Chapter 41

REASONING

THE PROCESS OF MENTAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTOR EXPLORATION

We are still on the general topic of "discovery". Indeed, we are still on the topic of perception; we come now to that form of perception which is different from sense perception. The reasoner is an explorer, and the culmination of his explorations is the perception of some fact previously unknown to him.

Reasoning might be described as mental exploration, and distinguished from purely motor exploration of the trial and error variety. Suppose you need the hammer, and go to the place where it is kept, only to find it gone. Now if you simply proceed to look here and there, ransacking the house without any plan, that would be motor exploration. But if, finding this trial and error procedure to be laborious and almost hopeless, you sit down and think, "Where can that hammer be? Probably where I used it last!" you may recall using it for a certain purpose, in a certain place, go there and find it. You have substituted mental exploration of the situation for purely motor exploration, and saved time and effort. Such instances show the use of reasoning, and the part it plays in behavior.

The _process_ of reasoning is also illustrated very well in these simple cases. It is an exploratory process, a searching for facts. In a way, it is a trial and error process. If you don't ransack the house, at least you ransack your memory, in search for facts that will assist you. You recall this fact {463} and that, you turn this way and that, mentally, till some fact is recalled that serves your need. No more in reasoning than in motor exploration can you hope to go straight to the desired goal.

Animal and Human Exploration

Is man the only reasoning animal? The experimental work on animal learning, reviewed in one of our earlier chapters, was begun with this question in mind. Previous evidence on this point had been limited to anecdotes, such as that of the dog that was found opening a gate by lifting the latch with his nose, and was supposed to have seen men open the gate in this way, and to have _reasoned_ that if a man could do that, why not a dog? The objection to this sort of evidence is that the dog's manner of acquiring the trick was not observed. Perhaps he reasoned it out, and perhaps he got it by accident--you cannot tell without watching the process of learning. You must experiment, by taking a dog that does not know the trick, and perhaps first "showing him" how to open the gate by lifting the latch; but it was found that dogs and cats, and even monkeys, could not learn the trick in this way. If, however, you placed a dog in a cage, the door of which could be opened by lifting a latch, and motivated the dog strongly by having him hungry and placing food just outside, then the dog went to work by trial and error, and lifted the latch in the course of his varied reactions; and if he were placed back in the cage time after time, his unsuccessful reactions were gradually eliminated and the successful reaction was firmly attached to the situation of being in that cage, so that he would finally lift the latch without any hesitation.

The behavior of the animal does not look like reasoning. For one thing, it is too impulsive and motor. The typical {464} attitudes of the reasoner, whether "lost in thought" or "studying over things", do not appear in the dog, or even in the monkey, though traces of them may perhaps be seen in the chimpanzee and other manlike apes. Further, the animal's learning curve fails to show sudden improvements such as in human learning curves follow "seeing into" the problem. In short, there is nothing to indicate that the animal recalls facts previously observed or sees their bearing on the problem in hand. He works by motor exploration, instead of mental. He does not search for "considerations" that may furnish a clue.

The behavior of human beings, placed figuratively in a cage, sometimes differs very little from that of an animal. Certainly it shows plenty of trial and error and random motor exploration; and often the puzzle is so blind that nothing but motor exploration will bring the solution. What the human behavior does show that is mostly absent from the animal is (1) attentive studying over the problem, scrutinizing it on various sides, in the effort to find a clue; (2) thinking, typically with closed eyes or abstracted gaze, in the effort to recall something that may bear on the problem; and (3) sudden "insights" when the present problem is seen in the light of past experience.

Though reason differs from animal trial and error in these respects, it still is a tentative, try-and-try-again process. The right clue is not necessarily hit upon at the first try; usually the reasoner finds one clue after another, and follows each one up by recall, only to get nowhere, till finally he notices a sign that recalls a pertinent meaning. His exploration of the situation, though carried on by aid of recalled experience instead of by locomotion, still resembles finding the way out of a maze with many blind alleys. In short, reasoning may be called a trial and error process in the sphere of mental reactions.

