Special talents and defects — A Reader’s Guide

. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION 1 Speculation Concerning the Nature of Ability. Results of Quantitative Investigation.

II. THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG CAPACITIES 11 The Coefficient of Correlation. General Intelligence _vs._ Special Aptitudes. Correlation of Abilities in Various Groups. Studies of Disorganizing Minds. Is Intellect Inherited as a Unit? Can an Intellect Be Trained as a Unit? The Hierarchy of Abilities. Present Status of the Problem. Measurement of General Intelligence: The IQ. Measurement of Special Ability. The Psychographic Picture of Individuality. At What Age Is Mental Endowment Evident? The Frequency of Marked Special Talents and Defects. Possible Origin of the Dissociation of Certain Capacities.

III. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEURAL BASIS 49 The Physiological Mechanism of Mental Life. Attempted Localization of Mental Functions. Theory of Congenital Lesion or Atrophy Criticized. Regeneration of Function without Regeneration of Structure in Injured Brains. Attempts to Establish a Neural Basis for the “Two Factor Theory” and the “Two Level Theory.” Present Status of the Problem.

IV. READING 57 Relation between IQ and Capacity for Reading. The Mechanics of Reading. Comprehension in Reading. Word Blindness. Psychological Studies of Special Defect in Reading. Nervous Instability and Special Defect in Reading. A Four-Year Study of a Non-Reader. Summary of Studies of Non-Readers. Cases of Special Ability in Reading. The Significance of Literacy.

V. SPELLING 98 Coherence among Linguistic Functions. Analysis of Learning to Spell. Psychological Examination of Poor Spellers. Can Special Defect in Spelling Be Overcome? Does Reading Teach Spelling? Illustrative Cases.

VI. ARITHMETIC 114 Relation between IQ and Capacity for Arithmetic. Distinction between Arithmetic and Mathematics. The Psychology of Arithmetical Calculation. The Organization of Arithmetical Abilities. Psychological Studies of Special Deficiency in Arithmetic. Methods of Detecting Wrong or Incomplete Habits. Nervous Instability and Special Deficiency in Arithmetic. Arithmetical Prodigies. Arithmetical Ability of Two Children of IQ 184 and IQ 187 (Stanford-Binet). The Inheritance of Arithmetical Abilities. Implications for Education.

VII. DRAWING 141 The Various Kinds of Drawing. Ramifications of Drawing through the Curriculum. Psychological Analysis of Talent in Drawing. Relation between Aptitude in Drawing and General Intelligence. The Color-Blind. Illustrative Cases. Inheritance of Talent in Drawing. General Summary.

VIII. MUSIC 164 What Is Music? The Various Kinds of Music. The Analysis of Musical Talent. Relation among Various Elements of Musical Talent. Relation between Musical Talent and General Intelligence. Absolute Pitch. Tone Deafness. Range of Individual Differences. Can Musical Capacity Be Increased by Education? The Inheritance of Musical Talent. Psychographic Study of Individuals. Capacity to Appreciate Music.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS 183 Special Functions Which Have Not Been Long Studied. Left-Handedness. Mirror Writing. Mechanical Ability. Ability to Lead and Handle People.

X. INDIVIDUALITY AND EDUCATION 196 The Values of Individuality. Compulsory Education. The Importance of General Intelligence for School Progress. Special Abilities and Disabilities as Determinants of School Progress. Experimental Attempts to Individualize Education. The Cost of Fostering Individuality. The Probable Rewards of Individualizing Education.

FIGURE PAGE 1. Distribution of ability to discriminate among intervals of time, the subjects being adults. (From Seashore’s _The Psychology of Musical Talent_. Reproduced by courtesy of Silver, Burdett and Company, and of the Columbia Graphophone Company.) 8

2. Flight of birds, illustrating distribution in ability to fly. (Schematic.) 9

3. The psychograph of a schoolboy, showing his standing in various mental functions; illustrating use of the horizontal line to denote typical performance. (From Hollingworth’s _Judging Human Character_. Reproduced by courtesy of D. Appleton and Company.) 39

4. The psychographs of three schoolgirls, showing their standings in various mental functions, measured to determine mathematical ability; illustrating use of the vertical line to denote typical performance. (From _Tests of Mathematical Ability and Their Prognostic Value_. Reproduced by courtesy of Agnes L. Rogers.) 40

5. The psychograph of a schoolboy, showing his standing in various mental functions; illustrating use of the circle as a diagram, the median circumference denoting the typical performance of his age 41

