Inductive psychology: an introduction to the study of mental phenomena

Front matter

•INDVCTlVe-

pjycnoLoGY

■ KIRKPATRICK

CHAPTER I.— INTRODUCTION, Definition and Scope of Psychology 11

Method 12

General Method 12

Indirect Observation 12

Probability of Psychological Inferences , 13

The Subjective Method of Studying Psychology. ....... 15

The Indirectly Subjective Method. 16

The Objective Method 19

Divisions of Psychology 21

CHAPTER II.— GENERAL INTELLECTUAL POWERS. Consciousness 23

Attention. ... 24

Nature 24

Limits 24

Importance and Selective Character of Attention 27

Kinds 29

Voluntary Attention , 29

Conditions Favoring and Means of Developing Attention. 30

Attention and Movement 33

Signs of Attention ,.. 34

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER III.— SPECIAL INTELLECTUAL POWERS. General Divisions 35

The Presentative Powers 36

Sensation 36

Discrimination 38

Inferring Differences and Resemblances 41

Perception 41

Illusions 44

Apperception 45

Perception of Space and Time 47

CHAPTER IV.— THE REPRESENTATIVE POWERS. Divisions 48

Mental Images 48

Imagination — Reproductive, Constructive, and Creative.. 60

Association , 53

Memory — Retention, Recall, and Recognition 56

CHAPTER v.— THINKING. Nature and Divisions 66

Conception 67

Concepts and Percepts 67

Concepts and Mental Images 68

Degree of Definiteness of Concepts 69

Extension and Intension of Concepts , 71

Modification of Concepts 71

Analysis and Abstraction and Abstract Concepts 73

Classification 74

_ Generalization 76

Judgment , 77

Basis and Accuracy of Judgment 78

Reasoning 79

Nature and Kinds 79

Sources of General Truths 81

CONTENTS.

Reasoning and Inference . 82

Relation of Analysis and Syntliesis to Reasoning 84

Kinds of Induction <. 87

Conditions Favoring Success and Accuracy in Reasoning. 89

FEELINGS.

CHAPTER I.— FEELING IN GENERAL. Nature and Variety of Feeling 115

Importance of Feeling 117

Methods of Studying Feelings 117

Signs of Feelings „ 119

CONTENTS.

Connection between Feelings and tlieir Expression. 120

Feeling and Habit 123

Change 124

Contrast 126

Relativity 127

Pleasure and Pain 128

CHAPTER II.— SOURCES OF FEELING AND RELATION TO MENTAL PROCESSES. Classes of Elementary Feelings. >■ 132

General Sensations 132

Special Sensations 134

Mental Images and Feeling 135

Feeling of Activity 136

Feelings and Intellectual Processes 138

Relation between Cognition and Feeling 139

CHAPTER III.— EMOTIONS. Nature and Varieties 142

Fear and Anger 143

Love and Sympathy, . . , , 144

Feelings of Self , .... 146

Self-consciousness 147

Esthetic Feelings 148

Intellectual Feelings 151

Moral and Religious Feelings 152

Desires 155

Classification of Emotions 157

PAET III.

WILL.

CHAPTER I. Control of Mental and Motor Activities 159

Nature and Functions of Will 159

CONTENTS.

Control of Intellectual Activities 163

Efficiency of Will 164

Control of Feelings 164

Control of Movements 166

How Voluntary Motions are made 166

Learning New Motions. ... 16'.>

Making Familiar Motions 174

Learning to Write, Draw, etc 175

Kinds of Movements 178

Development of Voluntary Motion 181

CHAPTER IL— ACTIONS.

Action Distinguished from Movement I84

Ideas as Stimuli to Action 184

Impulsive Force of Ideas. 186

Attention and Action 188

Deliberation and Inhibition 189

Basis of Individual Differences in Activity 191

Types of Decision , 193

Desire, Decision, Resolution, Action 194

Actions and Rules or Commands 195

Strength of Will 195

Freedom of Will 197

Relation of Intellect, Feeling, and Will 201

Conditions Favoring Vigorous Volition 203

Development of Will 205

CHAPTER I.

INTEODUCTIOK

DEFII^ITION AND SCOPE OF PSYCHOLOGY.

Name five different subjects of study and state what kind of facts each one deals with. Name five different occupations and state what kind of acts are performed and materials dealt with. What is a science ? Consult a dictionary and compare the definition with what you know of the use of the word. Name four sciences and state what kind of things each one deals with. Name some of the most exact sciences and state why they are exact.

