Two doctrines have been greatly influential in this century. The first holds that the explanation of any historical event must appeal to economic factors. The second attempts to account psychologically for all historical events, especially in terms of early childhood experience. Both doctrines, however, are mistaken. Certainly there have been events that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of the early childhood experiences of the major participants in the event. The argument depends on assuming which one of the following? ['One is likely to find that both economic and psychological explanations have been proposed for any given historical event.', 'Appeals to both economic and psychological factors are needed to understand any historical event properly.', 'The first doctrine precludes any noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events.', 'The second doctrine places importance only on childhood experiences.']