Suggestion and Mental Analysis
Reviews.
- Author:
William Brown
M.A., M.D., Oxon., D.Sc., M.R.C.P., Lond. Pp.165. University of London Press, Ltd., 1922. 3s. 6d. net.
The author of this little book states in his preface that its central object is “to give an elementary and non-technical account of the relation between two distinct and, in the main, mutually exclusive forms of theory and practice in the field of psychotherapy, viz.: suggestion and auto-suggestion on the one hand and mental analysis (including the special Freudian system of psycho-analysis) on the other” with a view to harmonizing these two modes of thought. This is perhaps an unfortunate introduction for, apart from two pages towards the end of the book which purport to deal with this question, no attempt is made to discuss this side of the problem.
The author gives a good, but a little too brief, exposition of Freud’s theory, which in the main he accepts; he cannot accept the doctrine of the Oedipus complex, nor the general theory of infantile sexuality as being of universal validity; he advances an alternative theory of dreams for “neither repression in the Freudian sense nor the action of unconscious wishes is essential to the production of the dream.” He dogmatically asserts that sleep is an instinct ‘ ‘which has survival value and has been developed in the course of evolution,” and he suggests that the dream is a sort of intermediary form of consciousness which intervenes and makes the impulses innocuous so that sleep persists?a theory which is difficult to distinguish from Freud’s without a more precise definition of the terminology.
The most interesting part of the book is that which deals with hypnosis, though parts of this discussion appear to be too advanced for the general reader. Most psychologists would agree with the author when he holds that hypnosis is not a good thing for the individual , and that the general effect of repeated hypnosis is definitely bad, but that treatment by hypnosis is justifiable as a means of recovering memories: but it is questionable whether such a method is justifiable as a means ot giving an outlet to “bottled up emotion,” aS advocated by the author, even if it be allowed that emotion can be “bottled up,” for many psychotherapists maintain that this is unnecessary .
When we come to the subject of suggestion it is almost impossible to understand what the author means by the term, and moreover we have to wait until we have read two thirds of the book before we come to a definition. The definition accepted is that given by Baudouin as “the subconscious realization of an idea, a definition which leaves us in a quandary as to the meaning of “subconscious.” The author states in the first sentence of the book ‘ ‘one of the most fundamental problems calling for solution by psychology at the present day is the nature of the so-called subconscious and he adds that he is not going to attempt such a solution. Yet he confidently explains everything throughout the book in terms of subconscious and ‘dissociation’?another word which is not explained ?and tells us that the “subconscious” is that part of the mind which presides over bodily functions, even over the cerebral cortex which is supposed to be in the most intimate relation to conscious mental activity! Again it is not clear what is meant by “in normal sleep the subconscious in its entirety is more easily approachable,” and if the statement referring to treatment?”it iS also explained to him that should he actually fall asleep during the hour, it will be normal sleep, not hypnotic sleep, and that the suggestions will be received all the same” ?is correct, then it would appear that all that is necessary for the psychotherapist to do is to give a formula to the relatives and instruct them to repeat this whilst the patient is asleep! Further it is stated “whereas Freud explains suggestion in terms of transference, I would explain transference (partly at least) in terms of suggestion”; we are quite unable to follow the argument on this point, for if carried to its logical conclusion the love of a child for the mother would be due to suggestion! The same difficulty as to the meaning arises on the subject of auto-suggestion, as evidenced by “it is however much better in using auto-suggestion to get the state of mind for a very short time, for a minute or less, and Uot to attempt to keep this frame of mind for a longer time,” for this “suffices to establish contact with the sub-conscious and to implant the idea of the desired end. The subconscious then goes on to realise the idea at its own leisure …. If you try to prolong the state for several minutes you run the risk of your ?wn subconscious throwing up an opposite Suggestion.” There is a good criticism of 9?ue’s method, on the practical side, in that *t involves an encouragement and training of the patient’s automatism, which is similar *u kind to the dissociation of hypnosis and hysteria, and on the theoretical side in regard t? the use of the word ‘imagination’ and the law of reversed effort; but the ‘ ‘cannot help foeling some doubt about this law of reversed e^ort” is a mild criticism for a law which is so 0pp0sed to matters of fact and of psychological knowledge, that few psychologists would think *t needed very much demonstration as to its absurdity.