Just as other sciences are concerned with a certain order of facts, so is psychology. In one respect its scope is broader than that of any other science, for it treats of the mind, by which all subjects are studied, all industries carried on, and all sciences developed.

INDUCTIVE PSYCHOLOGY.

METHOD.

General Method. — In psychology, as in other sciences, we must observe with a view to classify the countless facts that go to make up the sciences into a comparatively small number of groups, then by further observation, experiment, and inference determine general truths, i.e., those that are true not merely for one thing but for all things — a class. The more general truths discovered and the more it is possible to predict what will take place under given conditions, the more exact the science.

In psychology, however, there is an important source of error. Any number of persons may observe a half-dozen plants or animals that are to be classified, or witness an experiment in chemistry or physics, and each may correct or verify the observations of the others, and thus insure accurate results. Is this true in psychology? Notice your own thoughts and feelings as you read a few lines in this book. Can anybody else observe them ? Can you observe directly the thoughts and feelings of any one else ? Is it ever possible for more than one person to observe directly the same thought or feeling? This fact may be much more pleasant for us, but is it favorable to the development of an accurate science of mind ?

Indirect Observation. — Although we cannot directly observe what is going on in the mind of another, do we not observe the thoughts and feelings of others in an indirect way, by continually inferring from various signs the thoughts and feelings of our friends ? Give some specific examples of how you have inferred the thoughts and feelings of individuals, stating the exact basis of your inference.

You can then observe the results of muscular contraction, in the form of attitude, expression of face, and gesture ; and changes in circulation in the form of variations in color; but you cannot directly perceive a thought or feeling. Do you absolutely know that other people have thoughts and feelings any more than has a steamengine or other complicated machine, or is it an inference based on the fact that you have thoughts and feelings, and express them by such signs ? If you had never experienced a feeling of embarrassment, could you infer the feeling from noticing the heightened color, the trembling, and the awkward movements ? Can you infer anything in the mind of another that is not like or similar to something experienced by yourself? Analyze very closely all cases in which you seem to be able to do so before accepting them.

Probability of Psychological Inferences. — Notice the variations in certainty in the different examples that follow. Can you understand the thoughts and feelings of a cannibal or an Indian as well as you can those of a man of your own race and state of civilization; of a murderer and thief as well as you can one of your own disposition; of an artist or scientist as well as one of your own ability and culture ; of an infant or aged person as well as one of your own age ? In all of these cases the bodily form, the nervous system, and all the means of expressing thought and feeling are nearly the same;

but the surroundings, the state of development, and the history are different.

Again, we believe that animals have thoughts and feelings, and we think that we can interpret those of the higher mammals, as the horse, dog, or monkey, and in a less measure those of birds, such as the crow, parrot, or hen. The first have forms, nervous systems, and means of expression different, yet similar, to our own, and the latter a nervous system much the same. In the case of reptiles there is some similarity of nervous structure, but we do not claim to know much about the thoughts and feelings of an alligator, a snake, or a frog. Still less do the form and nervous system of insects resemble our own, and we hesitate to infer anything as to the feelings and thoughts of a fly, a beetle, a butterfly, or a worm. Still less can we affirm about the mental life of an oyster, and we may even doubt that a sponge, a coral, or an amoeba has any consciousness, for they have no brain and no distinct nervous system of any kind.

Again, we ascribe no thought to the rustling leaves and growing grass, or to machines, as we watch the complicated movements of the threshing-machine or the printing-press.

From these examples are we not justified in saying that one basis of our belief that other human beings have thoughts and feelings like our own, which they express in a similar way, is their similarity to ourselves, and that the probability of inferences in regard to the thoughts and feelings of men and animals is propertional to the similarity in nervous structure and in history ?

This may seem an unsatisfactory basis for psychological inferences, but is it not the same basis as that used in other sciences ? The probability of the inference that other plants will fade or die, if deprived of sunshine or water, after the same period as the ones tested, will be proportional to their similiarity to them in kind, age, and condition. Give other illustrations and from other sciences.

So far we have not counted language as a means of gaining knowledge of the mental states of others. Would it be possible to convey to another by means of language a true idea of an experience different from any that person has ever experienced, e.g., the sensation of the color red to a blind man or the note C flat to a deaf man ? On the other hand, if men did not have similar thoughts and feelings, would it be possible for a number of them living together to develop a language and communicate with each other ?

