Chapter XVII: Instructions for Year XII

XII, 1. VOCABULARY (FORTY DEFINITIONS, 7200 WORDS)

PROCEDURE and SCORING as in previous vocabulary tests.[68] In this case forty words must be defined.

[68] See VIII, 6.

XII, 2. DEFINING ABSTRACT WORDS

PROCEDURE. The words to be defined are _pity_, _revenge_, _charity_, _envy_, and _justice_. The formula is, "_What is pity? What do we mean by pity?_" and so on with the other words. If the meaning of the response is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If the definition is in terms of the word itself, as "Pity means to pity someone," "Revenge is to take revenge," etc., it is then necessary to say: "_Yes, but what does it mean to pity some one?_" or, "_What does it mean to take revenge?_" etc. Only supplementary questions of this kind are permissible.

SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the five_ words are satisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical nor the language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that the meaning of the word is known. Definitions which define by means of an illustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:--

(a) _Pity_

_Satisfactory._ "To be sorry for some one." "To feel
compassion." "To have sympathy for a person." "To feel bad for
some one." "It means you help a person out and don't like to
have him suffer." "To have a feeling for people when they are
treated wrong." "If anybody gets hurt real bad you pity them."
"It's when you feel sorry for a tramp and give him something to
eat." "If some one is in trouble and you know how it feels to be
in that condition, you pity him." "You see something that's
wrong and have your feeling aroused."

Of 130 correct responses, 85, or 65 per cent, defined _pity_ as
"to feel sorry for some one," or words to that effect. Less than
10 per cent defined by means of illustration.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To think of the poor." "To be good to
others." "To help." "It means sorrow." "Mercy." "To cheer people
up." "It means 'What a pity!'" "To be ashamed." "To be sick or
poor." "It's when you break something."

Apart from inability to reply, which accounts for nearly one
fourth of the failures, there is no predominant type of
unsatisfactory response.

(b) _Revenge_

_Satisfactory._ "To get even with some one." "To get back on
him." "To do something to the one who has done something to
you." "To hurt them back." "To pay it back," or "Do something
back." "To do something mean in return." "To square up with a
person." "When somebody slaps you, you slap back." "You kill a
person if he does something to you."

The expression "to get even" was found in 42 per cent of 120
correct answers; "to pay it back," or "To do something back," in
20 per cent; "To get back on him," in 17 per cent. About
8 per cent were illustrations.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To be mad." "You try to hurt them." "To
fight." "You hate a person." "To kill them." "It means hateful."
"To try again." "To think evil of some one." "To hate some one
who has done you wrong." "To let a person off." "To go away from
something."

Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40 per cent of the
failures.

(c) _Charity_

_Satisfactory._ "To give to the poor." "To help those who are
needy." "It is charity if you are poor and somebody helps you."
"To give to somebody without pay."

Of 110 correct replies, 72 per cent were worded substantially
like the first or second given above.

_Unsatisfactory._ "A person who helps the poor." "A place where
poor people get food and things." "It is a good life." "To be
happy." "To be poor." "Charity is being treated good." "It is to
be charitable." "Charity is selling something that is not worth
much." "It means to be good" or "to be kind."

When the last named response is given, we should say: "_Explain
what you mean._" If this brings an amplification of the response
to "It means to do things for the poor," or the equivalent, the
score is _plus_. "Charity means love" is also _minus_ if the
statement cannot be further explained and is merely rote memory
of the passage in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. Simply
"To help" or "To give" is unsatisfactory. Half of the failures
are due to inability to reply.

(d) _Envy_

_Satisfactory._ "You envy some one who has something you want."
"It's the way you feel when you see some one with something
nicer than you have." "It's when a poor girl sees a rich girl
with nice dresses and things." "You hate some one because
they've got something you want." "Jealousy" (satisfactory if
subject can explain what _jealousy_ means; otherwise it is
_minus_). "It's when you see a person better off than you are."

Nearly three fourths of the correct responses say in substance,
"You envy a person who has something you want." Most of the
others are concrete illustrations.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To hate some one," or simply "To hate." "You
don't like 'em." "Bad feeling toward any one." "To be a great
man or woman." "Not to be nice to people." "What we do to our
enemies."

Inability to respond accounts for 55 per cent of the failures.

(e) _Justice_

_Satisfactory._ "To give people what they deserve." "It means
that everybody is treated the same way, whether he is rich or
poor." "It's what you get when you go to court." "If one does
something and gets punished, that's justice." "To do the square
thing." "To give everybody his dues." "Let every one have what's
coming to him." "To do the right thing by any one." "If two
people do the same thing and they let one go without punishing,
that is not justice."

Approximately 38 per cent of 102 correct responses referred to
treating everybody the same way; 25 per cent to "doing the
square thing", 12 per cent were concrete illustrations; and
4 per cent were definitions of what justice is not.

_Unsatisfactory._ "It means to have peace." "It is where they
have court." "It's the Courthouse." "To be honest." "Where one
is just" (_minus_, unless further explained). "To do right"
(_minus_, unless in explaining _right_ the subject gives a
definition of _justice_).

