Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Fig. 5. Three normal segments, dorsal view, less magnified than

fig. 3.

Fig. 6. Diagrammatic cross-section, showing relative positions of the parts of the exo-skeleton.

Fig. 7. Last five segments, dorsal view.

Fig. 8. Same, ventral view.

Fig. 9. Antenna, much magnified, ventral view.

Fig. 10. Second leg of male.

Fig. 11. Eleventh leg of male.

Fig. 12. Last leg of male.

Fig. 13. Male copulatory legs, dorsal view.

Fig. 14. Same, ventral view.

Fig. 15. Segments seven and eight of young male.-O. F. Cook.

PSYCHOLOGY.'

Congress of Psychologists.-The third Congress of Psychologists was held at Munich, August 4th to 9th, Prof. Stumpf, of Berlin, presiding. It was the largest and in many respects the most successful of the three. Of course the German attendance was fuller than at the last one, held in London in 1892, and German delegates are always most welcome. When we take into account the fact that Germany is to-day the country where psychology is most vigorously and successfully pursued, it follows that this Congress was, up to date, the greatest gathering of eminent psychologists ever seen. As to France, the attendance was disappointing in numbers, although the delegation was very representative; and the same is true of the British contingent. The other countries, except America, were adequately represented; the small attendance from our side of the water being a matter of the more surprise in view of the tendency of our professors to take their vacations abroad-indeed, the attendance at the last Congress in London was considerably larger.

In its general character, the tendency to allow the popular attendance upon the meetings to swamp the scientific proceedings was more marked in Munich, and it is not too much to say that this constituted a very great defect in the arrangements. The membership was over four hundred. There was a constant flow from hall to hall, and the corridors 1 Edited by H. C. Warren, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.

were filled with bewildered persons. Some limit must be put on the popular membership at the next congress, or the scientific people will yield the field to the sightseers and amateurs. The other possible improvement comes to the front again apropos of this meeting in Munich -the crowded condition of the programme. Besides the general meetings, which came in the forenoon sessions, the committee arranged for five sections, all running simultaneously and all subject to constant give and take, as respects their audiences, from one to another. Besides the constant interruptions and great confusion which this produced, it practically prevented a person from hearing many readers whom he especially desired to hear. Since the time limits were not enforced upon the papers or discussions, one could never tell how far on this section or that had progressed, and so could not time his presence for any particular reader. Moreover, the papers were as usual so generally accepted by the committee-anyone who wanted to present something had only to send his name and topic beforehand—that many were read which were of little or no scientific value; and the titles of papers were entered on the programme in advance, so that there was no way to learn infallibly whether a particular reader had arrived and would present his dissertation or not. The gaps left by the absentees were consequently quite an unknown quantity. Every such meeting should have a committee to read and select from available papers, arrange them strictly according to unchangeable time divisions, and require each reader to report finally a day or two before the meeting as to his actual attendance, the final programme being only then printed. This would have the further advantage of ruling out titles and names which are from the first doubtful; for it is astonishing to what an extent men fail to carry out what should be their serious intention when they give their names to be printed on these Congress programmes.

So much for the general character of the Congress. Of course, this is not the place for an account, in any detail, of its scientific features. The division into sections will show something of the remarkable range that modern psychology finds itself obliged to take: "Normal," "Sleep and Hypnotism," " Mental Pathology," "Neurology," "The Senses and Psychophysics"-the titles being somewhat abbreviated in this list. In each of the sections there were some great papers and one or more lively discussions. The most interesting thing in the way of neurological work-it was presented, however, in one of the general meetings-was the paper by the veteran Flechsig on "Association Centres." It will be remembered that Prof. Flechsig has been engaged for some time on comparative studies of the brains of human infants at different ages,

attempting so to arrive at a view of the order of development of the elementary mental functions, with the corresponding progress in brain anatomy and physiology. He has published very rich results from time to time, and among them is his determination of certain so-called "association centres." He thinks that the much discussed frontal region of the brain is the location of associations of a higher and more abstract kind; and that in the region back of the well-known "motor region," extending to the visual centre in the occipital region, is a great centre for the associations which bind the sense functions together. This in brief, and without the discriminations which an accurate account of his views should make. The reason which he gives for these determinations is that only after some growth, and after the senses are well developed, do we find the great masses of connecting fibres which traverse these regions forming in the child's brain.

Apart from the question of fact, as to which Prof. Flechsig's researches may be considered as being of the greatest importance (especially when we consider his method), it is difficult to see how these regions can be, in any true sense, "association centres;" for, admitting that the connections between the sense centres run through these regions, the main thing about the associations must be the things associated, not the mere fact of connections between them. One would hardly call the bunch of telegraph wires on the housetop a "communication centre;" the loci of communication are still at the telegraph offices. Without them, the wires would be possibly even more helpless than the offices without the wires. Prof. Flechsig's paper was a model for imitation in the manner of its presentation, and its interest was enhanced by slides showing the infant's brain, in sections illustrating the periods of its growth.

