Mental Training: Means, Ends, Psychology, and Logic

In the preceding chapters we have considered (i) what thinking is; (ii) the importance of its special training; (iii) the natural tendencies that lend themselves to its training; and (iv) some of the special obstacles in the way of its training under school conditions. We come now to the relation of logic to the purpose of mental training.

In the preceding chapters, we considered (i) what thinking is and (ii) why special training in thinking is important. We also considered (iii) the natural tendencies that support this training and (iv) some specific obstacles to it in schools. We now turn to the relation of logic to the purpose of mental training.

In its broadest sense, any thinking that ends in a conclusion is logical—whether the conclusion reached be justified or fallacious; that is, the term logical covers both the logically good and the illogical or the logically bad. In its narrowest sense, the term logical refers only to what is demonstrated to follow necessarily from premises that are definite in meaning and that are either self-evidently true, or that have been previously proved to be true. Stringency of proof is here the equivalent of the logical. In this sense mathematics and formal logic (perhaps as a branch of mathematics) alone are strictly logical. Logical, however, is used in a third sense, which is at once more vital and more practical; to denote, namely, the systematic care, negative and positive, taken to safeguard reflection so that it may yield the best results under the given conditions. If only the word artificial were associated with the idea of art, or expert skill gained through voluntary apprenticeship (instead of suggesting the factitious and unreal), we might say that logical refers to artificial thought.

In its broadest sense, any thinking that reaches a conclusion is logical, whether the conclusion is justified or fallacious. In other words, logical covers both logically good and illogical, or logically bad, thinking. In its narrowest sense, logical refers only to what can be shown to follow necessarily from premises with definite meanings. Those premises must be either self-evidently true or previously proved true. In this sense, being logical means meeting a strict standard of proof. Only mathematics and formal logic are strictly logical in this sense. Formal logic may be a branch of mathematics. But logical is also used in a third sense, which is both more vital and more practical. It means taking systematic care, both negative and positive, to safeguard reflection. The aim is to produce the best results under the given conditions. The word artificial suggests something contrived and unreal. But if it instead brought to mind art, or expert skill gained through voluntary apprenticeship, we might call logical thought artificial.

In this sense, the word logical is synonymous with wide-awake, thorough, and careful reflection—thought in its best sense (ante, p. 5). Reflection is turning a topic over in various aspects and in various lights so that nothing significant about it shall be overlooked—almost as one might turn a stone over to see what its hidden side is like or what is covered by it. Thoughtfulness means, practically, the same thing as careful attention; to give our mind to a subject is to give heed to it, to take pains with it. In speaking of reflection, we naturally use the words weigh, ponder, deliberate—terms implying a certain delicate and scrupulous balancing of things against one another. Closely related names are scrutiny, examination, consideration, inspection—terms which imply close and careful vision. Again, to think is to relate things to one another definitely, to "put two and two together" as we say. Analogy with the accuracy and definiteness of mathematical combinations gives us such expressions as calculate, reckon, account for; and even reason itself—ratio. Caution, carefulness, thoroughness, definiteness, exactness, orderliness, methodic arrangement, are, then, the traits by which we mark off the logical from what is random and casual on one side, and from what is academic and formal on the other.

In this sense, logical means the same as alert, thorough, and careful reflection. It means thought at its best (ante, p. 5). Reflection means considering a subject from different angles and in different lights so that nothing important is overlooked. It is much like turning over a stone to see its hidden side or what lies beneath it. Thoughtfulness means practically the same thing as careful attention. To give our mind to a subject is to pay attention to it and take care with it. When we speak of reflection, we naturally use words like weigh, ponder, and deliberate. These words suggest a delicate and careful balancing of things against one another. Closely related words include scrutiny, examination, consideration, and inspection. These suggest looking closely and carefully. Again, to think is to connect things clearly to one another, to "put two and two together," as we say. By analogy with the accuracy and precision of mathematical combinations, we get expressions such as calculate, reckon, and account for. Even reason itself is related to ratio. Caution, carefulness, thoroughness, precision, exactness, orderliness, and methodical arrangement are the traits that distinguish logical thinking. They set it apart from random and casual thinking on one side and from academic and formal thinking on the other.