It is very necessary, in case of such answers as "Justice is to
do right," "To be just," etc., that the subject be urged to
explain further what he means. "To do right" includes nearly
12 per cent of all answers, and is given by the very brightest
children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the
definition in a satisfactory manner.

REMARKS. The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had anything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heard all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years. Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly any trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excels that of the 9- or 10-year level.

This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstract meanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them. Unlike such words as _tree_, _house_, etc., the ideas they contain are not the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childish intelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondary product of relationships between other ideas. They require the logical processes of comparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, for example, but one is often confronted with situations in which justice or injustice is an element; and given a certain degree of abstraction and generalization, out of such situations the idea of justice will gradually be evolved.

The formation and use of abstract ideas, of one kind or another, represent, _par excellence_, the "higher thought processes." It is not without significance that delinquents who test near the border-line of mental deficiency show such inferior ability in arriving at correct generalizations regarding matters of social and moral relationships. We cannot expect a mind of defective generalizing ability to form very definite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownership rights, etc.; and if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, the rules of conduct based upon them cannot make a very powerful appeal.[69]

[69] See also p. 298 _ff._

Binet used the words _charity_, _justice_, and _kindness_, and required two successes. In the 1911 revision he shifted the test from year XI to year XII, where it more nearly belongs. Goddard also places it in year XII and uses Binet's words, translating _bonté_, however, as _goodness_ instead of _kindness_. Kuhlmann retains the test in year XI and adds _bravery_ and _revenge_, requiring three correct definitions out of five. Bobertag uses _pity_, _envy_, and _justice_, requires two correct definitions, and finds the test just hard enough for year XII.

After using the words _goodness_ and _kindness_ in two series of tests, we have discarded them as objectionable in that they give rise to so many doubtful definitions. Even intelligent children often say: "Goodness means to do something good," "Kindness means to be kind to some one," etc. These definitions in a circle occur less than half as often with _pity_, _revenge_, and _envy_, which are also superior to _charity_ and _justice_ in this respect.

The relative difficulty of our five words is indicated by the order in which we have listed them in the test (i.e., beginning with the easiest and ending with the hardest). On the standard of three correct definitions, these words fit very accurately in year XII.

XII, 3. THE BALL-AND-FIELD TEST (SUPERIOR PLAN)

PROCEDURE, as in year VIII, test 1.

SCORING. Score 3 (or superior plan) is required for passing in year XII.[70]

[70] See scoring card.

XII, 4. DISSECTED SENTENCES

The following disarranged sentences are used:--

FOR THE STARTED AN WE COUNTRY EARLY AT HOUR

TO ASKED PAPER MY TEACHER CORRECT I MY

A DEFENDS DOG GOOD HIS BRAVELY MASTER

These should be printed in type like that used above. The Stanford record booklet contains the sentences in convenient form.

It is not permissible to substitute written words or printed script, as that would make the test harder. All the words should be printed in caps in order that no clue shall be given as to the first word in a sentence. For a similar reason the period is omitted.

PROCEDURE. Say: "_Here is a sentence that has the words all mixed up so that they don't make any sense. If the words were changed around in the right order they would make a good sentence. Look carefully and see if you can tell me how the sentence ought to read._"

Give the sentences in the order in which they are listed in the record booklet. Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it, because with this test any suggestion of hurrying is likely to produce a kind of mental paralysis. If the subject has no success with the first sentence in one minute, read it off correctly for him, somewhat slowly, and pointing to each word as it is spoken. Then proceed to the second and third, allowing one minute for each.

Give no further help. It is not permissible, in case an incorrect response is given, to ask the subject to try again, or to say: "_Are you sure that is right?_" "_Are you sure you have not left out any words?_" etc. Instead, maintain absolute silence. However, the subject is permitted to make as many changes in his response as he sees fit, provided he makes them spontaneously and within the allotted time. Record the entire response.

Once in a great while the subject misunderstands the task and thinks the only requirement is to use all the words given, and that it is permitted to add as many other words as he likes. It is then necessary to repeat the instructions and to allow a new trial.

SCORING. _Two sentences out of three must be correctly given within the minute allotted to each._ It is understood, of course, that if the first sentence has to be read for the subject, both the other responses must be given correctly.

A sentence is not counted correct if a single word is omitted, altered, or inserted, or if the order given fails to make perfect sense.

Certain responses are not absolutely incorrect, but are objectionable as regards sentence structure, or else fail to give the exact meaning intended. These are given half credit. Full credit on one, and half credit on each of the other two, is satisfactory. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:--

(a)
_Satisfactory._
"We started for the country at an early hour."
"At an early hour we started for the country."
"We started at an early hour for the country."
_Unsatisfactory._
"We started early at an hour for the country."
"Early at an hour we started for the country."
"We started early for the country."
_Half credit._
"For the country at an early hour we started."
"For the country we started at an early hour."

