly was this true in large city school systems, where the mere bigness of the situation obscured both the individual teacher and the individual child. Of course there have been other forces con- tributing to this awakening to the need of con- serving and developing individuality. Great institutional movements are far too complex to be explained simply, — one set of forces sel- dom operates without assistance from many others. The growing belief that the education of all children is a public duty initiated difficulties that forced attention to the need of individual treatment of children. The schools of an older generation took care of a selected group. Those children to whom a more or less formal and ab- stract intellectual life appealed went to school and remained ; the others either did not enter school at all or soon left for more congenial em- ployment. The traditional methods of school- room procedure were adapted only to a picked lot of children. The effect of compulsory educa- vi EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION tion upon the school was therefore sweeping. All varieties of children were compelled to at- tend a school the traditional methods of which fitted only a few. The maladjustments became apparent. The old uniform methods broke down before the needs of a new, enlarged, and more varied population. Children were eliminated from school or retarded in their school careers to such a degree as seriously to indict the school system. The cry for individual adjustment be- came a shibboleth among the reformers ; and it found a ready echo in the city teacher who found herself becoming a pedagogical mechanic under the uniform standards imposed from above. The growth of cities also emphasized exist- ing maladjustments. The heterogeneous school populations of large industrial and commercial centres embrace a wide distribution of eco- nomic groups and classes. The evidence of so great variation in pupils in the schools of these cities helped the school men of the country to realize that variety is one of the chief charac- teristics of human nature. To be sure the ob- served differences in individuals were often due vii EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION more to environment than to original causes, and were frequently more apparent than real ; the effect, however, was even more pronounced than if the teachers had possessed an accurate, scien- tific view of natural and fundamental variations among men. The call for special schools, smaller classes, and specialized methods of teaching was prompt, though not always intelligent. The city school system afforded an easy administrative opportunity for handling such special classes. In a congested population there would be enough deaf and dumb, or cripples, or juvenile delinquents, or truants, or tubercular children to warrant the establishment of special schools or classes. Hence the large city easily furnished ex- amples of ways of providing for better adjust- ment to individuality, and became the initiator, as well as the pattern, of new movements of this kind. It is probable, too, that the child-study move- ment in education gave assistance to the other factors that were breaking up the uniform methods of the traditional school. It took the attention off certain ready-made conceptions as viii EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION to what the human mind is, and turned it toward the study of the children themselves. The con- crete acts of many children, observed under all sorts of conditions, could not help but stimu- late the growing belief that childhood has in- finite variety. As a result of these major forces, and of some other minor ones at work in our professional thought, the reaction against the blight of uni- formity in teaching has deepened. It has ex- pressed itself positively in the demand for ad- ministrative and instructional means that will produce an increased regard for individuality. For the most part this revolution — for it has been nothing less — in point of view, was a re- bellion of common sense against an obvious wrong. It moved in the right direction, but, as is the case when common sense is the sole guide, it advanced without much refinement of either knowledge or methods. To escape from the tyranny of traditional no- tions as to what constitutes an average child under average conditions, and to reach the be- lief — general and vague though it be — that ix EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION schools must be respecters of individuality, is surely a sign of progress. But our pupils will never reap the full benefit of this changed point of view until we know specifically to what extent individuals vary and what are the causes of this variation ; as well as the particular practical im- plications of these scientific truths. Unfortunately the truths of such a complex problem as that of human individuality are now only in the process of scientific reduction. In so far as they exist and may be presented in re- stricted compass, they are summarized in the volume here presented. But this contribution of Professor Thorndike's is significant for more than its incidental summary of known facts; for it establishes a point of view and indicates a safe method of approach to this intricate study of human nature. With ingenious clarity and brilliant suggestiveness, coupled with scientific caution and accuracy, the author has given us the fundamental modes by which uniformities and variations are to be perceived in human nature ; has stated their general and specific causes ; and has pointed out their meaning for so- x EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION cial policy. Even the casual reader of this mono- graph cannot fail to appreciate its bearings upon much that passes as truth in both popular belief and professional theory. INDIVIDUAT ITY THE NATURE OI INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -2.3330 The life of a man is a double series — a series of effects produced in him by the rest of the world, and a series of effects produced in that world by him. (A man's make-up or nature equals his ten- dencies to be influenced in certain ways by the world and to react in certain ways to it. I To de- scribe even one man's intellect and character fully, at even any one time, it would be neces- sary to list all the world's happenings that he might possibly encounter, and to state in each case how he would feel and think and act in response to that happening. If we could thus adequately describe each of a million human beings, — if, for each one, we could prophesy just what the response would be to every possible situation of life, — the million men would be. found to differ widely. Probably no two out I INDIVIDUALITY of the million would be so alike in mental nature as to be indistinguishable by one who knew their entire natures. Each has an individuality which marks him off from other men. Each has not only a mind, the mind of the human species, but also his own, specialized, particular, readily dis- tinguishable mind. Even in bodily nature, in- deed, men differ so much that it would be hard to find, amongst a million, two whose features are just alike, who are equally susceptible to every disease, who have identical bodily habits. The differences in intellect and character are far greater. We may study a human being in respect to his common humanity, or in respect to his individ- uality. In other words, we may study the fea- tures of intellect and character which are common to all men, to man as a species ; or we may study the differences in intellect and character which distinguish individual men. The study of the facts and laws applicable to all men by virtue of their common humanity gives education its fundamental rules for the con- trol of changes in intellect and character. The 2 NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES study of the