No argument is needed to point out that the educator is concerned with the logical in its practical and vital sense. Argument is perhaps needed to show that the intellectual (as distinct from the moral) end of education is entirely and only the logical in this sense; namely, the formation of careful, alert, and thorough habits of thinking. The chief difficulty in the way of recognition of this principle is a false conception of the relation between the psychological tendencies of an individual and his logical achievements. If it be assumed—as it is so frequently—that these have, intrinsically, nothing to do with each other, then logical training is inevitably regarded as something foreign and extraneous, something to be ingrafted upon the individual from without, so that it is absurd to identify the object of education with the development of logical power.

No argument is needed to show that educators are concerned with logic in its practical and vital sense. But an argument may be needed to show that the intellectual (as distinct from the moral) aim of education is entirely and only logic in this sense. That is, it is the formation of careful, alert, and thorough habits of thinking. The main obstacle to recognizing this principle is a false idea about the relationship between a person's psychological tendencies and logical achievements. People frequently assume that these have nothing to do with each other by nature. If so, logical training is inevitably seen as something foreign and external, something that must be grafted onto the person from outside. On that assumption, it is absurd to identify the aim of education with the development of logical power.

The conception that the psychology of individuals has no intrinsic connections with logical methods and results is held, curiously enough, by two opposing schools of educational theory. To one school, the natural¹² is primary and fundamental; and its tendency is to make little of distinctly intellectual nurture. Its mottoes are freedom, self-expression, individuality, spontaneity, play, interest, natural unfolding, and so on. In its emphasis upon individual attitude and activity, it sets slight store upon organized subject-matter, or the material of study, and conceives method to consist of various devices for stimulating and evoking, in their natural order of growth, the native potentialities of individuals.

Curiously, two opposing schools of educational theory share the same belief. Both hold that individual psychology has no inherent connection to logical methods and results. For one school, the natural¹² comes first and is fundamental. This school tends to give little importance to intellectual development as such. Its watchwords include freedom, self-expression, individuality, spontaneity, play, interest, and natural unfolding. It emphasizes individual attitudes and activity and places little value on organized subject matter, or the material studied. It sees method as a set of ways to stimulate and bring out individuals' natural potential in its natural order of growth.

The other school estimates highly the value of the logical, but conceives the natural tendency of individuals to be averse, or at least indifferent, to logical achievement. It relies upon subject-matter—upon matter already defined and classified. Method, then, has to do with the devices by which these characteristics may be imported into a mind naturally reluctant and rebellious. Hence its mottoes are discipline, instruction, restraint, voluntary or conscious effort, the necessity of tasks, and so on. From this point of view studies, rather than attitudes and habits, embody the logical factor in education. The mind becomes logical only by learning to conform to an external subject-matter. To produce this conformity, the study should first be analyzed (by text-book or teacher) into its logical elements; then each of these elements should be defined; finally, all of the elements should be arranged in series or classes according to logical formulæ or general principles. Then the pupil learns the definitions one by one; and progressively adding one to another builds up the logical system, and thereby is himself gradually imbued, from without, with logical quality.

The other school of thought places great value on logic. But it sees people as naturally opposed, or at least indifferent, to achieving logical thought. It relies on subject matter, material that has already been defined and classified. Method, then, concerns the devices used to bring these qualities into a mind that is naturally reluctant and rebellious. So its guiding ideas are discipline, instruction, restraint, voluntary or conscious effort, the need for tasks, and so on. From this point of view, subjects of study, rather than attitudes and habits, embody the logical element in education. The mind becomes logical only by learning to conform to subject matter imposed from outside. To produce this conformity, the textbook or teacher should first analyze the subject into its logical elements. Then each element should be defined. Finally, all the elements should be arranged in sequences or classes according to logical formulas or general principles. The pupil then learns the definitions one by one. By gradually adding each definition to the others, the pupil builds up the logical system. In this way, the pupil gradually acquires logical qualities from outside.

