[Letters to Editor]

Abstract

THE review in NATURE of Prof. Spearman's book stated precisely what was possible in a critique which must not be of inordinate length. The review of the work took what its author in his present communication considers the kernel of his researches and of his recent book, namely, the hypothetical g and s, and considered whether Prof. Spearman was justified in making such sweeping claims for the hypothesis of a general and specific factors. The reviewer held, and still holds, that whether that hypothesis be verifiable or not, the data hitherto cited in favour of it are far from demonstrating its truth. In reply to Prof. Spearman's numbered statements the reviewer wishes to make the following counter statements.