{465}

The reader familiar with geometry, which is distinctly a reasoning science, can readily verify this description. It is true that the demonstrations are set down in the book in a thoroughly orderly manner, proceeding straight from the given assumption to the final conclusion; but such a demonstration is only a dried specimen and does not by any means picture the living mental process of reasoning out a proposition. Solving an "original" is far from a straight-forward process. You begin with a situation (what is "given") involving a problem (what is to be proved), and, studying over this lay-out you notice a certain fact which looks like a clue; this recalls some previous proposition which gives the significance of the clue, but often turns out to have no bearing on the problem, so that you shift to another clue; and so on, by what is certainly a trial and error process, till some fact noted in the situation plus some knowledge recalled by this fact, taken together, reveal the truth of the proposition.

Reasoning Culminates in Inference

When you have described reasoning as a process of mental exploration, you have told only half the story. The successful reasoner not only seeks, but finds. He not only ransacks his memory for data bearing on his problem, but he finally "sees" the solution clearly. The whole exploratory process culminates in a perceptive reaction. What he "sees" is not presented to his senses at the moment, but he "sees that something _must_ be so". This kind of perception may be called _inference_.

To bring out distinctly the perceptive reaction in reasoning, let us cite a few very simple cases. Two freshmen in college, getting acquainted, ask about each other's fathers and find that both are alumni of this same college. "What class was your father in?" "In the class of 1900. And {466} yours?" "Why, he was in 1900, too. Our fathers were in the same class; they must know each other!" Here two facts, one contributed by one person and the other by another person, enable both to perceive a third fact which neither of them knew before. Inference, typically, is a response to two facts, and the response consists in perceiving a third fact that is bound up in the other two.

You do not infer what you can perceive directly by the senses. If Mary and Kate are standing side by side, you can _see_ which is the taller. But if they are not side by side, but Mary's height is given as so much and Kate's as an inch more, then from these two facts you know, by inference, that Kate is taller than Mary.

"Have we set the table for the right number of people?" "Well, we can see when the party comes to the table." "Oh! but we can tell now by counting. How many are there to be seated? One, two, three--fifteen in all. Now count the places at table--only fourteen. You will have to make room for one more." This reducing of the problem to numbers and then seeing how the numbers compare is one very simple and useful kind of inference.

Indirect comparison may be accomplished by other similar devices. I can reach around this tree trunk, but not around that, and thus I perceive that the second tree is thicker than the first, even though it may not look so. If two things are each found to be equal to a third thing, then I see they must be equal to each other; if one is larger than my yardstick and the other smaller, then I see they must be unequal.

Of the two facts which, taken together, yield an inferred fact, one is often a general rule or principle, and the inference then consists in seeing how the general rule applies to a special case. A dealer offers you a fine-looking diamond ring for five dollars, but you recall the rule that "all genuine diamonds are expensive", and perceive that this {467} diamond must be an imitation. This also is an instance of indirect comparison, the yardstick being the sum of five dollars; this ring measures five dollars, but any genuine diamond measures more than five dollars, and therefore a discrepancy is visible between this diamond and a genuine diamond. You can't see the discrepancy by the eye, but you see it by way of indirect comparison, just as you discover the difference between the heights of Mary and Kate by aid of the yardstick.

If all French writers are clear, then Binet, a French writer, must be clear. Here "French writers" furnish your yardstick. Perhaps it would suit this case a little better if, instead of speaking of indirect comparison by aid of a mental yardstick, we spoke in terms of "relations". When you have before your mind the relation of A to M, and also the relation of B to M, you may be able to see, or infer, a relation between A and B. M is the common point of reference to which A and B are related. Binet stands in a certain relation to "French writers", who furnish the point of reference; that is, he is one of them. Clear writing stands in a certain relation to French writers, being one of their qualities; from which combination of relations we perceive clear writing as a quality of Binet.

Just as an illusion is a false sense perception, so a false inference is called a "fallacy". One great cause of fallacies consists in the confused way in which facts are sometimes presented, resulting in failure to see the relationships clearly. If you read that

"Smith is taller than Brown; and Jones is shorter than Smith; and therefore Jones is shorter than Brown,"

the mix-up of "taller" and "shorter" makes it difficult to get the relationships clearly before you, and you are likely {468} to make a mistake. Or again, if Mary and Jane both resemble Winifred, can you infer that they resemble each other? You are likely to think so at first, till you notice that resemblance is not a precise enough relation to serve for purposes of indirect comparison. Mary may resemble Winifred in one respect, and Jane may resemble her in another respect, and there may be no resemblance between Mary and Jane.