The Subjective Method of Studying Psychology. — It is evident that each one can observe his own thoughts and feelings, classify them, and determine the relations existing between them. Since in doing this he makes himself the subject of study, turning his attention within, we call this the suljective or introspective method. This is the most direct method that there is, but it presents some difficulties. Try to observe just how you feel when you are very angry or very happy; just how your mind works when you are attending closely to a lesson, trying to understand an explanation or working a problem. Now state the difficulties that you meet with in trying to make your observations accurately.' For similar reasons it is difficult to make experiments and observe results. Notice, however, how memory may help in making such observations.

Even if the observations are accurate, and we correctly determine and classify the relations of the various phenomena of our own mind, does it follow that they were the same when we were children, or will be when we get old? Again, are we justified in inferring that the phenomena of other minds and the laws governing them are the same as for our own ? Give reasons. Notice what comes into your mind when any word, as "hat,^^ is spoken, and ask others what they think of upon hearing the word. From what has already been said it is evident that what we find true for our own mind is true for other minds only so far as their inherited organization, history, and age are the same. Introspective study of one^s own mind, however, forms the basis of all study of psychology. It should be used first, then supplemented by other methods of study.

The Indirectly Subjective Method of Study. — We may study psychological facts in an indirect manner. We may take the recorded results of subjective study by a number of different individuals, compare them, determine what is common to all and what is not. Have a number of persons describe what comes into their minds when several numbers are named — the size of the figures (if visual), their color, distance, position, etc. Pronounce to a group of persons the names of several soundproducing objects and find out in what proportion of cases visual images are called up, in what proportion auditory, and in what proportion none at all.

Again, ask a number of individuals to recall the appearance of the breakfast-table this morning and say whether the image is distinct as to form, coloring, brightness, etc._, and whether the mental images of the voices of companions is as distinct as of their faces. Do you find that what you thought true for all minds is true only for your own and perhaps a few others ? May not this method be used to correct the inaccuracies of the purely subjective method ?

There is a difficulty in this use of the method, however, due to the fact that the words used may not mean the same. When speaking, of external objects we can point them out to another and name them ; thus, " this is a chair," " that is a tree," " this movement is walking," etc.; but in describing mental states this cannot be done so readily. Thus, if one says to you, " the pain I feel now is an ache," " this mental act is a conception," " that a sensation," that does not mean much to you ? Can you observe what is in his mind so as to know exactly what he means ? The classification of mental phenomena in accordance with the language of the different observers may therefore be very inaccurate.

This may be made clear by asking a number of individuals to describe similar experiences, as, for instance, their feelings when lost, or "turned around." It will probably be found that various words will be used to describe the same feeling, and that the same word probably does not always mean the same feeling.

Another form of -the indirect method sometimes gives more reliable results. Instead of taking the observations and opinions of various individuals and tabulating them according to the terms they use, we may ask the person/? tested to express their ideas or feelings by descriptions, drawings, or in other way? (perhaps without letting them know the purpose) ; then we judge for ourselves what ideas or feelings they have, and choose, in tabulating the results, our own descriptive terms. Thus, instead of taking an individuaFs opinion as to the clearness or vagueness of his mental images, have him describe or draw, and judge from that. So far as an individual's power of expression corresponds to his power of thought, this will give accurate results. It will probably always give more accurate comparative results than classifying according to the judgment and language of the various individuals, for there will be one instead of many standards of judgment. The mental image called by one " distinct " may be less clear than the one called " vague '' by another, for each judges by comparison with the mental images he is used to having.

Can the writings, paintings, and manufactures of any person or people be used in this way as material for psychological study ? Illustrate.

Still more exact results may be obtained by experiments in which there is some objective measure of the mental activity, as, for instance, when the time required to perform a certain mental operation, as pressing a key when a red light is shown, learning a verse of poetry, solving a problem, etc., or the number of repetitions necessary to learn a list of words, or the smallness of difference between two lines, two colors, two sounds, or two weights that can be detected every time or a certain proportion of times. Such experiments as these, most of which are included in the portions of psychology known as psychometry and psychophysics have given the most reliable results, and offer now the most promising field of investigation.

The fourth form of the indirectly subjective method is the one most used in every-day life. The attitude, expression of face, movements, and tone of voice are the objective basis by which we continually observe indirectly the mental states of others. Illustrate this fact.

Why is this method of study called " indirectly subjective ? " Giv eexamples of the use of the various forms of this method in the school-room and the advantages of being able to use them.

