although he has quite enough experience with alcohol to know how he could easily rescue himself from his "terrible suffering," does not have the habit of thus rescuing himself, whereas the average alcoholic has acquired that very foolish habit. Does not the difference in intelligence level offer a more (among various additional ones) acceptable explanation of the possession of, or freedom from, such a foolish habit, than the supposition of different quantities of a purely subjective and therefore not measurable "terrible suffering and temptation"?

2. That alcohol, to a superficial and easily illusioned observer (who may be the very person who took the alcohol), changes a person from being less reactive to being more reactive, that is (shifting the system of coördinates) from more depression to less depression, is so generally agreed on, that this fact, too, does not call for witnesses named among those reporting their experiments. But this is entirely in agreement with the fact that the drug weakens certain (which, we do not know yet) functional properties of the nervous system. The only outward weakening which the superficial interpreter regards as plain weakening, however, is unfortunately that of the drugged person's "acting sleepy." But the drugged person's "acting lively," when that really consists in no more than making puns, being clownish or considering all risks of life as having vanished, is not the logical opposite of "acting weakened, sleepy." Is it not a "weakening," too, when the best reactions a drugged person can make consist in repeating the stimulus word, or saying nonsense, or being wordy? Compare Jörger (14) and Miles (22).

It would add much to the clearness of expression if psychologists would agree to speak of the "weakening" effect of alcohol and to avoid entirely the misleading term "depressing," however popular the latter may be. And still better reasons do psychologists have for never formulating such a question as that of the "depressing or stimulating" effect of a drug, for a psychologist ought never to speak of stimulation unless he has in mind a stimulus acting on a sense organ. Why not formulate the question by using the terms "weakening and strengthening a certain functional property of the nervous tissue" rather than "depressing and stimulating"?

3. There seems to be little doubt that the difference between the effects of small and of large doses of alcohol is nothing but the difference between little and more effect of the same kind on the same tissues. Some authors state this very emphatically. "Variation in size of dose causes only quantitative change," Lange and Sprecht (17). "The larger the dose, the greater is the effect," Karlson (15).

4. The effect of the alcohol on the nervous system reaches a maximum about 90 or 100 minutes after imbibing (Dodge and Benedict (6), and Benedict (2)).

No sufficient light seems to have been shed during the work of the last decade on the following questions: Does the time when the maximum effect is reached differ with the size of the dose? It is quite possible, for example, that a small dose will reach its maximum effect sooner than a large dose. Does the effect increase first rapidly and then slowly during the interval between imbibing and the maximum effect, or the reverse? And how about the manner in which the effect decreases with further time? Here are large open questions for the future investigator.

5. Whether the alcohol dose affects the higher and the lower centers of the nervous system equally or unequally is a question of enormous significance. The consensus of opinion seems to be that the function of the higher centers is more weakened than that of the lower centers. But the fact is expressed in various kinds of phraseology. Benedict apologizes for the apparent observation to the contrary by introducing the mysterious stranger of an "autogenic reënforcement" which causes such an illusory observation. The present writer would put this autogenic reënforcement in the same class with such phenomena as a person not being able to do good work in the morning until he has strengthened himself by eating breakfast. Likewise, some people may strengthen themselves by a dose of alcohol. Rivers, for example, found typewriting speed increased. Others do it by silent, or loud, prayer.

Karlson states that "alcohol impairs every faculty; the higher the faculty, the greater is the effect." Karlson's statement, that the impairment is one of quality rather than of quantity of work, seems to have the same meaning. Does not the quality depend on higher centers more than the quantity? And the rats of Bagg (1) who did not get out of the maze very easily after having inhaled alcohol fumes probably used in this work the very highest centers which Nature had placed at their disposal.

The chief deficiency of the experimental investigations concerning the difference of the drug effects on higher and lower centers consists in the fact that really high centers in the human nervous system have been systematically avoided by the experimenters. This is true not only for the alcohol investigations, but for those of all other drugs. But we may as well point out here at once this general deficiency with regard to alcohol.

Dodge and Benedict, for example, have intentionally selected for their observations "processes as remote as possible from voluntary, conscious modification and control." The idea obviously was a double one: first, to study functions as simple and primitive as possible, served by as low centers as possible; and secondly, to exclude the trouble caused by the learning process, which prevents the measurements, even without changing the dose of the drug, from being constant. So much, so good, as far as the lower centers are concerned. But with the higher centers the idea would again be a double one: first, to study functions as complex as possible, served by the very highest centers; and secondly, to exclude again the learning process.

