all probability it never will be, because it probably does not exist. Now what about mind?

Common sense informs us that mind is something totally different from matter; but this common sense is Simon-pure metaphysical theory. How many readers of this article, for instance, know that their concept of matter and their concept of mind are obsolete philosophical speculations dating back 250 years and more? If the majority of us were asked to study that philosophy which now parades everywhere as common sense we would throw up our hands in horror! The psychologist is merely removing seventeenth-century philosophy from psychology when he redefines his science. He He is not materialistic. He is as much opposed to materialistic conceptions as to the mind-idea. He is neutral!

Who said, anyway, that man's behavior is a material phenomenon? Is it not the movement of muscle and bone? Who said muscle and bone are matter? Are they not chemical and physical? Who said chemical and physical phenomena are material? The fact is the early philosopher said so and it has been reiterated ever since until belief has come to be accepted as demonstrated fact. How often this happens in the history of human thought! It is a seventeenth-century assumption that molecules, atoms, and all physical things, socalled, are particles of matter. That they are ingredients of physical things is true; but that these ingredients are "material" has never been demonstrated. It doesn't make any difference. We shall still stub our toes on rocks and bricks, slip on ice, and burn coal in our furnaces. We are simply redefining the world as a pattern or series of events rather than calling it an aggregation of material elements.

Science is far more exact but far less materialistic than it ever was and this applies to physics and psychology alike. The scientist's idea of the world about us and of ourselves, however, is much simpler than the layman, guided by his metaphysical common sense, would have it. To the scien

tist it is neither a world of matter nor of mind; just a world of happenings to be described, classified, predicted, and controlled. They differentiate these happenings according to observed criteria, not philosophical criteria.

One set of chemical compounds is given one name, another set is given another name simply for purposes of description and classification. Similarly with life and mental phenomena, so called. One would not use the same terms in describing water that he would use in describing an experience of fright. In each case he would describe what he observed. One observes that living organisms are different from isolated chemical elements; that feelings are different from tables. One goes ahead and describes them all, if he is careful, without reference either to mind or matter. After that, what ultimate significance he places upon one or the other is a different problem, another issue.

We are simply recognizing the fact in science that we are not dealing with the ultimate nature of things. We deal with truths which ideally are absolute, but absolute in a mathematical sense. We are not dealing with final truths about life and the universe. Any theory that the scientist advances is unsound if it assumes the existence of anything the definition of which logically precludes a verification of the theory. Matter is by definition unverifiable, and likewise is mind, for each is by definition beyond observation.

There is another very good reason why psychology became the science of behavior. The older psychology was called the science of mind or consciousness. Its method, therefore, was introspection, or self observation. Now we can introspect until doomsday but we shall obtain little information that will enable the psychologist directly to predict and control human behavior. Suppose you are standing at the ticket window in a bus station. As psychologists we want to know what you are doing. We want some psychological information. Remember, we are assuming that psychology is the science of mind or consciousness, so

we cannot observe you. We must wait for your introspections. You must render your introspection in terms of consciousness subjective language exclusively or you will be inconsistent. You must not refer to external objects. This would be your account: "I am having sensations of pinkish, yellowish whiteness, topped with buff, and relieved by two blue circles with black centers." (The introspectionist's way of saying that he was looking at a pretty girl in the ticket booth.) "I also had a yellowish white visual image whose uniform expanse of color was disturbed by many narrow lines of blackishness extending hither and thither on it. I visualized it resting in my hands, as I had the vocal-motor image (inner speech), 'St. Louis." (Meaning all the while that you anticipated getting the ticket from the girl and that you were bound for St. Louis.)

The reason why psychologists have abandoned the introspective method as the exclusive psychological method should be obvious. We are more interested in relating the purchase of the ticket to the individual's life. What were his motives? What will be the results? From the standpoint of prediction and control, subjective data, so-called, do not yield the majority of relevant facts. There are certain arguments for introspection but they are too technical to rehearse here. Suffice it to say that if psychology is the science of mind, introspection is the only method, and results must be presented exclusively in terms of "mental states," devoid of objective reference.

You

To illustrate our point once more. become very angry at something. The introspectionist's account of what goes on is this: "I had a sensation of dryness in the mouth, stuffiness and pressure in the chest, wave of warmth through my abdomen, tenseness in my jaws and fists and pressure

and heat under the skin of my face." Is it not more useful to know why you became angry; how you are likely to act when angry; and what one might best do to control your anger or help you control it? For certain systematic purposes it might be necessary to secure some information from you as is given above but from it and that type of data generally there can hardly come a directive science.

It is quite legitimate, psychologically, to study feelings as motives for action; thoughts and ideas can be analyzed as guides to conduct; sensory processes are studied in their relation to sensory defects such as partial blindness or eye defects amenable to correction; we can use the facts of color mixture and color contrast, illusions and many another set of facts obtainable only by observing one's own experiences, but always with reference to their rôle in behavior, or with reference to an external object or situation.

Thus it is that psychology has become the science of behavior. Physics was once the study of matter, that stuff which was thought to occupy space. Physics has changed, but the Universe has not changed because we have altered our definition of it. Human life, personality, those aspects of experience which point toward a “mind” in us are not changed or denied. Reality is merely being redefined all along the line. As psychologists we study the same phenomena we always did, but apprehended in new relationships, and defined on the strength of a different set of assumptions.

These assumptions are philosophically neutral. The data of the psychologist, and other scientists as well are neither material nor mental, as observed. From the standpoint of science we live neither in a world of matter nor of mind. It is a world of events, which from a philosophical standpoint are entirely neutral.