To write an elementary book on such ?bstruse questions is admittedly a very difficult task, and it is no doubt easier for a critic t? expose the weaknesses of a book of this kind than to appraise its worth at its true value, hut there are two attributes which are essential to the success of such an undertaking, first that the book shall be easily understood, and secondly that in it fact shall be clearly differentiated from theory. As judged by these two tests it would appear that the author has foiled to accomplish the object, which he set ?ut to achieve.
E. Prideaux. Juvenile Delinquency. By Henry Herbert Goddard. Director, Ohio Bureau of Juvenile Research. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. Pp. 120. 3s. 6d.
This book is intended to be of service to sociologists, psychologists and all who are interested in one of the most pressing problems modern society. We cannot, however, recommend it, because it contains few facts that will help, and some suggestions which U^ay mislead. After three years work the Writer lias recognised the psychopathic child as distinct from the feeble-minded child. To diagnose the psychopathic child he relies on the word-association test, a crude means of approach to the unconscious mind. He does not seem to know that the psychopathic child is a recognised clinical entity, and that some medical psychologists can pick out such children in the course of a more ordinary examination. Perhaps it is the mechanical methods he employs which have prevented the writer understanding the problem, and giving the helpful individual accounts of cases we have had from Dr Healy and other writers on delinquency in America and this country.
A feature of the book is elaborate tables, which must have required much time and care, but which are little use, because they are merely facts of a superficial kind. A more complete and deeper investigation into one or two would have been work of value. But the writer is not scientific: he records data from which he extracts little and then makes the suggestion that congenital syphilis is the most important cause of delinquency. He gives no definite evidence of this, and overlooks the fact that syphilis is not unknown among non-delinquent juveniles, and is, after all, only one of the racial poisons, the rest of which, including alcohol, he ignores.
We do not think the psychopathic child should be described as having a diseased mind: but here again there is confusion, because we are also told that the psychopathic child has a diseased mind that does not function normally, a different state of affairs. The writer suggests as a form of psychological treatment that the delinquent should be repeatedly told that he has a mind which does not function properly, and therefore he must be careful to avoid awkward situations, because only the normal are equal to them. Our experience is that the awkward situation is inevitable, and the way to help is to train him and teach him how to deal with it. “English Prisons To-Day”: Being the Report of the Prison System Enquiry Committee. Edited by Stephen Hobhouse M.A., and A. Fenner Brockway. Longmans, Green & Co., London, New York & Bombay, 1922. Pp. 728.
We learn from the Foreword that the Prison System Enquiry Committee was established in 92 STUDIES IN MENTAL INEFFICIENCY. January 1919, by the Executive of the Labour Research Department, but from January, 1921, it has been unconnected with the Labour Research Department, and has had its own establishment.
The Report is a description of the English Prison System as it is to-day, accompanied by a study of its effects on those subjected to it. In addition, at the end of the chapters dealing with the System are tabled the principal defects revealed, while in the last chapter the broad principles of reform are briefly indicated. There are also four Appendices, one of which describes some American experiments, while another deals with the Report and Recommendations of the Indian Jails Committee, which was published last year.
The Report is what it purports to be, dealing in an interesting manner with every aspect of Prison Life; it is written in a calm and reasonable tone. Certainly some of it is not pleasant reading, for instance the sections dealing with the sanitary arrangements, punishment in Prisons, and the health of prisoners. There is reason to think, however, that the descriptions are accurate, and the call for reform urgent. The chief conclusion to which we are led is that the present system fails as a rule in one of its chief objects, the reform of the individual. Its effects are demoralising; it develops neither character nor capacity, and often sends the offender out more incompetent and a greater danger to the community than he was before. It is satisfactory that the Committee see signs of some reforming zeal and an attitude receptive to new ideas among the Prison Commissioners. The publication of this Report however, makes it incumbent on them either to show that its observations and criticisms are inconsistent with facts, or else to introduce whole-hearted measures of reform on psychological lines.