Or, again,

"All French writers are clear; but James was not a French writer; and therefore James was not a clear writer,"

may cause some confusion from failure to notice that the relation between French writers and clear writing is not reversible so that we could turn about and assert that all clear writers were French.

The reasoner needs a clear head and a steady mental eye; he needs to look squarely and steadily at his two given statements in order to perceive their exact relationship. Diagrams and symbols often assist in keeping the essential facts clear of extraneous matter, and so facilitate the right response.

To sum up: the process of reasoning culminates in two facts being present as stimuli, and the response, called "inference", consists in perceiving a third fact that is implicated in the two stimulus-facts. It is a good case of the law of combination, and at the same time it is a case where "isolation" is needed, otherwise the response will be partly aroused by irrelevant stimuli, and thus be liable to error.

Varieties of Reasoning

Reasoning as a whole is a process of mental exploration culminating in inference. Now, without regard to possible {469} variations of the perceptive response of inference, there are at least different varieties of the exploratory process leading up to inference. The situation that arouses reasoning differs from one case to another, the motive for engaging in this rather laborious mental process differs, and the order of events in the process differs. There are several main types of reasoning, considered as a process of mental exploration.

1. Reasoning out the solution of a practical problem.

A "problem" is a situation for which we have no ready and successful response. We cannot successfully respond by instinct or by previously acquired habit. We must _find out_ what to do. We explore the situation, partly by the senses and actual movement, partly by the use of our wits. We observe facts in the situation that recall previous experiences or previously learned rules and principles, and apply these to the present case. Many of these clues we reject at once as of no use; others we may try out and find useless; some we may think through and thus find useless; but finally, if our exploration is successful, we observe a real clue, recall a pertinent guiding principle, and see the way out of our problem.

Two boys went into the woods for a day's outing. They climbed about all the morning, and ate their lunch in a little clearing by the side of a brook. Then they started for home, striking straight through the woods, as they thought, in the direction of home. After quite a long tramp, when they thought they should be about out of the woods, they saw clear space ahead, and, pushing forward eagerly, found themselves in the same little clearing where they had eaten their lunch! Reasoning process No. 1 now occurred: one of the boys _recalled_ that when traversing the woods without any compass or landmark, the traveller is very likely to go in a circle; inference, "That is what we have done and {470} we probably shall do the same thing again if we go ahead. We may as well sit down and think it over."

Mental exploration ensued. "How about following the brook?" "That won't do, for it flows down into a big swamp that we couldn't get through". "How about telling directions by the sun?" "But it has so clouded over that you can't tell east from west, or north from south." "Yes, those old clouds! How fast they are going! They seem to go straight enough." "Well, say! How about following the clouds? If we keep on going straight, in any direction, for a couple of hours, we shall surely get out of the woods somewhere." This seems worth trying and actually brings the boys out to a road where they can inquire the way home.

What we find in this case is typical of problem solution. First, a desire is aroused, and it facilitates the observation and recall of facts relevant to itself. One pertinent fact is observed, another pertinent fact, or rule, is recalled; and in these two taken together the key to the problem is found.

2. Rationalization or self-justification.

While in the preceding case reasoning showed what to do, here it is called upon to justify what has been done, or what is going to be done anyway. The question is, what reason to assign for the act; we feel the need of meeting criticism, either from other people or from ourselves. The real motive for the act may be unknown to ourselves, as it often is unless we have made a careful study of motives; or, if known, it may not be such as we care to confess. We require a _reasonable_ motive, some acceptable general principle that explains our action.

A child is unaccountably polite and helpful to his mother some day, and when asked about it replies that he simply wants to help--while his real motive may have been to score against his brother or sister, who is to some extent his rival.

{471}

If I have work requiring attention but want to go to the game, I should certainly be lacking in reasoning ability if I could not find something in the situation that made my attendance at the game imperative. I am stale, and the game will freshen me up and make me work better afterward. Or, I am in serious danger of degenerating into a mere "grind", and must fight against this evil tendency. Or, my presence at the game is necessary in order to encourage the team.

Thus, aspects of the situation that are in line with our desire bob to the surface and suggest acceptable general principles that make the intended action seem good and even necessary. Finding excuses for acts already performed is a reasoning exercise of the same sort. Man is a rationalizing animal as well as a rational animal, and his self-justifications and excuses, ludicrous though they often are, are still a tribute to his very laudable appreciation of rationality.