The Objective Method. — There is another method which has been of much use to psychology in the past few years, although some have denied that such study is properly a part of psychology. Both men and animals have nerves, a brain, and muscles. Without nerves they would be incapable of receiving sensations of pain, color, sound, or, in short, of being affected in any way by objects. If there were nerves, but no brain to which they might go, feeling and thought would be impossible. Without muscles motion would be impossible, and without motion there could be no expression of thought by language, gestures, or change of countenance. The nervous and the muscular system may be looked upon as a very complex machine. Much time has been spent in studying the structure of the nerves and their end. organs — the brain, and the muscles and the nerves connecting them witli the brain — with the yiew of determining the function of each and the relation of each to the others. Such a study is a part of physiology and may be carried on without any more thought of the thoughts and feelings that accompany the activity of the various parts of the nervous system than has the botanist in studying the functions of the different parts of a plant, or a mechanic studying the workings of a complex machine. While this is true, and. one with a good nervous and muscular system maybe able to think and act, or call all the parts into activity, without any knowledge of the structure of the apparatus Avith which he works or of the parts employed in each activity, yet it is clear, from cases of injured or defective nervous systems, that the perfectness of mental activity is limited by the perfectness of the nervous system, which is the organ of that activity. The distinctive character of physiological psychology will be more clear if we spend a moment in distinguishing between a psychical and a physical fact. Were the top of the skull of a person removed you could see or touch his brain, but not his mind. If a door were slammed near him he would hear a sound, but you would not see that sensation of sound which he experiences ; you would see only a slight change in the circulation of the blood in a certain portion of the brain. A test with a delicate instrument might show also a slight change in tempera ■ ture, the result probably of chemical change. The phenomena of the brain that you observe are physical facts, the phenomena of mind that he ex|)eriences are psychical facts. There is reason for believing that for every physical fact there is a corresponding psychical fact, and vice versa. Physiology is concerned primarily with one set of facts and psychology with the other, and the comparison of the two orders of facts in physiological psychology is a great help to the science of psychology, throwing light on disputed questions, and making conclusions already obtained more definite and precise.

Summ^arize briefly the three methods of studying psychology, distinguishing between them.

DiyiSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGY.

In psychology, as in other sciences, we must look for common characteristics in the great variety of facts to be studied, in order that we may classify them and study one kind of facts at a time. At first thought it seems as if the states of consciousness are so various and changeable that a classification is not possible. A careful analysis of our states of consciousness at any moment, however, will show that they all possess one or more of three distinctly different characteristics. For instance, I feel cold — I know that the fire is going down, and I decide to put in some wood. Again, I hear a sound at the door that I know to be the postman — I feel a desire to know what he brings, and decide to go and see. In these instances we have manifested the knowing, cognitive, or intellectual power of the mind, the capacity of feeling, of experiencing an emotion, and the ability to will to exercise volition. Sometimes one of these is most prominent, and sometimes another, or all may be nearly equal; but every mental phenomenon possesses the characteristic of being an act of feeling, of knowing, or of willing. It is therefore convenient to classify mental facts into three divisions, and treat of them under the heads of intellect, feeling, and will. We treat of them separately, not because they are separated from each other in experience, but because it is easier to study one kind of fact at a time. Be prepared to give not less than five examples illustrating each of these powers of the mind.

The distinction between them will become clearer by discussing the following questions : Is there ever cognition without feeling ? Can there be feeling without any cognition ? Is will necessary to cognition or to feeling ? Does it have any effect upon them? AYould will be possible without intellect? Would action be possible; if so, would you call it willing ? Do we ever will without feeling ? If we had no sensibilities could or would we ever will to do anything ?

CHAPTER 11.

GENERAL INTELLECTUAL POWERS.

CONSCIOUSNESS.

If one is asleep or has received a severe blow on the head, we say that he is unconscious, which indicates that we know in a general way what is meant by consciousness. One of the distinctions we make between the movements of a man and a machine is that the man is conscious of his actions. This consciousness of our own movements, our thoughts, and the effects produced upon us by surrounding objects, is the necessary condition of intelligence, feeling, and will; and, in fact, it is at every moment one or more of these. We may look upon it as the elementary or, rather, the unspecialized form of intelligence, which may assume a variety of forms, both simple and complex, and be intensified in various degrees. Just stop for a little while and note down all of the things of which you are conscious at the present time. Are you ever conscious of what is going on in your own mind and entirely unconscious of what is going on around you ? Are you ever conscious only of the effect outside things are producing upon you ? Are you at the present time conscious of all that you know ?

Were you once ? Can you be so again at will ? If you cannot, do you know it ?

ATTElS^TIOiq".