It is unfortunate, considering the number of experts who were consulted on various matters, that some one, conversant with mental defect, was not asked to revise Chapter XVIII, dealing with the mentally deficient. As it is the chapter is misleading and inaccurate. It begins with statistics which are not accepted to-day by most workers in mental defect, because some of them were collected before the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 estab’ lished the mentally defective person as ? definite clinical entity, for diagnosing whicn there is a fairly definite standard. Further* the great diminution in the numbers in prison in recent years, especially of those guilty 0 minor offences, has resulted in there being fewer mental defectives in prison, while the fact that many such defectives are now taken care of in special institutions under the Mental Deficiency Act, has still further reduced the number in Prison. Surely no censor with any knowledge of mental defect would have passed the statement printed in italics on page 285 that “approximately two-thirds ox the mental defectives who are sent to prison are still legally condemned to remain there. The truth is a mental defective is not legall) condemned to remain in prison, but is transferred to an institution for defectives as soon as he is recognised and the necessary arrangements can be made. The statement must refer to the mentally unstable, a very different group not yet graded as a clinical entity, and who cannot be dealt with in a satisfactory way till there is a change in the law and special institutions have been established. The terms “mental defective” and “weakminded” are used in this chapter without appreciation of their meaning by a writer who does not understand insanity either, f?r the gruesome account on page 286 is clearly a description of a lunatic and not of a ‘ ‘mentally deficient person.’’ The writer ought to have enquired whether insanity does not sometimes suddenly develop in prison without any previous warning, before he denounced in such scathing terms a magistrate, who it is certain never saw the prisoner behaving in the dock as he subsequently behaved in prison. The same loose use of terms results in a statement which may be misleading in regard to the Birmingham Scheme for the Special Examination of persons suspected to be mentally defective, insane, or mentally unstable, and the treatment of the last group. On page 286 it is said that “at Birmingham the feebleminded are accommodated in a separate building.” The fact is that only the mentally unstable are detained in this building; the feebleminded as defined by the Mental STUDIES IN MENTAL INEFFICIENCY. 93 eficier.cy Act, are transferred to an Institul0n for Mental Defectives as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. Respite these inaccuracies the book as a ^hole is sound and reliable; it should be read y every social “worker, and especially by those ^ho are interested in delinquents.
W. A. Potts, M.D. Group Tests of Intelligence.” By Philip Boswood Ballard, M.A., D.Litt. Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd. 6s. net. 252 PP Methods & Experiments in Mental Tests.” By C. A. Richardson, M.A. (Cantab.) George G. Harrap & Co., Ltd. 3s. 6d. net. 92 pp.
1HE Achievement of Subnormal Children In Standardized Educational Tests .’’ By J. E. Wallace Wallin, Ph.D. Miami University Bulletin. 97 pp.
These three books, although written with different aims, touch each other at many Points, suggesting material for further thought a*id investigation.
Within the last few years, the ingenuity of lritelligence testers has shown itself in the Publication of series after series of group tests “~~Otis, Terman, Haggertv, Simplex, Northumberland, National Intelligence and others? lsplaying marked family resemblances, but each with special “variations” of greater or ?Ss yalue, which a process of “natural selecj^?n ‘ will doubtless either foster or eliminate.
r* Ballard in this new book, a worthy successor of his previous book on individual tests, 1Scusses the mental significance of the various ypes of group test in use, and has himself urted no less than four sets of tests adapted to ?Ur different ranges of mentality?the lowest a picture test suited for illiterates and subnormals, and the highest so difficult that even ie very “superior adult” may be grateful for he absence of a time limit. Dr Ballard, we “ink rightly, attaches most importance to r<~asoning anc^ absurdity tests in the selection 0 super-normals. For the diagnosis of the subnormal, which is the main interest for Feaders of this journal, the individual scale j^ust hold the field: the group test except in orms devised for illiterates, is in greater part eyond the capacity of the feeble-minded. The question naturally arises:?What do all such tests test ? And if we answer intelligence, there follows the further question? what is intelligence? Both Mr. Richardson and Dr. Ballard attack this problem. Mr. Richardson appears to hold that intelligence tests are really-?and not ideally?tests of native intelligence independent of environment and teaching. Dr Ballard considers that such a statement can only be maintained “in a broad and general sense,” but that the acquired knowledge involved in a test is such as a person of ordinary intelligence cannot avoid acquiring. Both agree that one fundamental evidence of intelligence is the “power to use knowledge,’’ and Mr. Richardson appears also to find, with Dr Maxwell Garnett, in voluntary attention the very essence of intelligence.