6. Showing how X improved as measured by Trabue’s “Language Scale A,” from Feb., 1918, to Dec., 1921 77–81

7. Showing X’s improvement in silent reading, from April 15, 1921, to Dec. 2, 1921, as measured by Thorndike-McCall “Reading Scale,” Form I 82–83

8. Showing X’s ability to get meaning from printed words, in May, 1922, as tested by Haggerty’s “Sigma 1,” for grades 1 to 3 84

9. Showing an account written by X of his week’s reading 86

10. Composition written at school by X in December, 1920, showing deficiencies in spelling 107

11. Letter written by X showing how he could spell by use of dictionary 108

12. Showing efforts to spell of a 14-year-old schoolboy, of IQ 93, after eight years of school instruction. Illustrating extreme dissociation of spelling ability from general intelligence 110

13. Showing spelling of a 12-year-old girl, of IQ 59, after six years of instruction. Illustrating extreme dissociation of spelling ability from general intelligence 111

14. Showing spelling of a child 9 years 10 months old, with IQ 143, after three years of instruction. Illustrating dissociation of spelling ability from general intelligence 112

15. Showing D’s calculations on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the age of 10 years 11 months, five minutes being allowed for the performance 132

16. Showing D’s calculations on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the age of 10 years 11 months, three minutes being allowed for the performance 133

17. Showing R’s calculations on Test 2, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the age of 7 years 6 months, five minutes being allowed for the performance 135

18. Showing R’s calculations on Test 6, Army Alpha, Form 5, at the age of 7 years 6 months, three minutes being allowed for the performance 136

19. Showing the psychograph of a stupid child, who has a special ability in representative drawing. (From Manuel’s _A Study of Talent in Drawing_. Reproduced by courtesy of The Public School Publishing Company.) 155

20. Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy, of IQ near 70 156

21. Showing special ability in drawing of a 14-year-old boy, of IQ near 70 157

22. Showing the special ability to cut silhouettes, of a feeble-minded man, inmate of an institution for mental defectives 159

23. Charlie Chaplin pursuing a gentleman, and pursued by a policeman. Showing the special ability to draw, of a feeble-minded man, in an institution for mental defectives 160

24. Showing attempts by two distinguished university professors to cut silhouettes of an elephant 161

25. Psychograph of G, showing special ability in music and drawing combined with mediocre intelligence 177

26. Psychograph of M, showing special defect in music combined with very superior general intelligence 179

27. Showing mirror writing by public school pupils. (From Beeley’s _An Experimental Study of Left-Handedness_. Reproduced by courtesy of the University of Chicago Press.) 189

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

When the writer of this introductory note began teaching, it was popularly believed that a pupil who showed special excellence in intellectual work or in some particular study owed his superiority to a faithful and energetic will which held him to his tasks until he had mastered them thoroughly. It was generally believed, also, that marked deficiency in school work as a whole or in a special subject was due principally to a lethargic or indifferent will which could not resist distractions and temptations to self-indulgence. In those days, pupils were upbraided and even physically chastised if they failed to prepare the lessons which were prescribed for them in any study. The writer has often seen pupils whipped because they failed in their spelling, arithmetic, reading, history, or grammar. When punishment was administered in the school it was frequently repeated in the home, since parents quite generally entertained the view that failure to perform intellectual tasks satisfactorily was due to negligence or laziness, and it was thought that the best way to correct such delinquency was to arouse the will, usually by means of dermal stimulation. In his early experience as a teacher, the writer never heard, either in training classes or in teachers’ institutes, that pupils possessed special talents or defects which were certain to be manifested in their school work because they were established by native endowment which could not be modified to any large extent by rewards or penalties.

But we are gradually abandoning the view that either brightness or dullness in general or in special directions is due primarily to volitional control or the absence of it. During the last few years, experimental studies have impressed the principle that individuals differ in their inheritance of special capacities. Dr. Hollingworth shows in this volume how far we have gone in the detection of special talents and defects, with particular regard to the work of the school. She shows in preliminary discussion what notions people have entertained regarding the nature of ability, and then she discusses methods of measuring ability, alike of a general and of a special sort. She discusses the bases for differences among individuals in ability in respect to various intellectual traits or functions. Then she presents in detail what is known to-day regarding special talents and defects as revealed in the more important subjects taught in the schools.