This description will gain meaning through an illustration. Suppose the subject is geography. The first thing is to give its definition, marking it off from every other subject. Then the various abstract terms upon which depends the scientific development of the science are stated and defined one by one—pole, equator, ecliptic, zone,—from the simpler units to the more complex which are formed out of them; then the more concrete elements are taken in similar series: continent, island, coast, promontory, cape, isthmus, peninsula, ocean, lake, coast, gulf, bay, and so on. In acquiring this material, the mind is supposed not only to gain important information, but, by accommodating itself to ready-made logical definitions, generalizations, and classifications, gradually to acquire logical habits.

An example will make this description clearer. Suppose the subject is geography. The first step is to define geography, distinguishing it from every other subject. Next, the abstract terms needed for the scientific development of geography are stated and defined one by one: pole, equator, ecliptic, and zone. The terms go from simpler units to more complex ones formed from them. Then the more concrete elements follow in a similar series: continent, island, coast, promontory, cape, isthmus, peninsula, ocean, lake, coast, gulf, bay, and so on. In learning this material, the mind is supposed to gain important information. It is also supposed to develop logical habits gradually by adapting to ready-made logical definitions, generalizations, and classifications.

This type of method has been applied to every subject taught in the schools—reading, writing, music, physics, grammar, arithmetic. Drawing for example, has been taught on the theory that since all pictorial representation is a matter of combining straight and curved lines, the simplest procedure is to have the pupil acquire the ability first to draw straight lines in various positions (horizontal, perpendicular, diagonals at various angles), then typical curves; and finally, to combine straight and curved lines in various permutations to construct actual pictures. This seemed to give the ideal "logical" method, beginning with analysis into elements, and then proceeding in regular order to more and more complex syntheses, each element being defined when used, and thereby clearly understood.

This type of method has been applied to every subject taught in schools, including reading, writing, music, physics, grammar, and arithmetic. For example, drawing has been taught on the theory that all pictures are made by combining straight and curved lines. On this theory, the simplest approach is to have students first learn to draw straight lines in various positions: horizontal, vertical, and diagonal at various angles. Next, they learn to draw typical curves. Finally, they combine straight and curved lines in various ways to make actual pictures. This seemed to offer the ideal "logical" method. It began by breaking the subject into elements, then proceeded in a regular order to increasingly complex combinations. Each element was defined when used and was therefore clearly understood.

Even when this method in its extreme form is not followed, few schools (especially of the middle or upper elementary grades) are free from an exaggerated attention to forms supposedly employed by the pupil if he gets his result logically. It is thought that there are certain steps arranged in a certain order, which express preëminently an understanding of the subject, and the pupil is made to "analyze" his procedure into these steps, i.e. to learn a certain routine formula of statement. While this method is usually at its height in grammar and arithmetic, it invades also history and even literature, which are then reduced, under plea of intellectual training, to "outlines," diagrams, and schemes of division and subdivision. In memorizing this simulated cut and dried copy of the logic of an adult, the child generally is induced to stultify his own subtle and vital logical movement. The adoption by teachers of this misconception of logical method has probably done more than anything else to bring pedagogy into disrepute; for to many persons "pedagogy" means precisely a set of mechanical, self-conscious devices for replacing by some cast-iron external scheme the personal mental movement of the individual.

Even when this method is not followed in its extreme form, few schools are free from excessive attention to form. This is especially true in the middle and upper elementary grades. Schools pay too much attention to the forms a pupil supposedly uses to reach a result logically. They assume that certain steps, taken in a certain order, best show an understanding of the subject. So the pupil is made to "analyze" the process into these steps, that is, to learn a routine formula for stating them. Although this method is usually most prominent in grammar and arithmetic, it also invades history and even literature. Under the pretext of intellectual training, these subjects are reduced to "outlines," diagrams, and systems of divisions and subdivisions. By memorizing this imitation of an adult’s neat, ready-made logic, the child is generally led to stifle their own subtle and vital processes of logical thought. Teachers’ adoption of this misunderstanding of logical method has probably done more than anything else to bring pedagogy into disrepute. For many people, "pedagogy" means precisely a set of mechanical, self-conscious devices. These devices replace a person’s own mental processes with a rigid scheme imposed from outside.