Students of the feebleminded will readily acquiesce in this finding, though they may doubt if it completely expresses all that there is in intelligence. Dr Ballard’s discussion is illuminating, but we are still some way from what L. P. Jacks calls an “intelligent definition of intelligence.”
Mr. Richardson’s book is in larger part the record of an experiment to determine the value of both group and individual tests as measures of educability, this last being judged by test papers in arithmetic (Dr Ballard’s) and an English composition. He established a sufficiently high correlation in both cases to convince doubters, although it might reasonably be held that the number of children tested was too small and the school subjects chosen too obviously “intelligential” to justify too wide a conclusion. And. in fact, Dr Wallin whose pamphlet is a detailed summary of the results of the application of a series of standardised tests in reading, spelling and arithmetic to the children in the Special Schools of St. Louis, comes to the conclusion that in respect of the first two subjects the correlations with intelligence, though of fair degree, are not sufficiently high to justify any inference from intelligence status to educational progress in these subjects. Owing, however, to their differences of method, their results are not strictly comparable.
Those who delight in the expression of mentality in terms of “mental age” will be interested in the formula worked out by Mr. Richardson for derivation of mental ages from group test scores. The formula would require alteration according to the particular group tests employed, but the idea is valuable as giving a means of comparing results of group and individual tests.
Dr Wallin’s results are tabulated in three ways, by school grades, by Binet Simon ages, and by diagnosis (Moron, Imbecile, etc.). In the second case the tabulation is rendered faulty by the fact that the Binet-Simon age was in many cases determined two or three years before the educational tests were given, yet the results of the latter are credited to the Binet-Simon age obtained so long before. Dr. Wallin admits other sources of error e.g. certain low-grade pupils were omitted altogether from some tests, or only partially tested: some of the Binet-Simon ages are really Stanford ages, and not infrequently the numbers tested were too small. From a strictly statistical point of view, these errors detract somewhat from the value of the results.
Not the least interesting feature of his pamphlet is the clinical cases he describes in full, chiefly of “visual aphasia” or its lesser degree ‘ ‘dyslexia’’ and other specific defects. There is one curious record of a girl who, although a Mongol and below the intelligence standard for entry to a Special School, was admitted and at thirteen years made the best record of all the pupils in reading.
On the question of school organisation, Dr. Wallin comes somewhat into conflict with Dr. Ballard. The latter holds that the “intelligence of the pupils is the primary, but not the only basis on which schools should be organised” and suggests that there should be three distinct “streams of promotion” in every school corresponding to the different levels of intelligence. Dr Wallin criticizes this position and maintains that a child’s stage in school subjects cannot be neglected and that allowance must be made for specific abilities and disabilities, as also for character and physical factors. Probably Dr Ballard would admit much of this, but he evinces a faith in the I.Q. which all may not share. “No
other factor” he declares “tells us so much about a child as the I.Q.” The I.Q. by itself, in the opinion of many, tells us relatively little about a child, but all can agree that a school classification based on intelligence would be superior to the present official classification by chronological age.
Dr Ballard’s chapters on the mathematics of correlations and probable errors will be valuable to those who lack time or the necessary native capacity to read the longer treatises on the subject.
All three books repay careful study and are full of suggestion. H. Herd. “Condensed Guide for the Stanford Hevision OF THE BlNET-SlMON INTELLIGENCE Tests .’’ By Lewis M. Terman. Harrap & Co. 3s. 6d.
There has just been issued in England by Messrs. George G. Harrap a Convenient “con densed Guide for the Stanford Revision of the Binet Simon Intelligence Tests” which will prove very useful to examiners who use this system. It is well printed and handy in arrangement and will be found to be a more rapid guide at the examination than the manual which however it is especially stated by Professor Terman in the preface it must not supersede. It is intended as a guide and not a learner’s manual. It seems a pity that it was not adjusted, as the ordinary record book has been, for English use and various Americanisms foreign to our children not altered to suit our language.