facts and laws of individual differ- ences enables us to apply these principles economi- cally in the case of each individual whom we seek to educate. In studying individual differences, it is cus- tomary to reduce the infinitude of tendencies to think and feel and act in certain ways in response to the varied situations which life offers, to the more general, and so fewer, tendencies which the psychologist calls abilities, interests, habits, qualities of mind, or mental traits. Thus the hundreds of connections between the situations represented by all the possible problems in ad- dition and the responses represented by all their solutions, are reduced to the one trait, "ability to add." Thus the many inborn connections be- tween, on the one hand, seeing and touching blocks, sand, strings, wire, stones, water, and other material objects, and on the other hand examining, poking, pulling, putting together, taking apart, forming and re-forming those ob- jects, are comprised in the one trait, " the instinct of constructiveness " or "the interest in manipu- lation." Thus by such a term as " memory for fig- 3 ; INDIVIDUALITY ures " we refer to the permanence of many con- nections, — the thought of a battle with its date, the thought of a person with his address or tele- phone number, the thought of a city with its num- ber of inhabitants. f Individuals are commonly considered as differ- ing in respect to such traits either quantitatively or qualitatively, either in degree or in kind. A uantitative difference exists when the individ- uals have different amounts of the same trait. Thus, "John is more attentive to his teacher than James is," "Mary loves dolls less than Lucy does," "A had greater devotion to his country than B had," are reports of quantitative differ- ences, of differences in the amount of what is assumed to be the same kind of thing. A qual- itative difference exists when some quality or trait possessed by one individual is lacking in the other. Thus, "Tom knows German, Dick -does not," "A is artistic, B is scientific," " C is a man of thought, D is a man of action," are reports of the facts that Tom has some positive amount or degree of the trait " knowledge of German " while Dick has none of it, that A has some posi- 4 NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE^ tive amount of ability and interest in art while B has zero, whereas B has a positive amount of ability and interest in science, of which A has none, and so on. A qualitative difference in intellect or charac- ter is thus really a quantitative difference wherein one term is zero, or a compound of two or more quantitative differences. All intelligible differ- ences are ultimately quantitative. The difference between any two individuals, if describable at all, is described by comparing the amounts which A possesses of various traits with the amounts which B possesses of the same traits. In intellect and character, differences of kind between one in- dividual and another turn out to be definable, if defined at all, as compound differences of de- cree. /' If we could list all the traits, each representing some one characteristic of human nature, and measure the amount of each of them possessed by a man, we could represent his nature — read his character — in a great equation. John Smith would equal so many units of this, plus so many units of that, and so on. Such a mental 5 I INDIVIDUALITY inventory would express his individuality conceiv- ably in its entirety and with great exactitude. No such list has been made for any man, much less have the exact amounts of each trait pos- sessed by him been measured. But in certain of the traits, many individuals have been measured ; and certain individuals have been measured, each in a large number of traits. I shall state first some of the more important results of the mea- surements of individual differences in the case of single traits, differences in the amount of the same kind of quality or thing. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS It is useless to recount the traits in which men have been found to differ. For there is no trait in which they do not differ. Of course if the scale by which individuals are measured is very coarsely divided, their differences may be hidden. If, for example, ability to learn is measured on a scale with only two divisions, (i) "ability to learn less than the average kitten can" and (2) " ability to learn more than the average kitten can," all men may be put in class two, just as if their 6 DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS heights were measured on a scale of one yard, two yards, or three yards, nearly all men would alike be called two yards high. But whenever the scale of measurement is made fine enough, differences at once appear. Their existence is indubitable to any impartial observer. The early psychologists neglected or failed to see them precisely because the early psychology was partial. It believed in a typical or pattern mind, after the fashion of which all minds were created, and from which they differed only by rare accidents. It studied " the mind," and neglected individual minds. It studied " the will " of " man," neglecting the interests, im- pulses, and habits of actual men. The differences exist at birth and commonly increase with progress toward maturity. Individ- uality is already clearly manifest in children of school age. The same situation evokes widely differing responses ; the same task is done at differing speeds and with different degrees of success ; the same treatment produces differing results. There can be little doubt that of a thousand 7 INDIVIDUALITY ten-year-olds taken at random, some will be four times as energetic, industrious, quick, courage- ous, or honest as others, or will possess four times as much refinement, knowledge of arith- metic, power of self-control, sympathy, or the like. It has been found that amongst children of the same age and, in essential respects, of the same home training and school advantages, some do in the same time six times as much, or do the same amount with only one tenth as many errors. The ways in which and the extent to which in- dividuals differ in mental traits can be best un- derstood by considering the Distribution of the trait, that is, the number of individuals possess- ing each degree of it. For example, the distribu- tion of stature in American boys ten and a half years old is roughly as follows. Out of iooo boys, there are : — Between 109 and 113 centimetres tall, 2 boys. « „ 3 i 117 " " 5 boys 117 « ' 121 " 41 25 boys. " 121 ' ' 125 " 97 boys. 125 ' '129 " " 199 boys. " 129 ' ' 133 " 255 boys. DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS Between 133 and 137 centimetres tall, 228 boys. " 137 " 141 " " 126 boys. " 141 " 145 " " 49 boys. " 145 " 149 " "ii boys. " 149 " 153 " " 4 boys. The facts of this table become clearer to the eye if, instead of the numbers 2, 5, 25, 97, etc., ;/ UJCrv *- «f trj ill IIS 129 4D /)} *** *, j M g ,si c* Fig. 1. The Distribution of Stature of American Boys ioi yrs. old. we draw 1000 little lines as in Figure 1, letting each line stand for one boy. It is customary to represent the amounts of the trait not by a verbal statement like " from 109 cm. to 113 cm.," but by a distance along a scale from the point on the scale marked 109 cm. to the point marked 113 cm.; and to represent 9 INDIVIDUALITY the number of individuals who possess that de- gree of the trait not by the number of lines, but by the size of an area. The previous table then becomes Figure 2. Such a figure is called the Surface of Distribu- tion of the trait. Such distribution tables or sur- faces are, so to speak, the language of individual Fig. s. The Distribution of Stature of American Boys ioj yrs. old, the relative frequencies being measured by area. psychology. They tell us what the "type" or "norm" or common tendency is, how and how far