A reaction inevitably occurs from the poor results that accrue from these professedly "logical" methods. Lack of interest in study, habits of inattention and procrastination, positive aversion to intellectual application, dependence upon sheer memorizing and mechanical routine with only a modicum of understanding by the pupil of what he is about, show that the theory of logical definition, division, gradation, and system does not work out practically as it is theoretically supposed to work. The consequent disposition—as in every reaction—is to go to the opposite extreme. The "logical" is thought to be wholly artificial and extraneous; teacher and pupil alike are to turn their backs upon it, and to work toward the expression of existing aptitudes and tastes. Emphasis upon natural tendencies and powers as the only possible starting-point of development is indeed wholesome. But the reaction is false, and hence misleading, in what it ignores and denies: the presence of genuinely intellectual factors in existing powers and interests.

The poor results of these supposedly "logical" methods inevitably provoke a reaction. Students lose interest in study, become inattentive, and develop habits of procrastination. They develop an active dislike of intellectual effort. They depend on rote memorization and mechanical routine, with little understanding of what they are doing. These results show that the theory of logical definition, division, gradation, and system does not work in practice as it is supposed to work in theory. As with every reaction, the tendency is then to go to the opposite extreme. The "logical" is thought to be entirely artificial and irrelevant. Teachers and students alike are expected to turn their backs on it and work to express existing abilities and tastes. Emphasizing natural tendencies and powers as the only possible starting point for development is indeed beneficial. But the reaction is mistaken, and therefore misleading, in what it ignores and denies: existing powers and interests contain genuinely intellectual elements.

What is conventionally termed logical (namely, the logical from the standpoint of subject-matter) represents in truth the logic of the trained adult mind. Ability to divide a subject, to define its elements, and to group them into classes according to general principles represents logical capacity at its best point reached after thorough training. The mind that habitually exhibits skill in divisions, definitions, generalizations, and systematic recapitulations no longer needs training in logical methods. But it is absurd to suppose that a mind which needs training because it cannot perform these operations can begin where the expert mind stops. The logical from the standpoint of subject-matter represents the goal, the last term of training, not the point of departure.

What is conventionally called logical means logic from the standpoint of the subject matter. In fact, it represents the logic of a trained adult mind. The ability to divide a subject, define its elements, and group them by general principles represents logical ability at its best. This level is reached after thorough training. A mind that habitually divides, defines, generalizes, and systematically summarizes with skill no longer needs training in logical methods. But a mind that cannot perform these operations needs training. It is absurd to suppose that such a mind can begin where the expert mind ends. Logic from the standpoint of the subject matter is the goal, the end of training, not the starting point.

In truth, the mind at every stage of development has its own logic. The error of the notion that by appeal to spontaneous tendencies and by multiplication of materials we may completely dismiss logical considerations, lies in overlooking how large a part curiosity, inference, experimenting, and testing already play in the pupil's life. Therefore it underestimates the intellectual factor in the more spontaneous play and work of individuals—the factor that alone is truly educative. Any teacher who is alive to the modes of thought naturally operative in the experience of the normal child will have no difficulty in avoiding the identification of the logical with a ready-made organization of subject-matter, as well as the notion that the only way to escape this error is to pay no attention to logical considerations. Such a teacher will have no difficulty in seeing that the real problem of intellectual education is the transformation of natural powers into expert, tested powers: the transformation of more or less casual curiosity and sporadic suggestion into attitudes of alert, cautious, and thorough inquiry. He will see that the psychological and the logical, instead of being opposed to each other (or even independent of each other), are connected as the earlier and the later stages in one continuous process of normal growth. The natural or psychological activities, even when not consciously controlled by logical considerations, have their own intellectual function and integrity; conscious and deliberate skill in thinking, when it is achieved, makes habitual or second nature. The first is already logical in spirit; the last, in presenting an ingrained disposition and attitude, is then as psychological (as personal) as any caprice or chance impulse could be.

