their own professional skill requires that skill to be put into practice properly. For instance, the professional soldier presumably ought to be able to explain what he proposes to do on the battle-field with the troops under his command; but I imagine it would be a rare soldier who was able to explain his own capacity and power to lead his men. Probably he would lead them better, if he did not know. You can know too much, and be too self-conscious. The professional lawyer ought to be able to explain how he intends to present the case, and which facts he regards as crucial to be able to get the picture across. But not even the lawyer can explain why some witnesses are transparently honest, and others transparently dishonest. He can talk about demeanour, honest face, shifty eyes; but these are only details. The stark reality is there for everyone to see; and they do see it. The most real things in life are often in the intangible world of the spirit. Psychologists, if they try to analyse these things, only show how wide of the mark they are themselves.
No doubt one day, possibly quite soon, psychology will become a respectable science, commanding public confidence. At the moment, however, one cannot help thinking of the early days of science, when chemistry still had not quite shaken off its association with alchemy, nor physics with astrology. So I think it would be wise to steer clear of the concepts of traditional psychology, and instead, using the hypothesis which I have already elaborated that experience alone is cogent to create real beliefs in the mind, to concentrate on the dark mysterious world behind psychology. In other words, I will concentrate on the very fundamentals of human behaviour, love and hatred, which blossom and flower into marriage, divorce and crime. Not what effect these things have on the psyche, which is the science of psychology; but what the truth is about them, if it is possible to discover that truth, and the extent to which our society recognises the truth about them.