We believe in these times that the school should to the fullest extent provide opportunities for each pupil to develop his talents as completely and as rapidly as possible. It is still required in most public schools, though, that pupils in any group should be kept quite close together in their educational progress, even when they show marked differences in ability in particular subjects or in the entire work of the school. But the pressure is becoming constantly greater to arrange school programs so that pupils may go forward as rapidly as their abilities, either general or special, will enable them to do, while those who are deficient may receive help according to their needs. There are already a number of experimental schools and school systems in which the principle of individual differences in ability is recognized and applied to a greater or less extent. One may safely predict that we shall find a way in time so that the principle may be recognized and applied in all public schools.

Dr. Hollingworth’s book lays a sound foundation for the differentiation of pupils in a school or classroom according to special abilities or deficiencies. It can be read by teachers who have not had extensive study of educational psychology or statistical methods of investigating such problems as are treated in this volume. The book is written in a graceful style, and technical matters are discussed in an unusually clear, simple, and attractive way. It may be confidently asserted that any teacher who has charge of thirty or forty pupils—or a smaller or larger number—will be helped to understand individual traits of excellence or deficiency if she will read what Dr. Hollingworth has presented in this volume. It may be safely stated, also, that a teacher will be more sympathetic toward pupils who experience difficulty in mastering special subjects of study if she will become familiar with the facts and conclusions which this book contains.

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN May, 1923

SPECIAL TALENTS AND DEFECTS

CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION

I. SPECULATION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF ABILITY

Since reflective men began to record their speculations, theories have been expressed concerning the nature and relationships of mental functions. Plato in _The Republic_ contemplated the importance of knowledge in this field. “Come now and we will ask you a question: when you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty; a little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal; whereas the other, after much study and application, no sooner learns than he forgets; or, again, did you mean that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a hindrance to him? Would not these be the sort of differences which would distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?”

In _The Republic_ the use of mental tests to discover the caliber of the mind is foretold. “We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected, and he who fails in the trial is to be rejected. That will be the way?”

Aside from the speculations of scholars, folk notions as expressed in proverbs are interesting, especially as showing what men wish were true concerning human talents and defects. Many of these proverbs embody the idea of a compensatory distribution of abilities: if I am weak in one respect, I am sure to be strong in another; if I am a failure now, I shall probably be a success later on. “Every dog has his day.” “Homely in the cradle, handsome at the table.” “Slow but sure.” “Easy come, easy go.” This doctrine of compensation satisfies certain cravings of human nature, and is therefore likely to be held wherever people have not given impartial attention to the results of experimental investigation.

Folk-wisdom has also seen men under mental types. According to the theory of types, the human species is divided into separate categories, with respect to mental constitution. There would thus be the musical and the unmusical, the quick and the slow, the imaginative and the unimaginative, the eye-minded and the ear-minded, and so forth. The observable complexities of behavior have further led to the description of a given person by a combination of type-terms, as, for example, “quick-musical-imaginative,” or “mathematical-accurate-unimaginative.” Persons thus classified by types, are thought to be of “different kinds,” “equal” but “unlike.” Two persons are thus compared as an apple is compared to an orange. Both fruits are “equal,” but of “different types.” People, according to this conception of human nature, are not thought of as differing from each other simply in amount, as an apple is compared with a larger, a smaller, or a sweeter apple. Comparison in terms of amount is disagreeable in some respects, so that uncontrolled speculation would surely tend to favor the theory of distinct types.

Type-terms have also been invented for temperament,—sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic. The idea underlying this classification is that everyone belongs to one or another of these distinct temperamental types, and, furthermore, that there is a relationship among types which warrants fixed hyphenated categories.

The mental traits or “faculties” thus classified and hyphenated are conceived as entities, having each its distinct existence in the individual mind, and being susceptible to general training and strengthening, by prescribed exercises. Thus it has been believed that “the observation” may be developed by exercises with particular materials, so that all materials whatsoever will be observed equally or approximately as well.

Speculation has been much occupied, as the history of human thought shows, with the problem of the origin of individual endowment. Many different possible explanations were proposed, before the day of quantitative measurement in psychology. It has been surmised that mental endowment is the result of prenatal influences, the wishes and environment of the mother, during the period of gestation; or that it is the result of education; or that it arises from the physical accidents met with by the organism; or that it may be inherited from ancestors, as physical traits rather obviously are. On the whole, speculation has favored the notion that mental endowment originates in the environment. The idea that ability is hereditary, determined for each by the conditions of ancestry, is repugnant. Man prefers to consider that he can himself determine what he will do and be. This doctrine will not be tenable if it is admitted that talents and deficiencies are determined in the germ-plasm, from which the organism springs; that man can only use, not choose, his mental endowment.

II. RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE INVESTIGATION

Many of the cherished hopes and desires of mankind concerning itself are in some part violated by the teachings of scientific psychology. Experimental psychology is not yet half a century old, dating its beginning as a technical science from the founding of Wundt’s laboratory at Leipzig, in 1879. Therefore, it is clear that the study of these problems by quantitative methods brings us very close to the present day.

When the problem of measuring mental capacity was first taken into the laboratory, the modern definition of _a mental function_ began to be formulated. It became apparent that a mind must be judged by its product. The measurement of _performance_ is the only approach there is, or probably ever will be, to the measurement of mind. On this basis it was found impossible to identify or measure any such function as “the reason,” “the memory,” “the observation,” “the imagination,” “the will,” and similar supposed entities. _A mental function_ came to be defined as “_an actually or possibly observable event in behavior_.” Thus, memorizing digits, detecting absurdities, and reading English print are examples of mental functions, in the sense in which the term is used throughout the chapters of this discussion.

Other terms which are used to refer to performances or “events in behavior,” are _abilities_ and _capacities_. A prolonged discussion might be conducted, in an attempt to assign different technical meanings to these words, and to bring out fine shades of distinction among them. For instance, it might be claimed that “ability” should be reserved to signify capacity _plus_ the skill acquired by practice, if any; while “capacity” should mean the innate aptitude, apart from all training. However, since capacity in this sense can never be known, but can only be inferred from the degree of actual performance, under controlled conditions, it hardly seems necessary to maintain such distinctions for our purpose. Refinements of nomenclature will, therefore, be avoided, and the terms _mental function_, _capacity_, and _ability_ will be used interchangeably, to denote performance which depends on the inborn integrity and sensitivity of the individual.

By way of clarifying the definition of a mental function as “an actually or possibly observable event in behavior,” we may quote from Spearman’s presentation of the distinction between “observation” as a mental function, and “observation of birds’ nests.” Spearman says: “Suppose, for instance, that a school boy has surpassed his fellows in the observation of birds’ nests. His victory has, no doubt, depended in part on his capacity for the general form of activity known as ‘observation.’ But it has also depended on his being able to apply this form of activity to the matter of birds’ nests; had the question been of tarts in the pastry cook’s window, the laurels might well have fallen to another boy. A further influence must have been exercised by the accompanying circumstances; to spy out nests as they lie concealed in the foliage is not the same thing as to make observations concerning them in the open light of a natural history museum. Again, to discover nests at leisure is different from doing so under the severe speed limits prescribed by the risk of an interrupting gamekeeper. The boy’s rank may even depend largely on the manner of estimating merit. Marks may be given either for the gross number or for the rarity of the nests observed; and he who most infallibly notes the obvious construction of the house-sparrow may not be the best at detecting the elusive hole of the kingfisher.” One cannot, therefore, identify and measure “observation.” One can only measure “observing birds’ nests, of all kinds, at leisure,” or “observing rare birds’ nests, under stress of pursuit,” and so forth, which are “actual or possible events in behavior.”

As one may glean further from Spearman’s discourse, it has been shown that most of the mental functions performed by men are not elementary, but consist of the coördination of complex factors, capable of analysis. Reading the English word “cat” from a printed page is, for instance, a very complex function.

The application of quantitative methods to the study of mental functions as thus defined, quickly revealed the fact that human beings, sampled at random, in large numbers, do not fall into distinct types. On the contrary, they yield one unbroken curve of distribution in the function measured, clustering around _a single type_ (or mode). In all mental functions which have been measured, there has been found but one type—the average human type—from which the individual members of the species deviate in degree (though not in kind). The majority of individuals deviate but slightly from this biologically established type or mode. “The typical” in ability is, indeed, by definition, what the greatest number of people _can do_. From this performance of the _average_ or _typical_ person, a few individuals deviate widely in the direction of superiority, while a corresponding few deviate widely in the direction of inferiority. No doubt the conspicuousness, because of their infrequency, of extreme deviates in respect to any given function (or capacity) has led to the notion of separate types of mankind. Mental measurement shows clearly that men cluster closely around _one type_ in mental traits, just as they do in such physical traits as height and weight. All men can be no more divided into the dull and the bright, than they can be divided into the tall and the short. The eye can see that most persons are best described as medium, in height.