individuals vary from the type, whether there are secondary or sub-types, how "abnormal" any given degree of the trait is, and the like. For in- stance, in the case of our illustration, it is clear 10 DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS that there is one central tendency, the typical height for a boy of this age being about 133 cm. ; that slight individual variations from the type are very numerous, but that large variations from it are very rare ; that the variations are continuous, individuals being found of every height from 1 10 cm. to over 150 cm. ; that a boy over 149 cm. tall at the age of ten and a half would be abnormal in the sense that he would occur only once in two hundred and fifty times, but would not be abnormal in the sense of being removed from ordinary children by a distinct gap. All thought about individual differences in single traits should be carried on in terms of such distribution tables or surfaces, each derived from the actual measurement of a large and representative group of individuals. It is mislead- ing to form opinions from casual observations of human nature without accurate measurements. For casual observation is struck by extreme, odd, exciting, and desired facts. It notes, for example, that two railroad wrecks occurred at the same day and hour, that it has not rained for n INDIVIDUALITY two months, that Walter Scott was thought dull as a boy, that the rule of the Republican party has greatly increased (or decreased) prosperity. It is misleading to judge from measurements of a few individuals. For their meaning can be rightly seen only by comparison with the total distribution in respect to the trait in question. In theory and in practice, we must think of an individual in any one trait not only as he is in and of himself, but as he is in relation to all men, — as one variation amongst others in the total distribution in respect to that trait. There is in- deed no one habit of thought about human na- ture more important for the understanding of individuality than the habit of thinking of the different amounts or degrees of each single qual- ity or trait as distances along a scale, and of men and women as distributed along that scale each at his proper point. The study of such distributions in the case of qualities of intellect and character, has brought to light two facts, both at variance with common opin- ion and both of importance for the practical con- trol of individuals by schools, laws, books, and the 12 DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS like. First, the variations in any single trait are usically continuous. Second, the variations usually cluster around one and only one type. The continuity of variations appears in every trait that has so far been measured. Children rarely or never fall into distinct clas'ses with gaps between, — bright, average, and dull, sane and insane, visualizers and non-visualizers, color- seeing and color-blind, and the like. On the con- trary, between the least and the greatest, the best and the worst, every degree is represented. The clustering around one type, though not perhaps as universal as the continuity of varia- tions, is also to be expected, save under certain special conditions in the causes that produce the trait. 1 The true state of affairs is that shown by such distributions as those of Figure 3, not by such as those of Figure 4. We must not be mis- led, by the habit of thinking in words, into the false belief that individualities' are grouped into 1 The discussion of these causes is somewhat intricate and out of place in this brief exposition. The reader will find the essential facts in the author's Educational Psychology, pp. 1 50- 170. 13 INDIVIDUALITY classes to fit those words. The usages of language are rarely competent to express the real fact of variations clustering around one type or mode JK Fig. 3. Actual Distributions found in Mental Measurements. A. Reaction time of college freshmen. B. Efficiency in marking A's on a sheet of printed capitals; 12-year- old boys. C. Memory of digits of women students. D. Efficiency in writing the opposites of words ; 12-year-old boys. and, as the variation increases, occurring in ever- diminishing frequency. That we call children good or bad does not mean that there are two H DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS types or modes of character. That the words "de- ficient," "normal," and "superior" are used of any trait is no proof that individuals in that trait show a separation into three groups, all in one group being much like one another and little like any of those in the other groups. l-k A I L^f Fig. 4. Distributions around Several Distinct Types, such as are not commonly found to exist. We must learn to think of the degree or amount of any quality in an individual not by an adjective, but by a numerical amount. We must keep all men in one class or species, or divide them into two, three or more classes or species, according to the way they are in fact divided, not 15 INDIVIDUALITY according to rhetorical convenience. In the great majority of single traits, there is only one type or mode, so that any division into distinct classes according to the amount of the trait is arbitrary. The distribution being as in Figure 5, it is equally possible to divide individuals into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or eight hundred classes; and for any given number of classes one may put Fig. 5. A Generalized Picture of the Form of Distribution to which the Actual Distributions approximate. the dividing lines in one place as well as another. Consequently classifications of individuals with respect to the amount of any single trait are al- most always useless if not misleading. The story is to be told, not by a series of names, but by a surface of distribution erected on a numerical scale. Turning again to Figure 3, one notes that all 16 DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS the distributions there shown have, as a common feature, the great frequency of mediocrity and the rareness of both specially low and specially high degrees of a trait. Approximately this is the rule for the original individualities of mankind. Approximately this remains the rule for many traits throughout the course of life and its training. In many traits a very small difference in ability or attitude near the middle point of the scale in- cludes a great many individuals. This fact explains much in human behavior. For instance, social and political movements are often instigated by indi- viduals who are at the extremes of the scale with respect to some doctrine. But the deciding votes are almost always cast by individuals who have no very pronounced inclination in either direction. The attractiveness of some hero, the suggestive power of some battle-cry, an affront to the sense of fair play, a year of hard times, a moderate expendi- ture of money, even the mere desire for novelty, may turn the balance, because only a slight addi- tion to the attractiveness of one proposal is needed to move a great number of those near the point of neutrality. To overturn a large majority 17 INDIVIDUALITY requires only a small change in opinion. A slight improvement in teaching may make a misunder- stood point clear to a large percentage of the class. , The facts that have been stated concerning the distribution of single traits teach, with respect to their educational control, that any method which is the best possible for those of one degree of a trait cannot be the best possible for all individu- als. Nor will two or three varieties of treatment suffice to educate all in the best way. Variations in human nature are wide and continuous, so that theoretically treatment also must vary much and . continuously. / It is not possible with ordinary facilities thus to give each individual in each trait the best possi- ble treatment, but knowledge of the amount and distribution of variations will prevent certain blunders. For example, a division into three groups is usually very much preferable to a divi- sion into two groups, but the gain by adding a fourth is far less. One change in school practice to make it more conformable to individual differ- ences is entirely practicable. Since the variations in any trait are so wide, a pupil should always be 18 COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS measured, not only, as now, by his ability in com- parison with his fellows, but also by his improve- . ment over his own past record. School marks should be on absolute* as well as relative scales. 