That, however, is obviously impossible. There are no high intellectual functions which are not subject to the learning process, that is, to improvement from case to case. It does not do any good to select as highly intellectual functions such functions as typewriting and multiplication. Such functions as the use of the multiplication table are not, in human life, to be considered as highly intellectual. And the worst is, that even these are still subject to the learning process. Some investigators have tried to overcome this last-mentioned difficulty by making the subjects first go through a "preliminary practice." But they will not find anybody credulous enough to believe that that preliminary practice really abolished all further learning.

The present writer believes that one should bravely face the enemy, that is, the learning process. Indeed, instead of avoiding him one ought to invite him to coöperate. If one wants to discover the influence of drugs on intellectual processes, one ought to select the very highest intellectual processes, provided only that one can measure them. How to get rid of the learning curve is a separate problem. The present writer believes that that problem is easily solved.

He is using in experiments now in progress a simple method which seems to be capable of solving it. But the experiments will not be published until more data have been accumulated, and he will therefore here abstain from counting his chickens before they are hatched. He merely wants to emphasize that in his opinion one serious deficiency of the work done during the last decade consists in avoiding all those processes which are subject to improvement during continued testing. They are the very processes that interest us most. An artist drinking a bottle of wine before going to work does not intend thereby to improve his knee jerk. And the student who drinks a cup of tea before mathematics examination does not intend thereby to improve his use of the multiplication table. The highest intellectual processes ought to receive the chief attention of the experimenters of the future.

a

So far as tobacco is concerned, our present knowledge is much less satisfactory than that with regard to alcohol. Berry (3) and Bush (5) report absolutely contradictory results. The former reports that on smoke days the work was done in less time and with fewer errors. The latter reports a decrease in efficiency. The present writer, on the basis of his (unpublished) experimental data, believes that Berry is right and Bush is wrong, so far as the real drug effect of the smoke is in question. Here as with alcohol the "autogenic reënforcement" (whatever that may be; call it suggestion, if you wish) is a very disturbing factor in experiments. But in standing with Berry, the writer does not wish to disagree with C. K. Taylor (24), who brings forward plenty of evidence that smoking is an evil, especially for those who are not yet fully grown. And the same view is suggested by W. H. Burnham (4), even though he points out that the fact of smoker boys being of inferior scholarship is likely to be due to a third factor as a common cause, namely, social inclination.

A good deal has been learned about caffein and its relatives. C. K. Taylor (25) tells us the very interesting fact that coffeedrinking children in the schools (like smoker boys) are not likely to be found among the physically and mentally superior children. But he does not prove that they have been stunted exclusively or chiefly or in any degree by drinking coffee. He fails to emphasize that coffee-drinking children are quite likely to have inferior parents. Frankfurter (7) reports increased efficiency in typewriting resulting from tea and caffein. The elaborate work of H. L. Hollingworth (1) is in full agreement with this.

Raising the same five questions which we raised with respect to alcohol, the answers would be the following: (1) General addiction or abstention from tea or coffee seems to make no appreciable difference in the effect of a dose. This condition is thus very different from that of alcohol. It does make a difference, however, whether the stomach is empty or full. And a given dose has less effect on a heavier body. (2) The effect is a strengthening of certain functional properties of the nervous system. (3) The effect increases with the dose. An overlarge dose, however, is likely, after a short time of increased efficiency, to result in decreased efficiency. This seems to be causally connected with the fact well established by physiological investigators during the last decade, that large doses of caffein have a harmful effect on many different kinds of tissues of the animal body. (4) The effect increases during the first hour, is still noticeable after four hours with little decrease and may last quite a while longer. This has some significance on its effect on sleep. A very small dose, however, is not likely to interfere with sleep. The exact rise and fall of the time curve of this drug is a problem of the future. The positive effect, however, does not seem to be followed at any time by a negative reaction. (5) The drug seems, like alcohol, to affect the higher centers more than the lower ones. Further evidence is still needed.

Schilling (27), in what is probably the most recent experimental contribution, finds in reaction time tests always continued for an hour that the reaction time during that hour becomes longer and longer, and more so after imbibing caffein or acetanelid than after imbibing a mere "control". The reviewer thinks that a plausible way of interpreting the result of Schilling very briefly, and therefore in very popular language, would be that of saying: The caffein increased the boredom or impatience incident to the experimental procedure and therefore increased the reaction time through causing loss of interest in its being measured.

Strychnin is one of those drugs which are not offered to us in the grocery store. Nevertheless, it interests the psychologist because the answer obtained for the above five questions may help him to decide whether those five questions are well formulated. (1) Nothing seems to be known about the influence of previous addiction. (2) The effect seems to be a strengthening of a functional property of the nervous tissue. But speaking of human efficiency in general, Poffenberger teaches that moderate doses of strychnin taken into the stomach produce no clear-cut change. (3) As to the difference in effect between large and small doses, when Lashley (18) tells us that a large dose facilitates (in an albino rat) the learning of a maze, whereas caffein retards the learning,