Whether it is justifiable to use bad grammar before a defective?i.e. the superlative when comparing two things?is a matter perhaps for the pedant, although the practical examiner may accept the apologetic explanation given in the manual (Year IIII (1) and Year V (1) )? If the necessary test material could have been inserted in a pocket at the end there would then have been provided a true vademecum to this popular revision. Personally the writer finds the ordinary Binet-Simon tests suffice for his needs, as he is not yet convinced that a spurious accuracy, at any rate, in examining defective children, is not brought about by the Stanford Revision. The great objection to all the mental tests at present in vogue is the implication that the defective does understand the words used in putting them forward. implies the scholastic side more than some enthisiasts will admit, so that in regard to prognosis as to manual progress which is primarilY important from the Institutional point view, performance tests are more likely to prove useful and is the line on which the Cental testing of defectives ought to be advanced. It must be emphasized that the determination of the mental age by whatever system arrived at should be only one part of evidence, and as matters are at present li?t made the main basis on which certification ?f niental defect stands. We are yet a long Way from determining the essence of that Cental will-o’-wisp called “general intelligence,” and in the training of the defective e Psychology of behaviour and its practical relationship to conduct are the factors that 0r*e desires to be sure about.
W. H. COUPLAND. ————-The Annual Report of the School Medical fficer of the Manchester Education Committee recently issued contains a section by r- H. Herd, Chief Assistant School Medical . fficer, on “The Diagnosis of Moral Imbecil’ to which we should like to draw the Mention of our readers.*
Recapitulating the views which he outlined a previous publication he criticises the text j??k definition of Moral Imbeciilty as “the ack of a moral sense “t on the ground both of * s ambiguity and of the artificial distinction t etween ‘ ‘mental’’ and ‘ ‘moral’’ that it tends 0 set up. The only reason for a separate fk ^0n at a^> he considered, is to emphasise . e difference in treatment which is called for 111 ^s class of defective, and he goes on to ^ggest therefore that ‘ ‘Morally Defective ersons” should be defined as “persons who, early age, display irremediable in. J^ty of character, or inability to control lr*stinctive impulses to such an extent as to ?0nstitute by their vicious and criminal ehaviour a danger to others so great that care, supervision, and control are necessary.’’
hi >? introduction of the word “irremedie ‘ emphasises a point upon which Dr. Herd lays great stress and of which those who are practically concerned with the problem cannot be too often reminded, viz.: that the diagnosis of Moral Imbecility should never be made or even considered without exhaustive proof that the condition is “irremediable.” Modern psychology, he points out, has revealed the profound influence of repressed mental conflict in producing abnormalities of conduct, and the possibility of such an influence being ultimately responsible for apparent ‘ ‘Moral Imbecility’’ should never be forgotten. The more exhaustive the investigations made, Dr Herd emphatically declares, the greater will be the hesitation of the certifying officer in his diagnosis, specially in the case of children. With this increase of psychological knowledge the question of treatment becomes of even greater importance, and even if a case appears to be “irremediable” and is certified for institution care, such care must be definitely curative on modern lines for the sake of the individual himself and not merely segregative for the sake of the community, its underlying principle being, of course, “the sublimation of the offending instincts so that they find an outlet for their energy in useful and harmless activities.”
This pleas for treatment as opposed to mere detention is one which will find a ready response from all those who think of the problem of “mental inefficiency” in terms of human happiness, though how far we are at present from its practical realisation it is not encouraging to contemplate.
A very useful summary of the various schools of Psycho Analytic thought, their points of divergence and their chief exponents, appeared in “The Lancet” of August 12th and August 19th, 1922, contributed by Dr J. Ernest Nicole, Assistant Medical Officer of the Prestwich Asylum, Lancashire, under the title “Psycho Analytical Schools, Old and New.”
Those of our readers who have no time for prolonged study of this immensely important subject and who are bewildered by the conflicting theories labelled with its name, will we think find such a concise exposition as is given in these two articles of considerable help.
See also ‘< The Lancet,” 30.9.22. l922eep”23U^^eS ^enta Inefficiency,” January. In the “Journal of Mental Science” for July, 1922, is an interesting article by Dr. Hamblin Smith, Medical Officer to H.M. Prison, Birmingham, on ilThe Medical Examination of Delinquents’ in which he describes the scheme in force in Birmingham and urges’ its extension.
Since the article was written there has been published by the writer an important book on the subject under the title “TAe Psychology of the Criminal,” of which a full review will appear in our next issue.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.