(b)
_Satisfactory._
"I asked my teacher to correct my paper."
_Unsatisfactory._
"My teacher asked to correct my paper."
"To correct my paper I asked my teacher."
_Half credit._
"My teacher I asked to correct my paper."

(c)
_Satisfactory._
"A good dog defends his master bravely."
"A good dog bravely defends his master."
_Unsatisfactory._
"A dog defends his master bravely."
"A bravely dog defends his master."
"A good dog defends his bravely master."
"A good brave dog defends his master."
_Half credit._
"A dog defends his good master bravely."
"A dog bravely defends his good master."
"A good master bravely defends his dog."

REMARKS. This is an excellent test. It involves no knowledge which may not be presupposed at the age in which it is given, and success therefore depends very little on experience. The worst that can be urged against it is that it may possibly be influenced to a certain extent by the amount of reading the subject has done. But this has not been demonstrated. At any rate, the test satisfies the most important requirement of a test of intelligence; namely, the percentage of successes increases rapidly and steadily from the lower to the higher levels of mental age.

This experiment can be regarded as a variation of the completion test. Binet tells us, in fact, that it was directly suggested by the experiment of Ebbinghaus. As will readily be observed, however, it differs to a certain extent from the Ebbinghaus completion test. Ebbinghaus omits parts of a sentence and requires the subject to supply the omissions. In this test we give all the parts and require the formation of a sentence by rearrangement. The two experiments are psychologically similar in that they require the subject to relate given fragments into a meaningful whole. Success depends upon the ability of intelligence to utilize hints, or clues, and this in turn depends on the logical integrity of the associative processes. All but the highest grade of the feeble-minded fail with this test.

This test is found in year XI of Binet's 1908 series and in year XII of his 1911 revision. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in the original location. That it is better placed in year XII is indicated by all the available statistics with normal children, except those of Goddard. With this exception, the results of various investigators for year XII are in remarkably close agreement, as the following figures will show:--

_Per cent passing at year XII_

Binet 66
Kuhlmann 68
Bobertag 78
Dougherty 64
Strong 72
Léviste and Morlé 70
Stanford series (1911) 62
Stanford series (1913) 57
Stanford series (1914) 62
Princeton data 61

This agreement is noteworthy considering that no two experiments seem to have used exactly the same arrangement of words, and that some have presented the words of a sentence in a single line, others in two or three lines. A single line would appear to be somewhat easier.

XII, 5. INTERPRETATION OF FABLES (SCORE 4)

The following fables are used:--

(a) _Hercules and the Wagoner_

_A man was driving along a country road, when the wheels
suddenly sank in a deep rut. The man did nothing but look at the
wagon and call loudly to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules
came up, looked at the man, and said: "Put your shoulder to the
wheel, my man, and whip up your oxen." Then he went away and
left the driver._

(b) _The Milkmaid and her Plans_

_A milkmaid was carrying her pail of milk on her head, and was
thinking to herself thus: "The money for this milk will buy
4 hens; the hens will lay at least 100 eggs; the eggs will
produce at least 75 chicks; and with the money which the chicks
will bring I can buy a new dress to wear instead of the ragged
one I have on." At this moment she looked down at herself,
trying to think how she would look in her new dress; but as she
did so the pail of milk slipped from her head and dashed upon
the ground. Thus all her imaginary schemes perished in a moment._

(c) _The Fox and the Crow_

_A crow, having stolen a bit of meat, perched in a tree and held
it in her beak. A fox, seeing her, wished to secure the meat,
and spoke to the crow thus: "How handsome you are! and I have
heard that the beauty of your voice is equal to that of your
form and feathers. Will you not sing for me, so that I may judge
whether this is true?" The crow was so pleased that she opened
her mouth to sing and dropped the meat, which the fox
immediately ate._

(d) _The Farmer and the Stork_

_A farmer set some traps to catch cranes which had been eating
his seed. With them he caught a stork. The stork, which had not
really been stealing, begged the farmer to spare his life,
saying that he was a bird of excellent character, that he was
not at all like the cranes, and that the farmer should have pity
on him. But the farmer said: "I have caught you with these
robbers, and you will have to die with them."_

(e) _The Miller, His Son, and the Donkey_

_A miller and his son were driving their donkey to a neighboring
town to sell him. They had not gone far when a child saw them
and cried out: "What fools those fellows are to be trudging
along on foot when one of them might be riding." The old man,
hearing this, made his son get on the donkey, while he himself
walked. Soon, they came upon some men. "Look," said one of them,
"see that lazy boy riding while his old father has to walk." On
hearing this, the miller made his son get off, and he climbed on
the donkey himself. Farther on they met a company of women, who
shouted out: "Why, you lazy old fellow, to ride along so
comfortably while your poor boy there can hardly keep pace by
the side of you!" And so the good-natured miller took his boy up
behind him and both of them rode. As they came to the town a
citizen said to them, "Why, you cruel fellows! You two are
better able to carry the poor little donkey than he is to carry
you." "Very well," said the miller, "we will try." So both of
them jumped to the ground, got some ropes, tied the donkey's
legs to a pole and tried to carry him. But as they crossed the
bridge the donkey became frightened, kicked loose and fell into
the stream._

PROCEDURE. Present the fables in the order in which they are given above. The method is to say to the subject:

"_You know what a fable is? You have heard fables?_" Whatever the answer, proceed to explain a fable as follows: "_A fable, you know, is a little story, and is meant to teach us a lesson. Now, I am going to read a fable to you. Listen carefully, and when I am through I will ask you to tell me what lesson the fable teaches us. Ready; listen._" After reading the fable, say: "_What lesson does that teach us?_" Record the response _verbatim_ and proceed with the next as follows: "_Here is another. Listen again and tell me what lesson this fable teaches us_," etc.

