sparrow, because they have a tail; grass, cotton, tree and thistle, because they are green. Other similarities given are far-fetched or inaccurate. A hat and a coat are alike because they are gold rimmed; a rose, a potato and a tree, because they have a skin or heart. There is little logical connection among K's concepts; they do not light up one another: they have not been subsumed under classes; they lack definiteness of content.
All of this is again brought out in the vocabulary test, which in a remarkable degree is a test of one s ability to distil concepts—from experience. Mere schooling affects it a little, but very little. Although K has attended school fourteen years, his vocabulary is less than a year beyond the standard for average children of his own mental age. Both the school and the cultural influences of a superior home have failed to give him an understanding of such common words as civil, brunette, bewail, priceless, disproportionate, tolerate, shrewd, repose, character or reputation. His definitions are occasionally infantile in form (given in terms of use, etc.), but are more often vague, or grossly inaccurate without being wholly irrelevant. For example, lecture means "to be taught"; ramble, "to go fast"; conscientious, "very good in his work"; brunette, "white"; tolerate, "to get away from." All of these words he has probably seen or heard scores of times, but he has failed to grasp their meanings because of inability to analyze the situations in which they have appeared.
Summing it all up we may say that K responds normally to simple situations directly sensed, and that his inferiority is chiefly evident in responses involving intellectual initiative, planning, range and flexibility of association, analysis of a situation into its elements, alertness, and the direction of attention toward the significant aspects of experience. Most of all, K is stupid because he is not adept in the formation and manipulation of concepts; because he is unable to master the intellectual shorthand of general ideas.
What is the practical bearing of the above facts on K's vocational outlook? While an exact answer to this question is at present not possible, a few tentative predictions may be ventured. K is at present performing the duties of a regular clerk in his father's store, apparently with success, but it is unlikely that he will ever be able to manage a business of any considerable importance. That he will ever succeed his father in the local bank is hardly in the bounds of possibility. Perhaps he will know how to get credit and how to grant it with fair discretion, but he will never understand the principles of credit by which banking is carried on. He may learn how to purchase bonds, to clip coupons, and how to save his income; but he will never know what a bond is. That he could become a minister, lawyer or doctor is unthinkable. He will never engage in theological disputes or concern himself about