3. Explanation.

This form of reasoning, like the preceding, takes its start with something that raises the question, "Why?" Only, our interest in the question is objective rather than subjective. It is not our own actions that call for explanation, but some fact of nature or of human behavior. Why--with apologies to the Southern Hemisphere!--is it so cold in January? The fact arouses our curiosity. We search the situation for clues, and recall past information, just as in the attempt to solve a practical problem. "Is it because there is so much snow in January?" "But what, then, makes it snow? This clue leads us in a circle." "Perhaps, then, it is because the sun shines so little of the time, and never gets high in the sky, even at noon." That is a pretty good clue; it recalls the general principle that, without a continued supply of heat, cold is inevitable. To explain a phenomenon is to deduce it from {472} an accepted general principle; to understand it is to see it as an instance of the general principle. Such understanding is very satisfactory, since it rids you of uncertainty and sometimes from fear, and gives you a sense of power and mastery.

4. Application.

The reasoning processes discussed up to this point have taken their start with the particular, and have been concerned in a search for the general principle that holds good of the given particular case. Reasoning may also take its start at the other end, in a general statement, and seek for particular cases belonging under this general rule. But what can be the motive for this sort of reasoning? What is there about a general proposition to stimulate exploration?

Several motives may be in play. First, there may be a need for application of the general principle. Somebody whose authority you fully accept enunciates a general proposition, and you wish to apply it to special cases, either for seeing what practical use you can make of it, or simply to make its meaning more real and concrete to yourself. Your exploration here takes a different form from that thus far described. Instead of searching a concrete situation for clues, and your memory for general principles, you search your memory for particular cases where the general law should apply. If all animals are cold-blooded, excepting only birds and mammals, then fish and frogs and lizards are cold-blooded, spiders, insects, lobsters and worms; having drawn these inferences, your understanding of the general proposition becomes more complete.

5. Doubt.

A general proposition may stimulate reasoning because you doubt it, and wish to find cases where it breaks down. Perhaps somebody makes the general statement whose authority you do not accept; perhaps he says it in an assertive way that makes you want to take him down {473} a peg. Perhaps you are in the heat of an argument with him, so that every assertion he may make is a challenge. You search your memory for instances belonging under the doubted general statement, in the hope of finding one where the general statement leads to a result that is contrary to fact. "You say that all politicians are grafters. Theodore Roosevelt was a politician, therefore, according to you, he must have been a grafter. But he was not a grafter, and you will have to take back that sweeping assertion."

6. Verification.

This same general type of reasoning, which takes its start with a general proposition, and explores particular instances in order to see whether the proposition, when applied to them, gives a result in accordance with the facts, has much more serious uses; for this is the method by which a _hypothesis_ is tested in science. A hypothesis is a general proposition put forward as a guess, subject to verification. If it is thoroughly verified, it will be accepted as a true statement, a "law of nature", but at the outset it is only a guess that may turn out to be either true or false. How shall its truth or falsity be demonstrated? By deducing its consequences, and testing these out in the realm of observed fact.

An example from the history of science is afforded by Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood, which was at first only a hypothesis, and a much-doubted one at that. If the blood is driven by the heart through the arteries, and returns to the heart by way of the veins, then the flow of blood in any particular artery must be away from the heart, and in any particular vein towards the heart. This deduction was readily verified. Further, there should be little tubes leading from the smallest arteries over into the smallest veins, and this discovery also was later verified, when the invention of the microscope made observation of the capillaries possible. Other deductions also were verified, {474} and in short all deductions from the hypothesis were verified, and the circulation of the blood became an accepted law.

