enormous powers of recuperation. The truths he sees in human nature will be those that he wants to see; the rest he will be blind to. So, in a subject where sense of perspective is everything, you can learn little of value except from someone whose sense of perspective is true.
I am bound to ask therefore: do psychologists view things in true perspective? I regret to say that in my opinion they frequently do not; and this opinion is shared by many of my profession, as well as by the general public. I stated in Part I what I thought the theoretical reason for this false perspective was; their theory regards man as ruled by cause and effect, and therefore as a machine. From the practical point of view, a few examples may make the position clearer.
Lawyers naturally judge psychologists by the way they give evidence in court: whether their evidence carries conviction, or whether frankly they hardly seem to believe what they are saying. I remember a middle-aged Irishman giving evidence that the accused had done what he did when he was in an epileptic episode; not when he was actually in a fit, but when he was half way towards having a fit. He gave his evidence extremely well in a very hostile atmosphere. Considerable scorn was poured on his evidence from all quarters, but he stood his ground well; and at the end of it all my impression was, “That man knows what he is talking about”.
On the other hand a psychologist gave evidence, in a case in which a colleague prosecuted, that the accused was fully responsible for his actions. He had been pressed in private for a considerable time by the prosecution about this, because if he had wavered and admitted that with this particular man it was arguable whether he was responsible or not, then the prosecution would have thrown their hand in, and accepted a plea of guilty to a lesser offence. The result would have been a substantial saving in public time and money. But no,….