one to handle well." This returns to the vital part of the issue. Granted that there is such a lack in medical training, is it to be supplied through psychology or through psychologists? Is the question that of a professional class seeking to establish a standing as such, or is the contention for the place of a certain discipline in that system of training which is historically responsible for the organism's well-being?

Medicine should not be expected to look with favor upon the management of an ailment independently of medical authority. It is said that some people will go to a psychologist before they will to a physician, nor can the psychologist, without sacrifice of the patient's interest, at once send them to a physician. The physician replies that such cases are insignificant in number. It must not be lost sight of that very similar considerations would apply to persons who have first recourse to various systems of faith healing. The point is made that one does not fulfill one's duty to the patient without the best practicable control of objective factors with which the physician alone is trained to deal. Recognition of this is not lacking in psychological quarters. "There would be no hesitation on the part of all psychologists to feel that medical examination was desirable and essential, even if the findings were negative. The question of sequence will arise. Which examination is to precede the other?""

To some extent this question answers itself in terms of the type of examination to which the individual first comes. As to synthesis, undoubtedly there are cases in which psychology provides a better synthesis than does medicine in its ordinary sense. Also, there are psychologists who can synthesize such cases better than the average physician. The best equipment for synthesis now available seems to be a genius for certain aspects of psychology plus a medical education.

A physician states the ethics of the situation to the effect that "in the community where there is a well-trained body of medical men who have spent years in studying these disorders, it would be the natural thing, the desirable thing, for the psychologist to refer these cases to these individuals. In a community where such people are not available, then it might · 1 David Mitchell, PH.D.

2 Francis N. Maxfield, PH.D.

doubtedly become a more and more frequent and advantageous part of the consulting psychologist's equipment, this need not prejudice the standing of the consulting psychologist with competence already established on grounds of research, teaching, and personality. Persons being trained to-day in psychology have an advantage over their fellows of twenty years ago not incomparable with the advantage that medical education offers to the psychologists of the future. How seriously has this affected the standing of those who made this better training possible?

The psychology of to-day is a species of myriapod with feet in the camps not only of medicine, but of religion, law, education, sociology, and industry. In these relationships it occupies a distinctive position and one with unusual possibilities. As Peter the Great labored in foreign shipyards for the advancement of his undeveloped country, psychology should not hesitate to incorporate itself with better organized disciplines, in which its own progress is the sole limit to its influence, and some of which it may in time come to dominate. Law and education have perhaps not fewer natural affiliations with psychology than has medicine, but these disciplines are less markedly under scientific influence, and there is in them no hierarchy of sciences capable of assimilating the subject matter of psychology.

It is hardly to be claimed that one can acquire sound training in medicine and psychology within the space of four years. A graduate course in psychiatry, such as that before mentioned, would have to carry the greater part of such psychological training as was given. This would be that part of psychology which could be made a graduate medical subject, assuming certain fundamentals pre-medically and in the medical course.

The American Psychological Association recently conducted an inquiry as to what psychological subjects were considered of greatest importance from the standpoint of faulty mental adjustments. A composite of ratings by 81 persons professionally concerned with this class of work rated various course titles as follows, a maximum score for practical purposes being 486:

Subjects of medical bearing rank somewhat conspicuously
in this classification. A graduate course in neuropsychiatry
might make out its curriculum from the ten subjects heading
the above list. The topics that psychologists regard as most
important are pretty much those that medicine would under-
take to provide. Some of them, indeed, depend on medical
resources and cannot be had without medical coöperation.

The main conclusions that seem to emerge are that psycho-
metrics is the task of technical experts who often are not and
seldom need to be psychologists in the broad sense that ought
to attach to the term. It is doubtful if the problems of
clinical or pathological psychology are such as to support an
important professional group independently of medical foun-
dation. Medical discipline gives the best background, and an
all but requisite type of background, for inquiries involving
the major affective life of individuals. There is no funda-

mental conflict between psychology and medicine; it arises
among physicians, on the one hand, and psychologists who
are masters of certain medical techniques and occupied with
certain medical problems that medicine has not assimilated.
Medicine should assume greater responsibility for them, when
the conflict will disappear. Meanwhile the administrative duty
of psychology is to develop progressively higher standards in
training and accomplishment and, within those limits where
reasonably accurate judgment is possible, means of attesting
those who meet these standards. That this can and should be
done on the psychometric level seems clear. On the level of
the independent consultant, one must distinguish carefully
between measures that further the services of psychology to
society and those that seem primarily for the interest of a
professional group. The latter policy would certainly be
without value, and might be disastrous, to the standing of the
profession as a whole.

Subjects of medical bearing rank somewhat conspicuously
in this classification. A graduate course in neuropsychiatry
might make out its curriculum from the ten subjects heading
the above list. The topics that psychologists regard as most
important are pretty much those that medicine would under-
take to provide. Some of them, indeed, depend on medical
resources and cannot be had without medical coöperation.

The main conclusions that seem to emerge are that psycho-
metrics is the task of technical experts who often are not and
seldom need to be psychologists in the broad sense that ought
to attach to the term. It is doubtful if the problems of
clinical or pathological psychology are such as to support an
important professional group independently of medical foun-
dation. Medical discipline gives the best background, and an
all but requisite type of background, for inquiries involving
the major affective life of individuals. There is no funda-