Nature. — When you named the various things of which you were conscious, you found that the senses of sight, of touch, and of hearing were being affected all of the time by various surrounding objects, that your bodily condition was affecting consciousness, and that various thoughts were flitting through your mind. All of these things were occurring simultaneously; but, as you named them, was your consciousness of them equally intense, or were you distinctly conscious of one, then of another, as you named them ? When you are observing very closely the chair before you, do you not become almost entirely unconscious of all other things that are affecting your senses ? This intensification of consciousness upon fewer, or but one of the many, things that are affecting it, is called attention. Show that it may be to an external object or to a thought in the mind. Attention is quite analogous to the focusing of the eye upon a single object at a time. Indicate as many points of analogy between the two as you can.

Limits. — Looking upon attention as an intensification or concentration of consciousness upon one of the things present to it, it is evident that it may be of all degrees. The minimum degree would be mere consciousness, with the slightest possible intensification upon one object; and the maximum, consciousness of nothing else but the one object of attention — not even of self and surroundings. Have you ever been attentive in the maximuDi degree ? Have you ever known any one else who was ?

In determining the limits of consciousness as to number of things or mental processes that can be attended to at once, we should use the subjective and the first three forms of the indirectly subjective method. The following experiment will help in making the observations, and also offer an objective test.

Have a friend throw down several similar objects, while you attempt to state the number instantly without counting or grouping them. With how many objects can you do this correctly every time ? This indicates in a- measure how many external things you can attend to at once.

Now, in order to find how many mental processes you can attend to at once, try the following experiments; repeat a poem and work a simple problem in arithmetic at the same time. Notice whether you attend to both processes at once, or your attention flits from one to the other. As a further means of determining this question, find liow long it takes to repeat the poem alone, how long to work the problem alone, then how long to do both at once. In order to make this test fairly it may be necessary to take another problem equally difficult but involving different combinations. For further tests try working a problem mentally while solving another on paper, repeating one poem while writing another, or writing a sentence with one hand, another with the other, while performing an arithmetical operation or repeating a third poem. In any of the above experiments is there a saving of time by doing two or more things at once ? Is there in any of the common tasks ?

If two processes can be done in the time required for one, does this prove positively that they are both attended to at once ? Must it not mean that, or else that one of them is performed without attention ? Which do you think it means ? Give your reasons.

What kind of acts can best be done at the same time others are being done — new or habitual acts ? Can two acts that are similar or two that are different best be performed at the same time, e.g., repeating a poem and adding, or repeating one poem and writing another ?

The explanation seems to be as follows: If two similar processes can fuse into one complex process, as getting thought and pronouncing words, playing, or singing, they can be done together with advantage; but if they cannot, the tendency of the mind to act as a whole — to unify the states of consciousness — causes the two processes to be confused. If the processes are very different the tendency is not so strong but that it may be prevented.

Wherever consciousness is more intense in one direction than in others we truly say that there is attention, but there is reason for believing that consciousness as a whole varies in intensity. When one is half asleep, or even passively interested in what is going on, does not the intensity of consciousness as a whole seem much less than when one is actively and keenly interested in what is being said and done ? It is sometimes assumed that the intensity of attention decreases with increase in the number of things affecting consciousness, but this is probably true only under certain circumstances. An orator addressing an audience or a teacher before a class has many more things affecting consciousness and requiring attention than when considering facts and arguments in the quiet study, yet often they think more clearly and intensely in the former instance. The additional stimuli seem to stir the mind as a whole to greater activity, so that the intensity in several directions is greater than in one when the mind is less active. A friend of mine can write better on the train, amid the noise, than in a quiet room. Give other illustrations, if you can, from your own experience and observations. Try working a problem while some one reads to you, and notice whether the additional stimulus, instead of exciting the mind as a whole to greater activity, diverts it from the task being performed. This is the usual effect also of trying to attend to more than one thing when the two sorts of activity cannot be unified. In these cases increase in the number of things attended to does decrease the intensity of attention. Give other illustrations of this.

Importance of Attention and its Selective Character. ■ — Since of all the objects that are affecting our senses and of all the thoughts that are passing through our minds, we can attend in a degree above the minimum to but very few, it follows that much of what is potentially within the sphere of our mental life is actually almost non-existent. There are individual differences as to the number of things attended to and the intensity of the attention. Would it be safe to say that the amount of knowledge acquired by any individual is directly proportional to the degree and extent of his attention ? Can you trace any analogy between plants and men as to what they take in of their surroundings ? What observations have you made upon pupils showing difference in knowledge corresponding to difference in attention ? Which is the more important, that a pupil should be supplied with plenty of books and objects for study and should be given good explanations regardless of what his attention might be, or that he should be kept attentive to whatever is presented, however little it may be ? Which is the more important, that the subject should be presented to a class completely and logically, or that the attention of the class should be secured to whatever is presented ?