144 THE FACTORS OF THE MIND

since Spearman's three noegenetic principles must enter
equally into all intelligent activities, they are therefore
reducible to one—a principle or process which they variously
name * attentive awareness' or c simple apprehension.5
His specific factors, which he had tentatively identified
with the localized functions of the cortical areas or cells,
were declared to be " hardly compatible with the newer
doctrine of the mass action of the brain." l And so an
uncompromisingc monarchical? hypothesis (to adopt Spear-
man's own language) was, according to these writers, the
true inference to be drawn from his demonstration of the
' Universal Unity of Intellective Function.'

However, I doubt whether many psychologists of the
present day would argue that mental activity could be
reduced to a single type of process, with no others to supple-
theory, as given in his latest pronouncement (Brit. J. PsycboL, XXIX, 1938,
pp. 184 et seq.), could be reconciled with my own by regarding it as a series
of progressive dichotomies. Thus, it might be said, (i) his first and main •
distinction is between (a) the one general factor (g) and (b) all others, i.e. the
non-general; (ii) the latter or non-general may then be subdivided into what
he calls (a) ' correlated' or c overlapping' specifics (which he would sub-
stitute for the ' group-factors') and (b) the uncorrelated, non-overlapping,
or unique factors (p. 185, lines 2-5); (iii) finally, we can introduce his own
" subdivision of the specific factor " (i.e. of the non-overlapping specifics)
into (a) " correct value " and (b) " mere random error " (p, 185, lines 27-8).

However, he himself rather deprecates such further subdivisions, saying
that we can, if we wish, " divide up an ability into as many factors as we
please, all equally true." For much the same reason apparently he con-
siders that " the current measurements of specific abilities—upon which have
come to hang the weal or woe of countless individuals in industry and
otherwise—are little more than the blind leading the blind " ([56], p. rviii).
Those of us who have been engaged in the practical work of educational or
vocational guidance would feel, I think, that the criticism is hardly justified
by the concrete results achieved. But this is not the place to defend our
procedure. I will only point out that the * specific abilities} we measure to
give guidance in industry or education are * group factors,' not ' specific
factors' in the narrower sense : they are such things as the * verbal factor/
the * arithmetic factor,' the c spatial * or mechanical factor—in short, * over-
lapping ' factors such as many of Spearman's followers, and, it would seem
even Spearman himself, are now inclined to accept.

1 The reference is to Lashley, Brain-Mechanisms and Intelligence (1929)*
Spearman, of course, could now fairly reply that, since mass action alone is
no longer held to be a sufficient principle by itself, the true conclusion is that
the central function alone can hardly suffice.