Another contribution to the understanding of the relation of psychol ogy and brain physiology was that of the well-known neurologist, Prof. Edinger, of Frankfort, on the question, "Can Psychology make use of the results so far attained in Brain Anatomy?" He did not confine himself to anatomy, but presented a series of interesting notices on the development of the nervous system in the scale of life, and made a strong plea for a corresponding genetic study of comparative psychol ogy. Genetic psychology, he says, is so far behind analytic psychology because psychologists have confined their attention, on the anatomical side, to the cerebral hemispheres, while what they should do is to study the evolution of the nervous system all the way up, and see the progress of consciousness with it. "Gerade auf diesem Gebiete müssen anatomisch-physiologische und psychologische Studien durchaus Hand in Hand gehen." All this is true and remarkably opportune, I think,

despite the fact, that in his main illustration Prof. Edinger falls into one of the glaring fallacies into which this sort of analogy between body and mind may lead. He says there are certain creatures (fishes) which have no hemispheres, and it follows that, on the psychological side, we must deny to these creatures "all that the hemispheres are necessary for in the higher creatures." This overlooks the great principle that, in the lower forms, less differentiated structures may do what more differentiated ones do in the higher forms. To press this point consistently, he would seem to have to deny consciousness altogether to these fishes. The lesson of this paper, however, is a most timely one; psychologists, especially in Germany, are not half awake to the genetic problem, and when they do awake, no doubt it is true that the richest lessons that the physiology of the nervous system will have to teach them will be derived from such comparative study as Prof. Edinger advises.

Several papers of general interest were read in the open meetings. The President's address was rather more severe and wissenschaftlich than the earlier addresses of the presiding officers have been, but it was an exceedingly interesting and discriminating review of theories on the connection of mind and body. The arraignment of Parallelism was very effective-possibly more so than the positive doctrine of the paper. Prof. Ebbinghaus of Breslau gave a new way of testing the mental condition of school children at different periods and in different conditions of fatigue, etc. It differs from the methods already in vogue in that it endeavors to test the child's correlating or apperceptive faculty rather than his sense-perceptions or his memory. The method, which teachers will find extremely interesting, consists in taking a passage from some interesting narrative-text, and, after striking out various words and phrases and printing the passage with black spaces where these erasures have been made, telling the child to fill in the spaces as he thinks the sense requires. This requirement certainly calls upon the child for more than memory, and the results of its application, as reported by Prof. Ebbinghaus, seem to show its superiority; but it would appear to be applicable to children of a more advanced age, after the memory tests are outgrown. This general judgment, however, I must make with reservation, since the synopsis of the paper did not reach my hands. This may suffice to indicate the scope of the method, and to call the attention of our educational authorities to it. They will also be interested in Prof. Ebbinghaus's severe criticism of what he called the "American method" of testing the mental condition of school children by the memory tests.

The fact that the papers on "Hypnotism" were fewer than in earlier congresses, in proportion to the entire number, and that there were a bare half-dozen on thought-transference and telepathy, shows the general tendency of psychology. The hypnotic period is past, even in France. Not that the gain from the study of hypnotism has not been permanent and great; on the contrary, its results are only now getting so absorbed into the body of psychological truth that it no longer makes sensational appeals for a hearing. As to telepathy, I think there is a real decay of interest in the subject, much as this is to be deplored. The most interesting paper in the hypnotic field was a general one by Prof. Pierre Janet.

The section on the Senses and Psychophysics did much exact work. Dr. Stratton of the University of California communicated some valuable experiments of his own on the artificial reinverting of the retinal image and its effects on the sense of bodily position in space, which will be of especial interest to those who think the normal inversion of the image requires a theory.

Two other general questions of great interest were discussed, with as much ability as vehemence, by the Vice-President of the Congress, Prof. Lipps, of Munich. One of his papers was a very important contribution in the sadly neglected field of the æsthetics of visual form. I can do no more than recommend his paper in the Congress "Proceedings" (to appear very soon) to those who are concerned with elementary æsthetic principles. The other topic was the much-discussed one on the "Unconscious" in psychology. The question, Can mental states be unconscious? has a peculiar fascination, because of the great number of verbal distinctions of which it admits. It must be confessed that Prof. Lipps's paper did not make the number of these verbal distinctions less. He reaches a sort of return to the soul-substance theory-a hidden thing in which mental states, and especially tendencies of an active kind, may be preserved when we are not conscious of them. This has long ago been refuted as a general conception, I think; but the main point of interest, and that for which I bring the matter up, is that the results of pathology, dual consciousness, "multiple personality," etc., which are considered by many as giving the strongest evidence for the "unconscious," require quite a different theory. The "unconscious" of the pathologists is a body of conscious data gathered into a new and secondary consciousness of its own. While these states

of mind are not conscious to the major person-and so, by a certain license, are called "unconscious "-still it is just the evidence that they are conscious in their own way and in their own seat in the nervous

« AnteriorContinuar »