Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-23
BY THOMAS r. HENRY.

r INTELLIGENCE tests, long SUBJ
jected to cynical criticism be-
cause of the biased enthusiasm of
Il some of their proponents, appear
to have become a standard part
Of the American school system during
the past few years.
Educators generally are agreed that
they reveal something about the indi-
Vidual boy or girl. Whether or not they
furnish a measure of intelligence" de-
ponds upon how narrow a meaning one
is willing to accept for the word. They
furnish, however, a necessary and con-
venient standard for grouping children
provided that they are applied with
discrimination and that the results are
not accepted as a final criterion.
With the actual application of the
tests in most city school systems and
in colleges much of the opposition to
them has died away. They are better
than mere 'gueSswork" as means
of forming sound judgments. They
mean more than accidental high or
low marks in the classroom.
Give Incomplete Picture.
But, after all, they do not reveal
much. They tell nothing about the will
and character of the individual. They
provide very incomplete picture of
the actual boy or girl upon whom judg-
ment must be passed. There is need
of more searching analysis-the kind
of thing upon which good judges of
human nature" pride themselves.
This need is felt especially by Amer
lean colleges. Their facilities are linn
tied. Nearly all of them have more
applications for admission than they
can possibly accept. They want to
separate the wheat from the chaff be-
fore wasting any money on those who
are not adaptable to education. AS yet,
however, they have found no scientific
way of doing so.
Intelligence tests applied to appli-
cantS have not yielded satisfactory re-
suits. Judgment based on marks re-
ceived in high school has been found
still more unsatisfactory. In a different
and more stimulating environment the
dullard in the secondary school often
proves an extremely brilliant student.
Confidential inquiries of the high school
principal, the local clergymen, etc,
almost always is described as a COM
bination of Sir Galahad and Abraham
Lincoln.
Better Tests Studied.
The problem of devising some more
satisfactory means of judging the in
dividual as a unit has been placed in
the hands of the American Council on
Education, Is Jackson place, and is
being worked out by a committee
headed by D. A. Robertson, the assist
ant secretary. A tentative personality
rating scale has been drawn up by
this committee. 1t seeks to provide
means of penetrating to the roots of
character. The qualities listed are
those particularly desirable in college
students, but they might be rearranged
so as to apply in other walks of life.
Doubtless, MI. Robertson says, there
are good Judges of human nature"
There are men who can estimate an
individual rather accurately from few
minutes conversation. Successful eX-
ecutiveS sometimes have this quality.
It is rather common in a narrow way
with high-poWer statesmen. But it is
purely instructive. The person possess
ing it seldom can give specific reasons
upon which he forms his judgments.
He doesn't know what they are. He
simply feels" various weaknesses and
strengths in the person before him.
He makes frequent mistakes. There is
no infallible Judge of human nature"
and the man who is right two-thirds of
the time is little short of a genius.
visual and physical-based on pressed
suit, neat hair cut, dirty f1ngernails,
shoes run down at the heels, etc. 1t
has been pretty well established that
these things have no fundamental
meaning. Opinions based upon them
mean very little, and are just as likely
as not to be wrong. The Horatio Alger
school of success is pretty well dis
credited.
The good Judge of human nature"
must see something underneath the
clothes and the skin. What is that he
sees? Probably every individual carries
his personality about with him like an
open book-if anybody is capable of
reading it.
Science and Art Cross.
Right here, Mr.. Robertson holds, is
where the pathways of science and art
cross. He goes to Shakespeare. Chaucer,
Browning, Dickens and Thackeray for
his psychology of personality. These
men could pick with the instinct of
genius the one thing which made
personality and express it in word or
q phrase.
Hamlet, for instance, was a dreamer
and a man without fundamental tenac-
fly of purpos0 How does the reader
know this? ST. ,espeare never says so
in so many VIC ). He never attempts
to analyze the character of the Dane.
He simply portrays those actions and
repeats those words that lead the reader
instinctively to feel just what sort of a
man Hamlet was Why can't the reader
do the same thing with John Jones and
Susie Smith? Why can't one pick out
from the actions and words of anybody
those things which lead to as unerring
q conclusion as is formed concerning
the character of Hamlet from consider
ing the things Shakespeare picked out?
Progress in judging personality, Mr.