ly any attempts to
introduce the results of science when psychology is in question. The
clearest insight into the general situation may be found in the most
recent books by Emerson. He says frankly: "It is psychology, not soil
or climate, that enables man to raise five times as many potatoes per
acre as the average in his own state";[7] or: "In selecting human
assistants such superficialities as education, as physical strength,
even antecedent morality, are not as important as the inner attitudes,
proclivities, character, which after all determine the man or
woman."[8] He also fully recognizes the necessity of securing as early
as possible the psychological essentials. He says: "The type for the
great newspaper is set up by linotype operators. Apprenticeship is
rigorously limited. Some operators can never get beyond the 2500-em
class, others with no more personal effort can set 5000 ems. Do the
employers test out applicants for apprenticeship so as to be sure to
secure boys who will develop into the 5000-em class? They do not: they
select applicants for any near reason except the fundamental important
one of innate fitness."[9] But all this points only to the existence
of the problem, and in reality gives not even a hint for its solution.
The theorists of scientific management seem to think that the most
subtle methods are indispensable for physical measurements, but for
psychological inquiry nothing but a kind of intuition is necessary.
Emerson tells how, for instance, "The competent specialist who has
supplemented natural gifts and good judgment by analysis and synthesis
can perceive attitudes and proclivities even in the very young, much
more readily in those semi-matured, and can with almost infallible
certainty point out, not only what work can be undertaken with fair
hope of success, but also what slight modification or addition and
diminution will more than double the personal power."[10] The true
psychological specialists surely ought to decline this flattering
confidence. Far from the "almost infallible certainty," they can
hardly expect even a moderate amount of success in such directions so
long as specific methods have not been elaborated, and so long as no
way has been shown to make experimental measurements by which such
mere guesswork can be replaced by scientific investigation.

The only modest effort to try a step in this direction toward the
psychological laboratory is recorded by Taylor,[11] who tells