REVIEWS 553
be inductively verified. Professor Giddings' formulas might well serve as theorems for doctors' dissertations.
The faults of methcid which make Professor Giddings' system so assailable are, therefore, the weaknesses of a strong thinker. Being so fast in a race, he will not drag the plow. The consequences may be emphasized in one more radical criticism of his work.
The "note to reviewer" sent by the publishers calls special atten- tion to the last half of the last chapter, among other passages. It is " believed to be a new contribution to psychology, no less than to sociology." In the proposition, " the ultimate psychologcial motive is the persistent desire of consciousness to be clear and painless, and, if possi- ble, pleasurable" (340), I find nothing that Patten and Ward have left unsaid, and I wonder that the chapter makes no specific reference to their discussions of the " pain and pleasure economy." More signifi- cant, however, is the treatment of "ejective interpretation" (pp. 341-3)- I will not try to speak for Professor Baldwin, but it is not difficult to imagine what his estimate will be of a "contribution to psychology" which consists of applying a slightly varied phrase to one of his per- ceptions isolated from its counterpoising perceptions. The "ejective stage," according to Baldwin, is only one side of the "dialectic of per- sonal growth" {Mental Development, pp. 8-9). Professor Giddings seems to imply that " ejective interpretation " is not merely one factor in "the give-and-take between the individual and his fellows" (Baldwin), but that interpretation of one's fellows and of the social whole in terms of the interpreter's inner self is standard and authoritative. Here seems to be an avowal of methodological principle which I have sup- posed Professor Giddings to follow unintentionally. If he actually means to assert a right to make his own consciousness the scientific measure of objective reality, he virtually declares that to be the primary methodological virtue which I have heretofore assumed to be an unac- knowledged and unconscious vice. The trouble with " ejective inter- pretation," as a scientific norm, is that in our interpretation of ourselves we are prone to set a value on ourselves which at once disar- ranges objective valuation. Just before Dewey appeared at Manila Admiral Montojo issued to his command a memorable specimen of interpretation in this form. It was an appraisal of American character. It was "subjective" and "ejective," but it promoted the gaiety of nations because it was defectively objective. In other words, the Spanish admiral thought, but he did not know. The subjective pro- cess in science may be likened to the physical process of adjust-