1 A child should be given a measure of cha,7ige as well as of present inferiority or superiority to some standard in the teacher's mind. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS The variety of human nature possible when one man is compared with others in respect to all possible traits is practically infinite. Even if man's nature included only five traits, a, b, c, d, and e, and even if each of these existed in only N five degrees, I, 2, 3, 4, and 5, there could be over three thousand (3125, to be exact) varieties of men. With hundreds of traits, each represented in hundreds of degrees, the varieties possible are practically infinite. All the principles involved can, however, be understood in a simplified case such as that of the five traits, each appearing in 1 For a description of such an absolute scale see the author's "Handwriting," Teachers College Record, March, 1910. 19 INDIVIDUALITY five degrees. In the simple case any one individ- ual would be represented by an equation such as : — W. Roberts = 2a -\- zb + $c -f id -\- ie, John Smith = 1 a -f- afi -\- zc -f- sd -\- \e, H. Thomas = 40 + lb -\- \c -f- id -\- ie, or, more clearly, by a series of points on the five scales for the five traits as in Figure 6. 1 a 3 4 6 8~~ — . ___ Ft __.. - "" 1 T R"---- j _ - —-~""" J ' 8 TV. 8" — ""—— — -— __- ' B H " S Fig. 6. Three Individuals, R, S, and T, each measured in the case of Five Traits, a, d, c, d, and e t as possessing 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 de- grees thereof. Over three thousand varieties are possible, but they need not all occur. For example, suppose that the amount of trait a that an individual pos- sessed was so related with the amounts of b, c, d, and e that he possessed, that if he had 2a he would have also 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e, while if he 20 COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS had 4a he must have 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4c, and similarly for \a, 3#, and $a. Then the only varie- ties of individuals that could exist would be : — Some who were la -\- \b -\- \c-\-id -\- it, u m « 2fl _|_ 2 £_|_ 2c-\-2d-\-2e, and so on, five varieties in all, shown in Figure 7. Or suppose that an individual having 5^ could 18 3 4 6 T" ¥ ff 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ¥ ' 1 d 1 1 1 ¥ ' T T 1 « t I * 1 H j. 1 B Fig. 7. never have less than 3 of b, c, d, and e. Then such individualities as — Sa + 2b + 4^ + 3// + 5*, 5<* + 5<>+ 1* + 4^+3*1 and the like could not exist. The kind of varie- ties that can exist will then express the relations, or, as they are commonly called, the correlations, between the amounts of the five traits, that is, 21 INDIVIDUALITY the extent to which the amount of one trait possessed by an individual is bound up with the amount which he possesses of some other trait. This is as true for five hundred traits as for five, and for an infinite number of degrees of each as for five degrees. What kind of individuals there will be, and what proportion there ivill be of each kind, is a result of the distribution of individuals in single traits and of the correlations of the traits. To this fact we shall soon need to return. Confronted by the infinite variety of total hu- man natures, thinkers have hoped to find certain types, — the genius, the insane, the criminal, the defective, the artist, the man of affairs, and the like, — such that all, or at least many, individuals would belong under one or another of these types. A type represents some particular combination of amounts of the list of human traits. For ex- ample, suppose the list of traits to be a, b, c, d, and e, and the degrees of each to range from o to 10. Then (I) 2a -f- 56 -f- s c + &/ + ice, (II) 10a -f- 2b -f- 2c -J- 1 d -\- oe, and (III) /\a -+- afi -\- 4c -}- 6d -f- 5^ 22 COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS would be possible types. They are represented graphically in Figure 8. Now such individuals as: — (i) \a + s,b + 5^ + 9^ + 9*. or (2) 30 -|- 4<5 + 5^ + 8 ^ + IO *> or (3) 2a -j- 5^ + 6f -J- 8C^^-._ ■/ 7 "Ss, Fig. 9. The Three Types of Fig. 8, and Seven Individuals, each conforming closely to one or another of the three types. of the others. But no one has succeeded in find- ing such types, and the more clearly the sup- posed types are defined, the surer it becomes that intermediate conditions, equally like several of the types, exist in great numbers. Either new types have to be added until there are so many that one may as well let each individual be his 24 COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS own type ; or the number of individuals not fall- ing readily under any type is so large that the attempt to classify men by them hinders rather than helps thought and practical control. Only very rarely can anything approaching at all closely to an accurate and adequate account of a man's individuality be given by the statement that he is of this or that "type." In fact, there is much reason to believe that human individualities do not represent ten or a hundred or a thousand types, but either one single type or as many types as there are individ- uals, according to whether the thinker wishes to emphasize the mode around which they vary or the exact nature of their variations from it. By this view the effort to assign individuals to a number of classes, as we assign animals to the classes "mammals," "reptiles," "amphibians," " fishes," etc., is doomed to failure or incompet- ence. The first duty of the thinker is to learn the constitution of the one type, man. His sec- ond duty is to learn each individual's variation from this common humanity. In theory it means that man is mentally, as much as physically, one 25 INDIVIDUALITY species. In practice it means that each individ- ual must be considered by himself. It certainly is the case that almost all of the detailed classifications of individuals in accord with the multiple-type theory are either useless or misleading. The commonest element in such classifications is the supposed principle of com- pensation or balance, whereby, for example, a "quick but careless" type is contrasted with a "slow but sure" type; or an "easy learning, quickly forgetting " type is contrasted with the slow learner who retains long; or efficiency in thought, efficiency in action, and delicacy in sen- timent are supposed to be exclusive, each of the other two. Such types, presupposing relations of compensation between intrinsically desirable traits, are almost certainly illusory. All trustworthy studies so far made of the re- lations between the amounts of desirable single traits in the same individual agree in finding di- rect or "positive" relations between such traits. Having a large measure of one good quality in* creases the probability that one will have more than the average of any other good quality. He 26 COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS who can learn better than the average through the eyes, tends to learn better than the average through the ears also ; he who can attend to one thing better than all other men, will be able to attend to many things at once or in rapid succes- sion better than most of them. Artistic ability, as x in music, painting, or literary