As far as possible, avoid comment or commendation until all the fables have been given. If the first answer is of an inferior type and we express too much satisfaction with it, we thereby encourage the subject to continue in his error. On the other hand, never express dissatisfaction with a response, however absurd or _malapropos_ it may be. Many subjects are anxious to know how well they are doing and continually ask, "Did I get that one right?" It is sufficient to say, "You are getting along nicely," or something to that effect. Offer no comments, suggestions, or questions which might put the subject on the right track. This much self-control is necessary if we would make the conditions of the test uniform for all subjects.

The only occasion when a supplementary question is permissible is in case of a response whose meaning is not clear. Even then we must be cautious and restrict ourselves to some such question as, "_What do you mean?_" or, "_Explain; I don't quite understand what you mean_." The scoring of fables is somewhat difficult at best, and this additional question is often sufficient to place the response very definitely in the right or wrong column.

SCORING. Give score 2, i.e., 2 points, for a correct answer, and 1 for an answer which deserves half credit. The test is passed in year XII _if 4 points are earned_; that is, if two responses are correct or if one is correct and two deserve half credit.

Score 2 means that the fable has been correctly interpreted and that the lesson it teaches has been stated in general terms.

There are two types of response which may be given half credit. They include (1) the interpretations which are stated in general terms and are fairly plausible, but are not exactly correct; and (2) those which are perfectly correct as to substance, but are not generalized.

We overlook ordinary faults of expression and regard merely the essential meaning of the response.

The only way to explain the method is by giving copious illustrations. If the following sample responses are carefully studied, a reasonable degree of expertness in scoring fables may be acquired with only a limited amount of actual practice. The sampling may appear to the reader needlessly prolix, but experience has taught us that in giving directions for the scoring of tests error always lies on the side of taking too much for granted.

(a) _Hercules and the Wagoner_

_Full credit; score 2._ "God helps those who help themselves."
"Do not depend on others." "Help yourself before calling for
help." "It teaches that we should rely upon ourselves."

The following are not quite so good, but are nevertheless
considered satisfactory. "We should always try, even if it looks
hard and we think we can't do it." "When in trouble try to get
out of it yourself." "We've got to do things without help." "Not
to be lazy."

_Half credit; score 1._ This is most often given for the
response which contains the correct idea, but states it in terms
of the concrete situation, e.g.: "The man ought to have tried
himself first." "Hercules wanted to teach the man to help
himself." "The driver was too much inclined to depend on
others." "The man was too lazy. He should not have called for
help until he had tried to get out by himself." "To get out and
try instead of watching."

_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Failures are mainly of five
varieties: (1) generalized interpretations which entirely miss
the point; (2) crude interpretations which not only miss the
point, but are also stated in terms of the concrete situation;
(3) irrelevant or incoherent remarks; (4) efforts to repeat the
story; and (5) inability to respond.

Sample failures of type (1), entirely incorrect generalizations:
"Teaches us to look where we are going." "Not to ask for
anything when there is no one to help." "To help those who are
in trouble." "Teaches us to be polite." "How to help others."
"Not to be cruel to horses." "Always to do what people tell you"
(or "obey orders," etc.). "Not to be foolish" (or stupid, etc.).
"If you would have a thing well done, do it yourself."

Failures of type (2), crude interpretations stated in concrete
terms: "How to get out of the mud." "Not to get stuck in the
mud." "To carry a stick along to pry yourself out if you get
into a mud-hole." "To help any one who is stuck in the mud."
"Taught Hercules to help the horses along and not whip them too
hard." "Not to be mean like Hercules."

Failures of type (3), irrelevant responses: "It was foolish not
to thank him." "He should have helped the driver." "Hercules was
mean." "If any one helps himself the horses will try." "The
driver should have done what Hercules told him." "He wanted the
man to help the oxen."

Type (4): Efforts to repeat the story.

Type (5): Inability to respond.

(b) _The Maid and the Eggs_

_Full credit; score 2._ "Teaches us not to build air-castles."
"Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." "Not to
plan too far ahead." Slightly inferior, but still acceptable:
"Never make too many plans." "Don't count on the second thing
till you have done the first."

_Half credit; score 1._ "It teaches us not to have our minds on
the future when we carry milk on the head." "She was building
air-castles and so lost her milk." "She was planning too far
ahead."

