ciency,’’ by H. L. Hollingworth,[1] and ‘‘The Effects of Stryehnine on Mental and Motor Efficieney,’’ by A. T. Poffenberger, Jr.[2] Striking differences appear in the action of the two drags upon certain mental and motor processes. The two tests were conducted on the same gen- eral plan, and comparison of the two is both permissible and easy. The tests were those well known in every psychological laboratory. Motor ability was tested by the tapping test, coordination test, and the steadiness test, while the mental ability was tested by the color naming test, opposites test, cancellation test, and caleulation tests.
Caffeine caused an increased efficiency in most of the tests, the amount of inerease varying with the size of the dose. Exceptions to this statement were few, the principal one being the decrease in steadi- ness with the increase in the size of the dose of caffeine. No after ef- fects were noted during the course of the test which extended over a period of about forty days.
The strychnine test, covering about the same period of time, showed none of these effeets, except in the case of the steadiness test where there was a suggestion of decreased steadiness after a dose. There was neither an increase in efficiency nor a retardation measur- able during the period of the test.
The explanation of the difference is to be looked for in the seat of the action of the two drugs in the nervous system, the latter acting primarily on the cord and medulla and the former affecting the higher centers of the cerebrum.
H. L. Housiveworts,
Secretary. CoLumpra UNIVERSITY.
Idealist to Realist, Once More: A Reply
In a recent number of this Journal[3] Mr. J. E. Turner makes a justifiable criticism not, I think, upon my argument against “neo-realism,” but upon a questionable expression in my statement of the argument. He objects to my attributing to the realist the “certainty that he is … having a complex experience described by the terms yellowness, coolness, etc.”[4] As Mr. Turner truly says the realist would hold that he is describing “the object, not his experience as yellow.” Mr. Turner’s criticism is simply met, and