creation, goes with scientific ability and matter-of-fact wisdom. The best abstract thinker will be above the average in concrete thought also. The rapid workers are the more accurate. Intellectual ability and moral worth hang together. The correlations are, of course, not perfect. A large degree of superiority in one desirable trait may involve only a slight superiority in many others. And since the relations vary enormously amongst individuals, a person highly gifted in one respect will often, though not usually, be very in- ferior in others. The description which I have given of the va- rieties of total human nature doubtless seems to the reader to be far from clear. We have seen that millions upon millions of different conditions 27 INDIVIDUALITY of traits may exist ; that a large fraction of them do exist ; that they do not divide naturally into dis- tinct types, but probably vary around one type ; and that efficiency in one respect is positively cor- related with efficiency in others. We may add that, in general, the greater the variation from the one common type of "the ordinary individual," the rarer it is. But we have failed to get a neat, handy summary of the varieties of mankind. Their multitudinous complexity and richness remains to baffle the mind. The fact is that a simple, orderly, tidy chart of human geography would be sure to be a false one, and that until inventories of the amounts of hun- dreds of traits are made for many individuals, we have no right to construct such a chart of any sort. Even by original nature, intellect and char- acter are enormously diversified, and differences in training add new complexities. For the pre- sent each individual's equation must be written out as a result of a direct examination of his whole make-up, not inferred from a few symp- toms, plus a hasty general theory of individuality. II THE CAUSES OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES No competent thinker to-day doubts that every slightest feature of every man's individuality has a natural cause. Men and women are always what they are for some reason ; and the reason is some fact in the real world. No mere chances, fairies, or demons impregnate a human mind with its pe- culiarities. Each comes as a result of natural law, and could be predicted by a perfect intelligence in possession of all the facts. Sex, remote ancestry or race, immediate an- cestry or family, growth or maturity, and that total of forces operating on a man's nature which we call the environment, all contribute to explain why any one man is what he is. To review some of the main facts about the influence of these factors is the aim of this chapter. THE INFLUENCE OF SEX What little scientific study of the differences between the sexes in intellect and character there 29 INDIVIDUALITY has been, tends to minimize the traditional con- ception that they are two distinct kinds of beings, never understanding one another and requiring very different kinds of treatment. On the con- trary, it appears that if the primary sex charac- ters — the instincts directly related to courtship, love, child-bearing, and nursing — are left out of account, the average man differs from the aver- age woman far less than many men differ one from another. In no trait of those studied' has a gap been found between the distributions for the two sexes. The upper extreme of one sex always overlaps the lower extreme of the other. Some girls like to fight better than some boys ; some men are fonder of babies than some women. The overlapping is, in most of the traits stud- ied, very great. For example, popular belief would perhaps select as impressive sex differences the greater originality, activity, independence, and frankness of the male, and the greater emotion- ality, interest in personal appearance, and reli- giousness of the female. These are indeed pro- bably among the largest sex differences. But, so 30 THE INFLUENCE OF SEX far as is known, the overlapping in these cases is approximately as shown in Figure 10. Nearly all women are more original than the least original man, and probably over a third of women are more original than the average man. Nearly all men are more religious than the least religious woman, and probably about a third are more re- ligious than the average woman. Fig. io. In a study by indirect methods, whose results therefore are somewhat insecure, Heymans and Wiersma found as the greatest difference be- tween men and women that in the relative strength of the interest in things and their me- chanisms (stronger in men) and the interest in persons and their feelings (stronger in women). The difference is a trifle greater than that shown in Figure II. Other differences not so large are 31 INDIVIDUALITY that being a man tends to make an individual more vigorous in movement, more athletic and noisy, more independent, less sensitive to slight outside stimuli, less efficient in perceiving small details, more often color-blind, a trifle less quick to memorize, less shy and conscientious, lazier and fonder of games of skill, mental or bodily, less emotional, less eager for change, quicker in recovery from grief, and less impulsive. Fig. ii. The prevailing overestimation of maleness and femalenessas determinants of intellect and char- acter is probably due to two causes. In the first place, literary presentations of the human nature of men and women have been concerned largely with men and women in courtship, love, and par- enthood. It is just in these affairs of life that the sexes do show the greatest mental differences. Ifi the second* place, outside of courtship, love, 32 THE INFLUENCE OF RACE and parenthood, the sexes have been most often compared in the persons of their most eminent representatives. Such a comparison is unfair for the sexes as wholes, because the male sex is the more variable, so that even though the average man is inferior to the average woman in a given trait, the best men in it may be above the best women. So in music and literature, although the experience of schools and life shows women in general to be not inferior to men, the greatest achievements have been by men. The greatest •"" scientists, poets, painters, and musicians have been more frequently males for the same reason that idiots are more often males. Sex, then, though a real influence, is not so great an influence in making individuals differ as has been supposed. Many traits are practically uninfluenced by it. The variations within one sex are not very much less than the variations amongst men and women together. THE INFLUENCE OF RACE Differences in remote ancestry or race account for a very large percentage of the differences 33 INDIVIDUALITY found amongst men, if we consider both their direct effect upon original nature and their indi- rect effect through the differences in training which commonly parallel them. Even if we dis- regard the past and confine observation to the differences amongst living men, race directly and indirectly produces differences so great that government, business, industry, marriage, friend- ship, and almost every other feature of human in- stinctive and civilized life have to take account of a man's race. But the effective differences between, say, the modern European, Chinese, and Negro are, in the first place, in part physical. It is not the Negro's soul but his body that is despised by many of those who despise him. The European looks like a foreign devil to the Chinese. The white man does not boast of his intelligence or virtue, but thanks God that at all events he is a white man. In the second place, clothes, coiffure, physical habits, and all the showy but trivial expressions of intellect and character in customs, ceremonies, and manners, give an impression of fundamental unlikeness that is quite out of proportion to the 34 THE INFLUENCE OF RACE real facts. The Quakers were outlawed largely because they kept their hats on ! A