The responses just given are examples of fairly correct
interpretations in non-generalized terms. The following are
examples of generalized interpretations which fall below the
accuracy required for full credit: "Never make plans." "Not to
be too proud." "To keep our mind on what we are doing." "Don't
cross a bridge till you come to it." "Don't count your _eggs_
before they are hatched." "Not to be wanting things; learn to
wait." "Not to imagine; go ahead and do it."

_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), entirely incorrect
generalization: "That money does not buy everything." "Not to be
greedy." "Not to be selfish." "Not to waste things." "Not to
take risks like that." "Not to think about clothes." "Count your
chickens before they are hatched."

Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms:
"Not to carry milk on the head." "Teaches her to watch and not
throw down her head." "To carry her head straight." "Not to
spill milk." "To keep your chickens and you will make more
money."

Type (3), irrelevant responses: "She wanted the money." "Teaches
us to read and write" (18-year-old of 8-year intelligence).
"About a girl who was selling some milk."

Type (4), effort to repeat the story.

Type (5), inability to respond.

(c) _The Fox and the Crow_

_Full credit; score 2._ "Teaches us not to listen to flattery."
"Don't let yourself be flattered." "It is not safe to believe
people who flatter us." "We had better look out for people who
brag on us."

_Half credit; score 1._ Correct idea in concrete terms: "The
crow was so proud of herself that she lost all she had." "The
crow listened to flattery and got left." "Not to be proud and
let people think you can sing when you can't." "If anybody
brags on you don't sing or do what he tells you."

Pertinent but somewhat inferior generalizations: "Not to be too
proud." "Pride goes before a fall." "To be on our guard against
people who are our enemies." "Not to do everything people tell
you." "Don't trust every slick fellow you meet."

_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"Not to go with people you don't know." "Not to be selfish." "To
share your food." "Look before you leap." "Not to listen to
evil." "Not to steal." "Teaches honesty." "Not to covet." "Think
for yourself." "Teaches wisdom." "Never listen to advice."
"Never let any one get ahead of you." "To figure out what they
are going to do." "Never try to do two things at once." "How to
get what you want."

Type (2), very crude interpretation stated in terms of the
concrete situation: "Not to sing before you eat." "Not to hold a
thing in your mouth; eat it." "To eat a thing before you think
of your beauty." "To swallow it before you sing." "To be on your
watch when you have food in your mouth."

Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The fox was greedy." "The fox
was slicker than what the crow was." "The crow ought not to have
opened her mouth." "The crow should just have shaken her head."
"It served the crow right for stealing the meat." "The fox
wanted the meat and just told the crow that to get it."
"Foolishness." "Guess that's where the old fox got his
name--'Old Foxy'--Don't teach us anything."

Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.

Type (5), inability to respond.

(d) _The Farmer and the Stork_

_Full credit; score 2._ "You are judged by the company you
keep." "Teaches us to keep out of bad company." "Birds of a
feather flock together." "If you go with bad people you are
counted like them." "We should choose our friends carefully."
"Don't go with bad people." "Teaches us to avoid the appearance
of evil."

_Half credit; score 1._ "The stork should not have been with the
cranes." "Teaches him not to go with robbers." "Don't go with
people who are not of your nation." "Not to follow others."

_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"Not to steal." "Not to tell lies." "Not to give excuses." "A
poor excuse is better than none." "Not to trust what people
say." "Not to listen to excuses." "Not to harm animals that do
no harm." "To have pity on others." "Not to be cruel." "To be
kind to birds." "Not to blame people for what they don't do."
"Teaches that those who do good often suffer for those who do
evil." "To tend to your own business." "Not to meddle with other
people's things." "Not to trespass on people's property." "Not
to think you are so nice." "To keep out of mischief."

Type (2), very crude interpretations in concrete terms: "Taught
the stork to look where it stepped and not walk into a trap."
"Taught the stork to keep out of the man's field." "Not to take
the seeds."

Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The farmer was right; storks do
eat grain." "Served the stork right, he was stealing too." "He
should try to help the stork out of the field."

Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.

Type (5), inability to reply.

(e) _The Miller, His Son, and the Donkey_

_Full credit; score 2._ "When you try to please everybody you
please nobody." "Don't listen to everybody; you can't please
them all." "Don't take every one's advice." "Don't try to do
what everybody tells you." "Use your own judgment." "Have a mind
of your own." "Make up your mind and stick to it." "Don't be
wishy-washy." "Have confidence in your own opinions."

_Half credit; score 1._ Interpretations which are generalized
but somewhat inferior: "Never take any one's advice" (too
sweeping a conclusion). "Don't take foolish advice." "Take your
own advice." "It teaches us that people don't always agree."

Correct idea but not generalized: "They were fools to listen to
everybody." "They should have walked or rode just as they
thought best, without listening to other people."

_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"To do right." "To do what people tell you." "To be kind to old
people." "To be polite." "To serve others." "Not to be cruel to
animals." "To have sympathy for beasts of burden." "To be
good-natured." "Not to load things on animals that are small."
"That it is always better to leave things as they are." "That
men were not made for beasts of burden."

Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms:
"Not to try to carry the donkey." "That walking is better than
riding." "The people should have been more polite to the old
man." "That the father should be allowed to ride."

Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The men were too heavy for the
donkey." "They ought to have stayed on and they would not have
fallen into the stream." "It teaches about a man and he lost his
donkey."

Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.

Type (5), inability to respond.

REMARKS. The fable test, or the "test of generalization," as it may aptly be named, was used by the writer in a study of the intellectual processes of bright and dull boys in 1905,[71] and was further standardized by the writer and Mr. Childs in 1911.[72] It has proved its worth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, to simplify the rather elaborate method of scoring which was proposed in 1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of the difficulty in teaching examiners to use the system correctly. The method explained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of being much easier to learn.

[71] "Genius and Stupidity," in _Pedagogical Seminary_, vol. xiii, pp. 307-73.

[72] "A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence," _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912).

The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which are closely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. It tests the subject's ability to understand motives underlying acts or attitudes. It gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness. This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mental defectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal's fitness for life outside an institution is his ability to understand social relations and to adjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterion may lead him to break common conventions, and to appear disrespectful, sulky, stubborn, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He is likely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others. The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligence to untangle.

Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social origin of the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore, depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interesting to know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codes because of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presented by human situations.

For the intelligent child even the common incidents of life carry an endless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average school playground not an hour passes without some happening which is fraught with a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalize the situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. One bullies his weaker companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all his fellows. Another vents his braggadocio and feels at once the withering scorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty, ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride, and the countless other faults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligence sees the point, draws the appropriate lesson and (provided emotions and will are also normal) applies it more or less effectively as a guide to his own conduct. To the feeble-minded child, all but lacking in the power of abstraction and generalization, the situation conveys no such lesson. It is but a muddle of concrete events without general significance; or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended, the powers of inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action will follow.

It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in the mental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation, imagined, to be sure, but none the less real to the individual of normal comprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able to see beyond the incidents of the given situation and to grasp their wider relations--whether he is able to generalize the concrete.

The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from 16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inability to comprehend the moral situation:--

_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "Teaches you to look where you are
going." "Not to help any one who is stuck in the mud." "Not to
whip oxen." "Teaches that Hercules was mean." "Teaches us to
carry a stick along to pry the wheels out."

_The Fox and the Crow._ "Not to sing when eating." "To keep away
from strangers." "To swallow it before you sing." "Not to be
stingy." "Not to listen to evil." "The fox was wiser than the
crow." "Not to be selfish with food." "Not to do two things at
once." "To hang on to what you've got."

_The Farmer and the Stork._ "Teaches the stork to look where he
steps." "Not to be cruel like the farmer." "Not to tell lies."
"Not to butt into other people's things." "To be kind to birds."
"Teaches us how to get rid of troublesome people." "Never go
with anything else."

The following are the responses of an 18-year-old delinquent (intelligence level 10 years) to the five fables:--

_Maid and Eggs._ "She was thinking about getting the dress and
spilled the milk. Teaches selfishness."

_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "He wanted to help the oxen out."

_Fox and Crow._ "Guess that's where the fox got his name--'Old
Foxy.' Don't teach us anything."

_Farmer and Stork._ "Try and help the stork out of the field."

_Miller, Son, and Donkey._ "They was all big fools and mean to
the donkey."

One does not require very profound psychological insight to see that a person of this degree of comprehension is not promising material for moral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize a moral situation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in the nature of his mental processes, all of which have the infantile quality of average 9- or 10-year intelligence. Well-instructed normal children of 10 years ordinarily succeed no better. The ability to draw the correct lesson from a social situation is little developed below the mental level of 12 or 13 years.

The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject's ability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retarded often show marked inferiority in this respect. They sense, perhaps, in a general way the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend much that to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for the reader to infer, because they are insensible to the thought fringes. It is these which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be able to image the objects and activities described, but taken in the rough such imagery gets him nowhere.

Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. The subject who has been given a number of fables along with twenty-five or thirty other tests can as a rule give only hazy and inaccurate testimony as to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, even if a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materially increase his chances of giving a correct interpretation. If the situation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject's power of comprehension even explicit instruction has little effect upon the quality of the response.

Incidentally, this observation raises the question whether the use of proverbs, mottoes, fables, poetry, etc., in the moral instruction of children may not often be futile because the material is not fitted to the child's power of comprehension. Much of the school's instruction in history and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason to suspect that in this field schools often make precocious attempts in "generalizing" exercises.

XII, 6. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS REVERSED

The series are 3-1-8-7-9; 6-9-4-8-2; 5-2-9-6-1.

PROCEDURE and SCORING. Exactly as in years VII and IX.[73]

[73] See discussion, p. 207 _ff._

XII, 7. INTERPRETATION OF PICTURES

PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 1, and VII, 2, and the additional picture _d_. Present in the same order. The formula to begin with is identical with that in VII, 2: "_Tell me what this picture is about. What is this a picture of?_" This formula is chosen because it does not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, and is therefore adapted to show the child's spontaneous or natural mode of apperception. However, in case, this formula fails to bring spontaneous interpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to those pictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial with the formula: "_Explain this picture_." A good many subjects who failed to interpret the pictures spontaneously do so without difficulty when the more specific formula is used.