Most hypotheses are not so fortunate as this one; most of them die by the wayside, since it is much easier to make a guess that shall fit the few facts we already know than to make one that will apply perfectly to many other facts at present unknown. A hypothesis is a great stimulus to the discovery of fresh facts. Science does not like to have unverified hypotheses lying around loose, where they may trip up the unwary. It is incumbent on any one who puts forward a hypothesis to apply it to as many special cases as possible, in order to see whether it works or not; and if the propounder of the hypothesis is so much in love with it that he fails to give it a thorough test, his scientific colleagues are sure to come to the rescue, for they, on the whole, would be rather pleased to see the other fellow's hypothesis come to grief. In this way, the rivalry motive plays a useful part in the progress and stabilizing of science.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

When you are sure at the outset of your general proposition, and need only to see its application to special cases, your reasoning is said to be "deductive". Such reasoning is specially used in mathematics. But in natural science you are said to employ "inductive reasoning". The process has already been described. You start with particular facts demanding explanation or generalization, and try to find some accepted law that explains them. Failing in that, you are driven to guess at a general law, i.e., to formulate a hypothesis that will fit the known facts. Then, having found such a conjectural general law, you proceed to deduce its consequences; you see that, _if_ the hypothesis is true, such and such facts must be true. Next you go out and see whether these facts are true, and if they are, your hypothesis {475} is verified to that extent, though it may be upset later. If the deduced facts are not true, the hypothesis is false, and you have to begin all over again.

The would-be natural scientist may fail at any one of several points. First, he may see no question that calls for investigation. Everything seems a matter-of-course, and he concludes that science is complete, with nothing left for him to discover. Second, seeing something that still requires explanation, he may lack fertility in guessing, or may be a poor guesser and set off on a wild-goose chase. Helmholtz, an extremely fertile inventor of high-grade hypotheses, describes how he went about it. He would load up in the morning with all the knowledge he could assemble on the given question, and go out in the afternoon for a leisurely ramble; when, without any strenuous effort on his part, the various facts would get together in new combinations and suggest explanations that neither he nor any one else had ever thought of before. Third, our would-be scientific investigator may lack the clear, steady vision to see the consequences of his hypothesis; and, fourth, he may lack the enterprise to go out and look for the facts that his hypothesis tells him should be found.

Psychology and Logic

Psychology is not the only science that studies reasoning; that is the subject-matter of logic as well, and logic was in the field long before psychology. Psychology studies the _process_ of reasoning, while logic checks up the result and shows whether it is valid or not. Logic cares nothing about the exploratory process that culminates in inference, but limits itself to inference alone.

Inference, in logical terminology, consists in drawing a conclusion from two given premises. The two premises are the "two facts" which, acting together, arouse the {476} perceptive response called inference, and the "third fact" thus perceived is the conclusion. [Footnote: The "two facts" or premises need not be true; either or both may be assumed or hypothetical, and still they may lead to a valid conclusion, i.e., a conclusion implicated in the assumed premises.] Logic cares nothing as to how the premises were found, nor as to the motive that led to the search for them, nor as to the time and effort required, nor the difficulty encountered; these matters all pertain to psychology.

Logic sets forth the premises and conclusion in the form of the "syllogism", as in the old stand-by:

Major premise: All men are mortal Minor premise: Socrates is a man Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The syllogism includes three "terms", which in the above instance are "Socrates", "mortal", and "man" or "men". Logic employs the letters, S, P, and M to symbolize these three terms in general. S is the "subject" (or, we might say, the "object" or the "situation") about which something is inferred. P is the "predicate", or what is inferred about S; and M is the "middle term" which corresponds to our "yardstick" or "point of reference", as we used those words at the beginning of the chapter. S is compared with P through the medium of M; or, S and P are both known to be related to M, and therefore (when the relations are of the right sort) they are related to each other. It is part of the business of logic to examine what relations are, and what are not, suitable for yielding a valid inference.

In symbols, then, the syllogism becomes:

Major premise: M is P Minor premise: S is M Conclusion: Therefore, S is P

{477}

Without confounding logic and psychology in the least, we may take this symbolic syllogism as a sort of map, on which to trace out the different exploratory processes that we have already described under the head of "varieties of reasoning". To do so may make these different processes stand out more distinctly.

In problem-solution, we start with S, a situation unsolved, i.e., without any P. P, when found, will be the solution. We explore the situation, and find in it M; i.e., we observe that S is M. Now M recalls our previously acquired knowledge that M is P. Having then before us the two premises, we perceive that S is P, and are saved.

In rationalization or explanation, we know, to start with, that S is P, and wish to know _why_ this is so. As before, we explore S, find M, recall that M is P, and see that S, therefore, is P. Our final conclusion is, really, that S is P because it is M; that January is cold because it gets little sunlight.

In application, doubt or verification, we start with the major premise, M is P, and explore our memories for an S which, being M, should therefore be P according to our hypothesis. If we find an S which is _not_ P, then our final conclusion is that the major premise is false.