That question in a definite form was recently put to several classes of juniors and seniors at the Manual Training High School at Kansas City, Missouri. The following list of words, some of which pertained to nationalities or races, some to religion and politics, was selected: foreigner, Negro, God, Chinaman, Bolsheviki, American, Jew, Russian, Jesus, Catholic, Irish, Italian, Republican, preacher, Mexican, German, Bible, Calvin Coolidge, cigarette, Socialist, dancing. The words were first read aloud to the students, who were asked to write down the first thought suggested to them by each word as it was pronounced. That done, a second reading was given, and the students were requested to give their reaction, in a written form, to each word; that is, if it denoted something pleasant or unpleasant, good or bad, repulsive or agreeable.

If this group of high school students is a fairly representative one, and there is probably no reason to think that it is not, then the results of the test prove that there are a good many words and terms in our language that are in themselves taboo. For instance, more than half of the students expressed the opinion that the word "foreigner" conveyed to them the suggestion of something undesirable. About three fourths

of them used such terms as "repulsive,' "hated," "bad," and the like in recording their reactions to the words "Negro" and "Chinaman." Only one in the entire group did not express any antipathy to the word "Bolsheviki," while only three refused to express any dislike to "Mexican." The sentiment was pretty evenly divided toward "Italian," "Socialist," "German," and "Russian," about half the students indicating that the words did not carry with them any feeling of unpleasantness.

On the other hand, the results of the test showed that certain words were distinctly appealing. In this group were "Calvin Coolidge," "Bible," "preacher," "Republican," "Irish," "Jesus, "Irish," "Jesus," "American," "dancing," and "God." A bare majority of them evinced no dislike for "Catholic" and "Jew," although this may be explained in part by the fact that there were several Catholic and Jewish students in the group.

An insight into the workings of the human mind is given in the results of the first part of the test, in which the students were asked to write down their first thoughts as the words were pronounced. These answers, written by one boy, are typical of the answers given by the others who took the test: foreigner, Italian; Negro, paper route; Socialist, Reds; God, Church; Chinaman, Chinatown; Bolsheviki, trouble; American, best people; Jew, hated; Russian, Socialist; Jesus, Sunday; Catholic, religion; Irish, fighters; Italian, "wops" and fights; Republican, city government; preacher, Elmer Gantry; Mexican, railroad tracks; German,

Dutch stories; Bible, book; Calvin Coolidge, best man; cigarette, smoke fiend; dancing, gracefulness.

It is interesting to note that the majority of the students wrote down the words "whiskers" and "beard" following the pronunciation of "Russian" and "Bolsheviki," and that "pig tail," "laundry," "long finger nails," "slant eyes," and the like expressed the thoughts of most of them after the word "Chinaman" had been pronounced. Such epithets as "bricks," "spaghetti,” “organ grinder," and "daggers and spears" followed the word "Italian," while "big hats," "chili," "laziness," and "revolutions" indicated the response to "Mexican."

It is undoubtedly safe to conclude that these reactions are not instinctive; the very fact that there is a variety of opinion expressed discounts any such conclusion. With only two exceptions, there does not exist a unanimity of opinion, either for or against the words pronounced. It is evident, however, that the students possess certain acquired affinities for or prejudices against particular terms. But where did they get them? And should they be cherished or throttled?

In the first place, the things that constitute the student's immediate environment -the home, the school, the playground, the movie, the newspaper, and so forth exert a tremendous influence in shaping his attitudes toward life. Coming in contact as he does every day with our well-defined mores and folk-ways, it is only natural that he should be tolerant toward some things and intolerant toward others; so tolerant or intolerant, in fact, that the very words themselves bring pleasant or unpleasant sensations.

Let us observe how it works. In this country it is considered more or less of an honor to be an Irishman. A good per cent. of the American people boast of having Irish blood in their veins. The press and the movie play up the good qualities of the Irish folk. They are famed far and wide for their wit and daring and fairness. It is an American proverb

that the Irish are born fighters, that they possess even more than their share of the prized never-say-die spirit. Who is it, then, who does not secretly or openly envy the Irish?

But take the Mexicans, or the Italians, or the Chinese, or the Negroes as an example. Are the virtues of these races or nationalities paraded before the public? Not at all. The movies picture the Mexican as an outlaw bandit with a tall sombrero and a keen dagger, ready to start a raiding expedition or a revolution. They present the Chinese as the proverbial "heathen Chinee," with pig tails and silk jackets and opium dens to make the scene all the more impressive. The Italians, who have contributed so much to the culture and intelligence of the world, become "wops” and “dagoes" when they come to this country because the cartoons and cinemas make them out as such and the homes and schools usually accept the verdict. Of course these agencies combine to produce an environment that breeds intolerance and prejudice, and the plastic minds of the boys and girls who grow up amid such influences soon conform to the popular current notions.

It seems to me that one of the functions of the school is to break down these deepseated prejudices existing among the students and substitute the philosophy of tolerance and intelligent analysis. To do this the school must counteract the narrow-mindedness and bias that exist in many homes; it must overcome the anachronisms that are so well done in the moving pictures and comic strips and cartoons, not to mention the front pages of the newspapers. If the student, in his early years, can be taught to pass judgment on persons or things or ideas, not on the basis of the prevailing popularity or unpopularity of them, but on the basis of the intrinsic value they represent, then the school will have gone a long way in creating a higher type of citizenship. It is a long and bitter fight, this war against bigotry and intolerance, but it is a challenge that the schools will find worthy of accepting. It is not to be assumed, of course, that there are