He goes further, however, in formulating a definite scheme of instruction. This is governed in certain details by its author's special psychology; some rearrangement of headings, if not also some alterations of terminology, might well prove desirable. Yet it is quite evident that in a number of the titles we have at least an enumeration, in greater detail, of the phases which a course along the lines above indicated would take up.
When Dr. Prince was reading this summary in Washington, I turned to some one sitting next to me and rather lightly remarked that this was all very well, but Prince was the only man who could give such a course, my neighbor promptly assuring me that I was altogether mistaken, that he knew many persons who could give such a course. It was not meant, of course, that there was no one who could talk about these subjects for the number of hours the course would specify. But we can not consistently reproach psychology for our lack of knowledge in these matters, and at the same time propose their immediate fitness as a teaching subject. As a matter of fact we have very little systematic information about the majority of the topics presented in Prince's summary. It is most likely to increase if the student be brought to observe and study in his cases in these terms, but this side of the course could to-day no more than reflect the subjective reactions of certain original and more or less critical intellects upon the most adequate clinical experience.
The interest and import of these questions most thoughtful persons will admit, though any psychological critic would probably be quick to ask how such matters are to be in any part submitted to objective, not to say experimental, inquiry. Not with the color-wheel probably, or through the tonvariator, or the sound-hammer. Could the question now be satisfactorily answered, the proper psychology for medical schools would not be long under discussion. We are not in a position to say, however, that no progress towards a solution is possible. Our experimental inquiries have not been directed along lines that would develop such methods. We must also know with greater exactitude the questions our experimental methods are to be put to answer, and shall need to experiment with our experiments a good deal. There is to-day only one experimental method whose direct value in the dynamic psychology seems comparatively assured; this is the ordinary "free" association experiment, especially evaluated.[1] There are also some possible adaptations of the method of "measurement by relative position "[2] as well
- ↑ Cf. the "Diagnostische Assoziations studien" of Jung; Kent and Rosanoff, "A Study of Association in Insanity," Am. Jr. Ins., LXVII., 1910, 37-96, 317-390.
- ↑ Cf. the early work of Sumner and the more recent studies of Hollingworth and of Strong; also, in pathological reference, G. G. Fernald, Am. Jr. Ins., LXVIII., 1912, 545-547.