Reference to our "map" indicates that there might be several other varieties of reasoning, and there are, indeed, though they are scarcely as important as those already mentioned. Reasoning sometimes starts with the observation of P, which means something that might prove useful on some future occasion. Your attention is caught by these prominent words in an advertisement, "$100 a week!" That might come in handy on some future occasion, and you look further to see how all that money can be attached to S, yourself on some future occasion. You soon learn that you have only to secure subscriptions for a certain magazine, {478} and that income may be yours. P is the money, and M is the occupation that gives the money, while S is yourself supposedly entering on this occupation and earning the money. This type of reasoning is really quite common. If we see a person making a great success of anything, we try to discover how he does it, reasoning that if we do the same, we shall also be successful; or, if we see some one come to grief, we try to see how it happened, so as to avoid his mistake and so the bad consequences of that mistake. We plan to perform M so as to secure P, or to avoid M in the hope of avoiding P.

Sometimes, not so rarely, we have both premises handed out to us and have only to draw the conclusion. More often, we hear a person drawing a conclusion from only one expressed premise, and try to make out what the missing premise can be. Sometimes this is easy, as when one says, "I like him because he is always cheerful", from which you see that the person speaking must like cheerful persons. But if you hear it said that such a one "cannot be a real thinker, he is so positive in his opinions" or that another "is unfeeling and unsympathetic from lack of a touch of cruelty in his nature", you may have to explore about considerably before finding acceptable major premises from which such conclusions can be deduced.

Finally, in asking what are the _qualifications of a good reasoner_ we can help ourselves once more by reference to the syllogistic map. To reason successfully on a given topic, you need good major premises, good minor premises, and valid conclusions therefrom.

(a) A good stock of major premises is necessary, a good stock of rules and principles acquired in previous experience. Without some knowledge of a subject, you have only vague generalities to draw upon, and your reasoning process will be slow and probably lead only to indefinite conclusions. {479} Experience, knowledge, memory are important in reasoning, though they do not by any means guarantee success.

(b) The "detective instinct" for finding the right clues, and rejecting false leads, amounts to the same as sagacity in picking out the useful minor premises. In problem solution, you have to find both of your premises, and often the minor premise is the first to be found and in turn recalls the appropriate major premise. Finding the minor premise is a matter of observation, and if you fail to observe the significant fact about the problem, the really useful major premise may lie dormant, known and retained but not recalled, while false clues suggest inapplicable major premises and give birth to plenty of reasoning but all to no purpose. Some persons with abundant knowledge are ineffective reasoners from lack of a sense for probability. The efficient reasoner must be a good guesser.

(c) The reasoner needs a clear and steady mental eye, in order to see the conclusion that is implicated in the premises. Without this, he falls into confusion and fallacy, or fails, with the premises both before him, to get the conclusion. The "clear and steady mental eye", in less figurative language, means the ability to check hasty responses to either premise alone, or to extraneous features of the situation, so as to insure that "unitary response" to the combination of premises which constitutes the perceptive act of inference.

{480}

EXERCISES

1. Outline the chapter.

2. In what respects does the animal's solution of a problem fall short of reasoning?

3. Give a concrete instance of reasoning belonging under each of the types mentioned in the text.

4. How is it that superstitions such as that of Friday being an unlucky day persist? What would be the scientific way of testing such a belief?

5. What causes tend to arouse belief, and what to arouse doubt?

6. Introspective study of the process of thinking. Attempt to solve some of the following problems, and write down what you can observe of the process.

(a) What is it that has four fingers and a thumb, but no flesh or bone?

(b) Why does the full moon rise about sunset?

(c) If a book and a postage stamp together cost $1.02, and the book costs $1.00 more than the stamp, how much does the stamp cost?

(d) A riddle: "Sisters and brothers have I none, yet this man's father is my father's son."

(e) Prove that a ball thrown horizontally over level ground will strike the ground at the same time, no matter how hard it is thrown.

(f) If no prunes are atherogenous, but some bivalves are atherogenous, can you conclude that some prunes are not bivalves?

(g) Deduce, as impersonally as possible, the opinion of you held by some other person.

REFERENCES

William James, _Principles of Psychology_, 1890, Vol. II, pp. 325-371. John Dewey, _How We Think_, 1910.

{481}