CRITICISMS OF RESULTS 419

types,' i.e. they are not (as I had maintained) end-sections of a
continuous, symmetrical, and nearly normal distribution, but
sharply demarcated categories or groups. Frequency distributions,
however, he does not give, and it would seem that his conclusion is
based rather on surmise than on any actual survey of a repre-
sentative population.

Space will not allow me to reply to these further criticisms here.
Most of his points, I fancy, have been covered by the fuller exposi-
tion given in the earlier pages of this book. It will, therefore, be
sufficient to point out that, once again, our minor divergences on
points of technique seem quite outweighed by the similarity of our
results. Except for slight differences in nomenclature, his concrete
conclusions really corroborate my own. Thus, he explicitly
recognizes—(i) a " factor of general emotionality," " something akin
to emotional instability, uncontrolled and innate " ; (ii) a more
specialized factor accounting for extraversion, "related to inadequate
w " which he apparently identifies with £ inhibition '; (iii) several
minor factors, two of which seem to turn on the same contrast as my
distinction between thec intuitive' andt analytic' types, while a third
seems analogous to my c sensory' factor. He himself treats these
various types as positive and co-ordinate groupings, all on the same
level of classification ; whereas my procedure exhibits them as
bipolar antitheses, providing a succession of cross-classifications,
and so yielding one subdivision within another, each classification
following in order according to the amount contributed to the total
variance by the corresponding factor. But these are formal rather
than material differences. They do not affect the essential out-
come : namely, that nearly all the factors discovered by factorizing
correlations between persons with Q-technique turn out after all to be
much the same as the factors originally demonstrated by factorizing
correlations between traits and subsequently confirmed—at any rate to a
large extent—by factorizing correlations between persons by so-called
P-technique*

Spearman's View of Types.—Seeing that the controversy
began with a discussion of " Spearman factors in
psychiatry," let us glance in conclusion at Professor
Spearman's own views, as expressed in his monumental
work [113], which has appeared since the foregoing was
written. Spearman clearly holds that the analysis of
correlations between traits (as distinct from correlations
between persons) would be sufficient to reveal the existence
of mental types, if they existed. In his earlier work