Chinese must be a queer beast, since he wears a pig-tail ! The Hottentot, poor creature, knows no better than to go naked ! For rational control, it is necessary to reach the real differences in intellect and character, unmagnified and undistorted. Further, it is de- sirable to separate off sharply the direct effect of racial differences upon original natures from their indirect effect through the different civili- zations or cultures which happen to accompany them. The influence of the latter belongs prop- erly under the influence of differences in the en- vironment, and will be omitted from considera- tion here. If the original mental natures of a hundred Negroes, Chinese, Igorots, and Jews were given similar bodily externals and brought up under the same environment, would they differ more than would a hundred, all Negroes or all Chin- ese ; and if so, how much more and in what ways ? That is the present question. It is a pity that so important a question, by 35 INDIVIDUALITY the answer to which the treatment of the so- called lower by the so-called higher races and the treatment of the latter by one another should be largely guided, can be only so imperfectly an- swered. It is literally true that we know how to breed and train plants far better than we know how to breed and train men for important traits of human nature. Of the detailed significance of the heredity belonging to each of the races and sub-races of men, little or nothing is known. I can only illustrate the attitude which a student of the topic should take and the general direc- tion in which the truth may be expected to lie. This will be done in the case of racial differences in general intellect. The first fact to note is that racial differences in original nature are not mere myths. For ex- ample, the colored pupils in the public high schools of New York City represent probably at least as good a selection intellectually from the offspring of Negroes and Negro-white crosses as do the white pupils from the offspring of pure white matings. Any superiority of the white to the colored pupils is almost certainly equaled 36 THE INFLUENCE OF RACE by the difference between the white race and the Negro race. Yet the white pupils are demonstra- bly superior in scholarship, as shown in Figure 12. 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 • i 1 — 1 20 40 60 80 100 Fig. 12. The Relative Frequencies of Different Marks in the High School in the cases of White Pupils (continuous line) and Colored Pupils (broken lines). The differences in the environment do not seem at all adequate to account for the superiority of 37 INDIVIDUALITY the whites. To take the one other case of meas- urements of the intellectual capacities of different races, Woodworth found that the best of the Negritos and reputed Pygmies just reached the average European in a simple test of practical intellect. The second fact to note is that the differences in intellect due to race, though real, are in gen- eral small. In the test by Professor Woodworth, just mentioned, only small differences were found between the Europeans and Indians, Eskimos, Ainus, Filipinos, and Singhalese. This may seem irreconcilable with the testi- mony given by the history and present status of races. If racial achievement were a fair measure of intellect, there would be a real contradiction. But achievement is a measure of ability only if conditions are equal. Two important conditions are the size of the racial group and its communi^. cation with other races. A small race, though of equal average intellect with a larger race, has not so great a probability of generating an ex- treme variation, — a man of extraordinary ability, whose discoveries and practices uplift all who can 38 THE INFLUENCE OF NEAR ANCESTRY learn or imitate them. An isolated race in the same way loses the means of progress which come from borrowed ideas and practices. The third fact of importance is the overlap- ping. The superiority of a race does not mean the superiority of all its members to all those of the other race. That never happens; and ordi- narily the two distributions overlap for nine tenths of their extent along the scale. Even when the average of one race is, say, ten percent more gifted than the average of another, there will still be about nine out of ten of the inferior race who will surpass the worst representative of the su- perior race, and about four out of ten who will surpass the average man of the superior race. There is, then, hardly a more stupid way of get- ting individuals of superior original nature than to choose them by race. The variation of original individuality within any one race is too wide. THE INFLUENCE OF NEAR ANCESTRY Within any one of the larger groups that we call races there are many strains or "lines," so that, as every one sees in the case of physical 39 INDIVIDUALITY traits, individuals of the same sex, race, and train- ing still differ widely. The same is true of traits of intellect and character. In them also individ- uals of the same sex and race differ in ways and to degrees that differences in training cannot account for. As will be shown later, the exact dividing line between the influence of inheritance and the influence of environment or training is subject to dispute, but every one who has inves- tigated the facts carefully admits that the former has some influence. Mental and moral inherit- ance from near ancestry is a fact. A human being develops from, and in his ori- ginal nature is, an ovum, or germ-cell from the mother, fused with a sperm, or germ-cell from the father. A germ-cell from any parent is always one of many produced by that parent. These vary amongst themselves, so that the possible heredity from any one parent is far wider and richer than his own nature. A man gives to his children, not one thing, himself, but his manifold germs. With respect to any trait, the germs from one parent vary, however, much less than do the germs from all the parents in that race. 40 THE INFLUENCE OF NEAR ANCESTRY Let us call that element or constituent of a germ which tends to produce, in the individual who develops from it, a given feature of intellect or character, that feature's determiner. Then the fact just mentioned may be stated in this form : Germs from the same individual differ in their determiners ; germs from different individuals of the same race differ still more ; germs from individuals of different races, still more. Inheritance is at bottom a matter of the rela- tions of germs one to another. A parent resem- bles his offspring because the germ that produced him produced also the germs that produce them. He differs from his offspring and they differ among themselves for the same reason. The difference is due to the fact that germs produced by one germ vary. The likeness is due to the fact that they vary less than germs produced by many. Our inferences about heredity, however, have to be made from the resemblances and differences of the individuals who develop from the germs. The study of mental and moral heredity is thus the study of the greater resemblance or less 4i V INDIVIDUALITY difference of related than of unrelated individ- uals. The measurements of the influence of near an- cestry upon individuality have naturally taken the form of measurements of the greater resem- blances of related individuals, rather than of the greater differences of unrelated individuals. Samples of the results obtained are the follow- ing: Call the average likeness of two persons of the same sex and race, but not near kin, zero. Call perfect similarity I. Then the resemblance of father to son in general intellect and also in moral worth is, according to Woods, 1 about .4. The resemblance of brother to brother or sister in various mental traits is, according to Pearson, about .5. The resemblance of twins in ability to add and multiply, in finding the misspelled words in a passage, and in other mental tests is about .8. It would be too long a task to rehearse the evidence from which it appears that these resem- blances are due only slightly to resemblances in home training. Sample arguments are the follow- 1 Allowance being made for certain facts not taken account of by Professor Woods himself. 