If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subject should be urged to amplify by some such injunction as "_Go ahead_," or "_Explain what you mean_."

One more caution. It is necessary to refrain from voicing a single word of commendation or approval until all the pictures have been responded to. A moment's thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering to this rule. Often a subject will begin by giving an inferior type of response (description, say) to the first picture, but with the second picture adjusts better to the task and responds satisfactorily. If in such a case the first (unsatisfactory) response were greeted with an approving "That's fine, you are doing splendidly," the likelihood of any improvement taking place as the test proceeds would be greatly lessened.

SCORING. _Three pictures out of four_ must be satisfactorily interpreted. "Satisfactorily" means that the interpretation given should be reasonably plausible; not necessarily the exact one the artist had in mind, yet not absurd. The following classified responses will serve as a fairly secure guide for scoring:--

(a) _Dutch Home_

_Satisfactory._ "Child has spilled something and is getting a
scolding." "The baby has hurt herself and the mother is
comforting her." "The baby is crying because she is hungry and
the mother has nothing to give her." "The little girl has been
naughty and is about to be punished." "The baby is crying
because she does not like her dinner." "There's bread on the
table and the mother won't let the little girl have it and so
she is crying." "The baby is begging for something and is crying
because her mamma won't give it to her." "It's a poor family.
The father is dead and they don't have enough to eat."

_Unsatisfactory._ "The baby is crying and the mother is looking
at her" (description). "It's in Holland, and there's a little
girl crying, and a mamma, and there's a dish on the table"
(mainly description). "The mother is teaching the child to walk"
(absurd interpretation).

(b) _River Scene_

_Satisfactory._ "Man and lady eloping to get married and an
Indian to row for them." "I think it represents a honeymoon
trip." "In frontier days and a man and his wife have been
captured by the Indians." "It's a perilous journey and they have
engaged the Indian to row for them."

_Unsatisfactory._ "They are shooting the rapids." "An Indian
rowing a man and his wife down the river" (mainly description).
"A storm at sea" (absurd interpretation). "Indians have rescued
a couple from a shipwreck." "They have been up the river and
are riding down the rapids."

The following responses are somewhat doubtful, but should
probably be scored _minus_: "People going out hunting and have
Indian for a guide." "The man has rescued the woman from the
Indians." "It's a camping trip."

(c) _Post-Office_

_Satisfactory._ "It's a lot of old farmers. They have come to
the post-office to get the paper, which only comes once a week,
and they are all happy." "There's something funny in the paper
about one of the men and they are all laughing about it." "They
are reading about the price of eggs, and they look very happy so
I guess the price has gone up." "It's a bunch of country
politicians reading the election news."

_Unsatisfactory._ "A man has just come out of the post-office
and is reading to his friends." "It's a little country town and
they are looking at the paper." "A man is reading the paper and
the others are looking on and laughing." "Some men are reading a
paper and laughing, and the other man has brought some eggs to
market, and it's in a little country town." (All the above are
mainly description.)

Responses like the following are somewhat better, but hardly
satisfactory: "They are reading something funny in the paper."
"They are reading the ads." "They are laughing about something
in the newspaper," etc.

(d) _Colonial Home_

_Satisfactory._ "They are lovers and have quarreled." "The man
has to go away for a long time, maybe to war, and she is afraid
he won't return." "He has proposed and she has rejected him, and
she is crying because she hated to disappoint him." "The woman
is crying because her husband is angry and leaving her." "The
man is a messenger and has brought the woman bad news."

_Unsatisfactory._ "The husband is leaving and the dog is looking
at the lady." "It's a picture to show how people dressed in
colonial times." "The lady is crying and the man is trying to
comfort her." "The man is going away. The woman is angry because
he is going. The dog has a ball in its mouth and looks happy,
and the man looks sad."

Such responses as the following are doubtful, but rather _minus_
than _plus_: "A picture of George Washington's home." "They
have lost their money and they are sad" (gratuitous
interpretation). "The man has struck the woman."

Doubt sometimes arises as to the proper scoring of imaginative
or gratuitous interpretations. The following are samples of
such: (a) "The little girl is crying because she wants a new
dress and the mother is telling her she can have one when
Christmas comes if she will be good." (b) "The man and woman
have gone up the river to visit some friends and an Indian guide
is bringing them home." (c) "Some old Rubes are reading about
a circus that's going to come." (d) "Napoleon leaving his
wife."

Sometimes these imaginative responses are given by very bright subjects, under the impression that they are asked to "make up" a story based on the picture. We may score them _plus_, provided they are not too much out of harmony with the situation and actions represented in the picture. Interpretations so gratuitous as to have little or no bearing upon the scene depicted should be scored _minus_.

