Science: Battle on Rhine

If psychologists investigated themselves by their own beloved statistical methods, they would probably find that—as a group compared with other scientists—they were cheerful, convivial, well-dressed, well-mannered, interested in one another, argumentative, mildly frustrated. Psychology is a science notably torn by internal dissension, a state of affairs which is only partly due to the fact that it harbors a relatively large number of women. It is the human mind in the act of investigating itself—a tricky business, to which the rigorous methods of other sciences are frequently not applicable. It draws generalizations from large numbers of individuals, and so the problem of statistical evaluation itself creates disagreement.

Some years ago psychologists strenuously quarreled over John B. Watson’s theories of behaviorism, now largely forgotten. Another uproar sprang from the importation from Germany of “dynamic patterns of behavior” (Gestalt psychology). An endless dispute goes on over the value and significance of I. Q. tests. At present a major trouble focus is the research carried on at Duke University by Joseph Banks Rhine, by which Dr. Rhine claims to have proved the existence of “ESP” (extrasensory perception). Dr. Rhine—some of whose admirers have compared him to Abraham Lincoln, and others to Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin rolled into one—invented a famous test in which subjects are asked to “guess.” one by one, the cards of a special deck whose faces they are not permitted to see. He submits that the far higher than expected number of correct guesses points plausibly to the existence of telepathy and clairvoyance.

When the eastern branch of the American Psychological Association convened in Manhattan last week, no less than three papers were read on the Rhine question, all of them hostile. Small, vehement Psychologist Hyman Rogosin of New York City declared that:

1) Dr. Rhine has selected material in order to prove his own belief; he inferentially admits that he stops scoring when a subject’s percentage of correct guesses falls below a certain limit.

2) The astronomical probability figures given by ESP advocates, in order to rule out chance, do not prove that ESP exists. The science of probability is extremely controversial; moreover, science does not use probability to prove the existence of something which is otherwise undemonstrated.

3) Dr. Rhine at Duke has come under the influence of venerable, opinionated Psychologist William McDougall, who once belonged to a “dubious” society for psychic research. Dr. McDougall and Dr. Rhine are among the few scientists who still believe in Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics).

From some 200 psychologists, uncomfortably seated in a hotel ballroom, this aptly delivered diatribe evoked thunderous applause. The chairman genially announced, ”Mr. Rogosin has stuck his neck out,” asked for comment. It quickly appeared that there were at least a half-dozen psychologists in the room who still thought ESP might be a reality. These arose, one by one, to criticize the critic. One charged him with not approaching the problem in a neutral spirit, with making his own arbitrary definitions of Science and Truth.

Next day Dr. Steuart Henderson Britt of George Washington University in another address said, that while he was willing to leave the mathematics of ESP to the mathematicians, he was not willing to overlook the fact that Rhine had not published all his scores, or the possibility that some of his subjects had juggled the results to please their mentor. He asserted that ESP cards are so heavily printed that the designs can be told either by sight or by touch from the back, proved this point when he correctly read 24 out of 25 ESP cards whose faces he could not see. Psychological chuckles filled the hall as he did so.

Dr. Frederick Hausen Lund of Temple University announced that he had tried ESP experiments under rigid control (cards beyond reach and out of sight) on 596 students, found no instance of significantly high scoring.

Among other matters discussed by the psychologists:

Music 6 Meals, “This is a report,” declared Dr. Gregory S. Razran of Columbia University, “of an extensive experiment to change human preferences for music, paintings, and photographs of young college girls, by a differential conditioning technique.” His technique consisted of presenting neutral or distasteful items during a free lunch, items which were already preferred before or after the lunch. “The results, show the differential conditioning to be remarkably effective. Even one lunch was sufficient to produce considerable and reliable changes in the group tastes. … It appears that the preferential value of one or another form of music or art is largely associative in nature.”

Freshman Worries, Psychologist James Page of the University of Rochester, investigating the worries of male & female university freshmen, found that girls worried mainly over whether they were popular, that boys were afraid of being underweight, of not taking sufficient interest in their work, of not being able to meet their responsibilities or find financial security after graduation, of having to support their parents in old age. Two percent of the boys and 4% of the girls feared going insane. Three percent of the boys, none of the girls feared they were adopted children. About 10% in each sex were afraid of death. In general, the less intelligent freshmen worried more than their mental superiors.

.