42 THE INFLUENCE OF NEAR ANCESTRY ing: Twins are found to grow no more alike from nine to fourteen, in spite of the fact that any influence home training may have upon abil- ity to add, multiply, and the like should be far greater after so much longer action. They are found to be as much alike in finding misspelled words or giving the opposites of words as in add- ing or multiplying, though, presumably, home training should count more in the latter. Also N . the home training of twins does not seem to be very much more constant than that of two chil- dren of the same family, two or three years apart in age ; but the resemblance is twice as great. On the whole, intellectual and moral individu- ality seems to be determined to a very large ex- tent in the germs. If all human beings were given exactly the same training, subjected to exactly the same influences from the time of their con- ception, they would still differ widely. Hygiene, medicine, education, and all social forces have to reckon with original differences in men. Their aims, means, and methods must be adapted to fit not one nature, but many. 43 INDIVIDUALITY THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION The intellect and character given to an indi- vidual by sex, race, and near ancestry furnish the starting point for the general education which he gets from the fortunes of life and the special education which society prescribes for his and its own good. Sometimes these environ- mental forces bring him into conformity with others, rounding off the corners of his individual- ity to make it more like the type: in other cases the environment increases initial differences and adds to the total variety of human nature. To what extent the differences that come to exist amongst individuals are to be attributed to dif- ferences in their nurture, is known uncertainly, if at all. I shall attempt only to show the atti- tude a thinker must take toward the general question. There is no doubt that differences in home, school, books, friends, political status, and the like, may cause differences in the intellect and character which a man comes to possess, — in his eventual nature. Two identical original natures, 44 THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION if brought up in 1900 b. c. and 1900 a. d., or in Berlin and Pekin, would result in very different eventual natures. The Japanese of to-day are probably almost or quite identical, in original nature, with their great-grandfathers. All or nearly all of the differences between the two groups are attributable to differences in environ- ment. Any man's individuality is determined in large measure by his language, occupation, reli- gion, customs, and ideas. These again are deter- mined in large measure by his nurture. But the influence of the environment is sub- ject to two important limitations. Any environ- mental force has far less effect if it vsr-avoidable. If a boy born in China can, if his nature suffi- ciently impels, go to a modern school, the influ- ence of the old-fashioned Chinese schools, even though they outnumber the modern schools a hundred to one, is far less than if they are the unavoidable form of education. If the custom of slavery is universal, men who are by original nature just and humane will in- humanly deprive the babies born in slavery of common human rights. But if the custom is called 45 INDIVIDUALITY in question at all, so that the force of society's approval of it is avoidable, — if a man can flee in fact or in thought to the company of those who distrust slavery, — then the effective force of that custom is enormously weakened. A man may, in respect to it, determine his eventual na- ture by his original nature. Similarly, before any alcoholic beverages were known, no man, however intemperate his origi- nal nature, could be a dipsomaniac. But, once total abstinence is avoidable, the determination of a man's behavior toward liquor may be made largely by his original nature. He may shut his ears to all tales of the misery caused by drink, may not attend to any of the facts which would facilitate abstinence, may respond to all restrain- ing forces by neglect, and seek out, as a result of the inner impulsion of his inborn make-up, the rare opportunities for alcoholic intoxication. The second limitation to any environmental force is that it acts differentially, the result being determined by the original nature acted upon as well as by the force itself. Even in those who do not avoid it, it has all degrees 46 THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION of welcome. Being slaves does not make all men slavish, much less equally slavish. Evil communications may ennoble the manners of some men. " The environmental stimulus ade- quate to arouse a certain power or ideal or habit in one man may be hopelessly inadequate to do so in another. Washing bottles in a drug- shop was, if a common story is true, adequate to decide Faraday's career ; and the voyage on the Beagle is reputed to have made Darwin a naturalist for life. But if all the youth of the land were put to work in drug-shops and later sent on scientific expeditions, the result would not be a million Faradays and Darwins, or even a million chemists and naturalists. All that one man may need to be free is a vote ; but even a long education in self-direction may be inade- quate for another. Being told a few words suf- fices to secure the habit of reading in one child, while the child beside him remains illiterate after two years of careful tuition. The amount of stimulus required in some cases is so infinitesi- mal that the power seems to spring absolutely from the man himself. In other men no agency 47 INDIVIDUALITY is found potent enough to arouse a trace of the desired result." As a result of these limitations, it is hard to find differences between one and another man of the same era and general social condition that are clearly due to differences in training. The great scholar is not made by attendance at a university ; rather his own nature made him seek that influence scorned by so many others. Many a drunkard remains so in spite of fewer temptations. Saloons being inaccessible, he drinks at home ; whiskey being debarred, he takes to "bitters" or patent medicines; one suspects that if alcohol did not exist, he would soon discover cocaine. Each nature in some measure selects its own environment, and each nature may get from an environment a different influence, so that the relative achievements of, say, the boys who this year begin school in America, will probably be more closely parallel to their relative original talents and interests than to their relative advantages in home and school environment. Ill THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIF- FERENCES We have seen that individuals differ in what- ever trait of intellect or character is examined. The variations from the ordinary, common, or typical man range continuously to such extreme conditions as appear in the idiot and the genius, or Nero and Lincoln. But the great majority cluster somewhat closely around the " average man." Clear and useful divisions into separate classes are impossible with respect to either the amount of some single trait or the total consti- tution of the mind. The differences that characterize men of the same time, country, and social status are largely original, determined directly by the germs from which the individual develops, and so indirectly by the ancestry from which he springs. Each original nature has so great power of selecting and avoiding the forces of social and educational 49 INDIVIDUALITY