REMARKS. The test of picture interpretation has been variously located from 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that everything depends on the nature of the pictures used, the form in which the question is put, and the standard for scoring. The Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann are as easy to interpret at 10 years as the Stanford pictures at 12. Spontaneous interpretation ("What is this a picture of?" or "What do you see in this picture?") comes no more readily at 14 years than provoked interpretation ("Explain this picture") at 12. The standard of scoring is no less important. If with the Stanford pictures we require three satisfactory responses out of four, the test belongs at the 12-year level, but the standard of two correct out of four can be met a year or two earlier.

Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formula for giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, there remains still the question as to the proper degree of liberality in deciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point in mental development where the "ability to interpret pictures" sweeps in with a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes by slow degrees, beginning even as early as 6 years.

The question is, therefore, to decide whether a given response contains as much and as good interpretation as we have a right to expect at the age level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for any one who would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly with the procedure and standards described above.

XII, 8. GIVING SIMILARITIES, THREE THINGS

PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in VIII, 4, but with the following words:--

(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_.
(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_.
(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_.
(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_.
(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_.

As before, a little tactful urging is occasionally necessary in order to secure a response.

SCORING. _Three satisfactory responses out of five_ are necessary for success. Any real similarity is acceptable, whether fundamental or superficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especially symptomatic of good intelligence.

Failures may be classified under four heads: (1) Leaving one of the words out of consideration; (2) giving a difference instead of a similarity; (3) giving a similarity that is not real or that is too bizarre or far-fetched; and (4) inability to respond. Types (1), (3), and (4) are almost equally numerous, while type (2) is not often encountered at this level of intelligence.

This test provokes doubtful responses somewhat oftener than the earlier test of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are the indefinite statements like "All are useful," "All are made of the same material," etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases an additional question is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in mind a real similarity. Questions suitable for this purpose are: "Explain what you mean," "In what respect are they all useful?" "What material do you mean?" etc. Of course it is only permissible to make use of supplementary questions of this kind when they are necessary in order to clarify a response which has already been made.

While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble in deciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears with experience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtful cases:--

(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_

_Satisfactory._ "All are animals" (or creatures, etc.). "All
live on the land." "All have blood" (or flesh, bones, eyes,
skin, etc.). "All move about." "All breathe air." "All are
useful" (_plus_ only if subject can give a use which they have
in common). "All have a little intelligence" (or sense,
instinct, etc.).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All have legs." "All are dangerous." "All
feed on grain" (or grass, etc.). "All are much afraid of man."
"All frighten you." "All are warm-blooded." "All get about the
same way." "All walk on the ground." "All can bite." "All
holler." "All drink water." "A snake crawls, a cow walks, and a
sparrow flies" (or some other difference). "They are not alike."

(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_

_Satisfactory._ "All teach." "You learn from all." "All give you
information." "All help you get an education." "All are your
good friends" (_plus_ if subject can explain how). "All are
useful" (_plus_ if subject can explain how).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All tell you the news." "A teacher writes,
and a book and newspaper have writing." "They are not alike."
"All read." "All use the alphabet."

(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_

_Satisfactory._ "All used for clothing." "We wear them all."
"All grow" (_plus_ if subject can explain). "All have to be sent
to the factory to be made into things." "All are useful" (_plus_
if subject can give a use which all have in common). "All are
valuable" (_plus_ if explained).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All come from plants." "All grow on animals."
"All came off the top of something." "All are things." "They are
pretty." "All spell alike." "All are furry" (or soft, hard,
etc.).

(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_

_Satisfactory_. "All are made from minerals" (or metals). "All
come from mines." "All are hard material."

_Unsatisfactory._ "All are made of steel" (or copper, iron,
etc.). "All are made of the same metal." "All cut." "All bend
easily." "All are used in building a house." "All are
worthless." "All are useful in fixing things." "All have an
end." "They are small." "All weigh the same." "Can get them all
at a hardware store." "You can buy things with all of them."
"You buy them with money." "One is sharp, one is round, and one
is long" (or some other difference).

Such answers as "All are found in a boy's pocket," or "Boys like
them," are not altogether bad, but hardly deserve to be called
satisfactory. "All are useful" is _minus_ unless the subject can
give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is
not likely to do. Bizarre uses are also _minus_; as, "All are
good for a watch fob," "Can use all for paper weights," etc.

(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_

_Satisfactory._ "All are plants." "All grow from the ground."
"All have leaves" (or roots, etc.). "All have to be planted."
"All are parts of nature." "All have colors."

_Unsatisfactory._ "All are pretty." "All bear fruit." "All have
pretty flowers." "All grow on bushes." "All are valuable" (or
useful). "They grow close to a house." "All are ornamental."
"All are shrubbery."

REMARKS. The words of each series lend themselves readily to classification into a next higher class. This is the best type of response, but with most of the series it accounts for less than two thirds of the successes among subjects of 12-year intelligence. The proportion is less than one third for subjects of 10-year intelligence and nearly three fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible and very desirable to devise and standardize an additional test of this kind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance or classificatory similarity.

For discussion of the psychological factors involved in the similarities test, see VII, 5.