environment that the fundamental powers, in- terests, and ideals of such men are largely de- termined before they are born. Over the par- ticular connections with ideas which we call knowledge, and the particular connections with acts which we call skill, training has greater power ; and, of course, unavoidable differences in training, such as go with differences between 1700 and 1900, England and China, slave and free, are far more potent. All the sciences and arts of controlling hu- man nature must accept the original variety of human nature as a condition for thought and action. The economist must not consider men as all seeking with steadfast rationality to buy as cheap and sell as dear as they can. The religious worker should not hope to arouse uniformly the same sense of guilt and longing for justification to which he and his intimates testify. The scholar may as well expect all men to be pas- sionately eager to use the left rather than the right hand, as expect them to prefer linguistic or mathematical erudition to ignorance. The teacher who has not learned by ordinary experi- 50 SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIVIDUALITY ence that each child is to some extent a separate problem, demanding for his best interest an edu- cational theory and practice to fit kim, should learn it once for all from psychological theory. Specialization of schools is needed not only to / fit pupils for special professions, arts, trades, and the like, but also to fit the schools to original differences in the pupils. Specialization of in- struction for different pupils within one class is needed as well as specialization of the curriculum for different classes. Since human nature does not fall into sharply defined groups, we can lit- erally never be sure of having a dozen pupils who need to be treated exactly alike. All thought and action will be more reason- able and humane if we look for variety in men and examine each nature in a scientific spirit to learn what it really is, instead of idly judging it by some customary superstition. For example, the most pitiful waste and unreason in human affairs is behavior whereby one makes himself suffer to secure for another a good which is to the other a nuisance or a pain. A parent who sacrifices his own joys to protect his children 51 INDIVIDUALITY against the healthy, beloved, and noble struggles of life ; a philanthropist who lessens his own welfare to teach factory-workers refinements, knowledge of which can only embitter their in- ability to secure them ; a religion that spends life in stimulating the fears and worries of men whom fear and worry will never lead to right living, but only to more worry and fear, — in such gratuitous miseries, false diagnosis of hu- man hearts is prolific. The most necessary elements in the life of reason and justice are, first, an awareness of what individual human natures really are and really want ; and then an appreciation of the rela- tive worth of the myriads of wants thus revealed. This valuation of human wants, in turn, is im- proved chiefly by knowing what they are and how each competes or cooperates with all the others. Only in proportion as such a science of the nature and behavior of individual men exists can man know what his duty is or know how to do it. OUTLINE I. THE NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 1. Man's life a double series I 2. Men differ widely I 3. Common traits and individual differences ... 2 4. The complexity of single mental traits .... 3 5. Individuals differ in quality and quantity of traits 4 6. Qualitative differences really differences of degree 5 7. A man's nature is a compound of his several abilities 5 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE TRAITS 1. Variation can be found in every human trait . . 6 2. The older psychology neglected individual differ- ences 7 3. Individual differences are found at every stage of life 7 4. Stature of American boys as an example ... 8 5. The distribution of a trait along a scale ... 10 6. An accurate method of determining common ten- dency and individual variation 1 1 7. Casual observation notes extreme, odd, exciting, and desired facts 11 8. Two important facts at variance with common opinion 12 9. Variations in a single trait are usually continuous 13 10. Variations usually cluster around only one type . 13 II. Individual ability best expressed by numerical amounts 13 12. The great frequency of mediocrity and its practical implications 16 53 OUTLINE 13. Wide and continuous variations call for versatile methods of treatment 18 14. The need for both absolute and relative measures of power 18 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN COMBINATIONS OF TRAITS 1. Thepossible varieties of men are practically infinite 19 2. The futility of the multiple-type theory .... 22 3. There is a single type or as many types as individuals 25 4. The supposed principle of compensation in types is discredited 26 5. A large amount of one desirable trait increases probability of same in another 26 6. A description of total human nature is unavoidably complex 27 II. THE CAUSES OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 1. Human peculiarities are a result of natural laws 29 2. Sex, race, family, maturity, and environment con- tribute 29 THE INFLUENCE OF SEX 1. Scientific study minimizes traditional conceptions of sex differences 29 2. The upper extreme of one sex greatly overlaps the lower extreme of the other .....*.. 30 3. Probably a third of one sex are superior to the average of the other in any given trait . . .31 4. Specific differences between men and women . .31 54 OUTLINE 5. Two causes of the popular overestimation of sex differences 32 6. Literary presentations emphasize the greatest sex differences 32 7. Comparisons of eminent sex representatives dis- regard greater variability of the male .... 32 THE INFLUENCE OF RACE 1. Remote ancestry explains a large percentage of differences 33 2. Effective racial differences are in part physical . 34 3. Customs, ceremonies, and manners increase the sense of racial difference 35 4. Rational control requires a direct study of real differences in intellect and character . . . . 35 5. Little is known of the detailed significance of racial heredity 36 6. Racial differences in original nature are not mere myths 36 7. Differences in intellect due to race are generally small 38 8. The superiority of a race does not imply the supe- riority of all its members 39 THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILY 1. Mental and moral inheritance from near ancestry is a fact 39 2. The possible heredity from a parent is far wider than his own nature 4° 3. There is greater resemblance of related than of unrelated individuals 4 1 4. The degrees of resemblance between members of the same family 4 2 55 OUTLINE 5. These resemblances are clue only slightly to similar home training 42 6. Hygiene, education, and social forces must reckon with original differences in men 43 THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION 1. Nurture sometimes restricts and sometimes em- phasizes individual qualities] 44 2. Many differences in groups are attributable to varying environment 44 3. Any environmental force has less effect if it is avoidable 45 4. Environmental forces act differentially, original nature being a selective agent 46 III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 1. The way in which individuals differ 49 2. The differences that characterize men are largely original 49 3. Social control must accept human variation as a condition 5° 4. The need to specialize schools and instruction . .51 5. False views of human nature lead to waste . . .51 6. The valuation of human wants rests on a true view of human nature 5 2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. GBJRC - ' JON 315 3 1158 00018 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY F AA 000 781 479