In truth, the mind has its own logic at every stage of development. Some believe we can ignore logical considerations entirely by appealing to spontaneous tendencies and providing more materials. This idea overlooks how much curiosity, inference, experimentation, and testing already matter in a pupil’s life. It therefore underestimates the intellectual factor in people’s more spontaneous play and work. That factor alone is truly educational. A teacher who recognizes the ways a typical child naturally thinks through experience will have no difficulty avoiding two errors. The first is equating logic with a ready-made organization of subject matter. The second is believing that the only escape from this error is to ignore logical considerations. Such a teacher will readily see the real problem of intellectual education. It is to transform natural abilities into skilled, tested ones. More or less casual curiosity and occasional suggestions must become habits of alert, cautious, and thorough inquiry. The teacher will see that the psychological and the logical are not opposed or even independent. Instead, they are connected as the earlier and later stages of one continuous process of normal growth. Natural or psychological activities have their own intellectual function and integrity. This is true even when logical considerations do not consciously guide them. When conscious, deliberate skill in thinking is achieved, it becomes habitual, or second nature. The first is already logical in spirit. The last, once it becomes an ingrained disposition and attitude, is as psychological (as personal) as any whim or chance impulse.

Discipline of mind is thus, in truth, a result rather than a cause. Any mind is disciplined in a subject in which independent intellectual initiative and control have been achieved. Discipline represents original native endowment turned, through gradual exercise, into effective power. So far as a mind is disciplined, control of method in a given subject has been attained so that the mind is able to manage itself independently without external tutelage. The aim of education is precisely to develop intelligence of this independent and effective type—a disciplined mind. Discipline is positive and constructive.

Mental discipline, then, is really a result rather than a cause. A mind is disciplined in a subject when it can think and act independently in that subject. Discipline is natural ability developed through gradual practice into effective power. To the extent that a mind is disciplined, it has mastered the methods of a subject. It can therefore manage itself independently, without outside guidance. The aim of education is precisely to develop this kind of independent and effective intelligence, a disciplined mind. Discipline is positive and constructive.

Discipline, however, is frequently regarded as something negative—as a painfully disagreeable forcing of mind away from channels congenial to it into channels of constraint, a process grievous at the time but necessary as preparation for a more or less remote future. Discipline is then generally identified with drill; and drill is conceived after the mechanical analogy of driving, by unremitting blows, a foreign substance into a resistant material; or is imaged after the analogy of the mechanical routine by which raw recruits are trained to a soldierly bearing and habits that are naturally wholly foreign to their possessors. Training of this latter sort, whether it be called discipline or not, is not mental discipline. Its aim and result are not habits of thinking, but uniform external modes of action. By failing to ask what he means by discipline, many a teacher is misled into supposing that he is developing mental force and efficiency by methods which in fact restrict and deaden intellectual activity, and which tend to create mechanical routine, or mental passivity and servility.

Discipline, however, is often seen as something negative. It is seen as painfully forcing the mind away from paths it naturally prefers and into paths of constraint. This process is thought to be painful at the time but necessary as preparation for a more or less distant future. Discipline is then generally equated with drill. Drill is imagined as driving a foreign substance into a resistant material with repeated blows. Or it is compared to the mechanical routine that trains raw recruits in a soldier’s bearing and habits, which are naturally quite foreign to them. This kind of training, whether called discipline or not, is not mental discipline. Its aim and result are not habits of thinking, but uniform external modes of action. Many teachers fail to ask what they mean by discipline. As a result, they mistakenly believe they are developing mental strength and efficiency through certain methods. In fact, those methods restrict and deaden intellectual activity. They also tend to produce mechanical routine, or mental passivity and servility.

When discipline is conceived in intellectual terms (as the habitual power of effective mental attack), it is identified with freedom in its true sense. For freedom of mind means mental power capable of independent exercise, emancipated from the leading strings of others, not mere unhindered external operation. When spontaneity or naturalness is identified with more or less casual discharge of transitory impulses, the tendency of the educator is to supply a multitude of stimuli in order that spontaneous activity may be kept up. All sorts of interesting materials, equipments, tools, modes of activity, are provided in order that there may be no flagging of free self-expression. This method overlooks some of the essential conditions of the attainment of genuine freedom.

When discipline is understood intellectually, it means the habitual ability to tackle problems effectively. In this sense, discipline is the same as true freedom. Freedom of mind means the power to think independently, free from the guidance of others. It does not merely mean being able to act without external restraints. Sometimes spontaneity or naturalness is understood as the more or less casual release of passing impulses. When this happens, educators tend to provide many stimuli to keep spontaneous activity going. They provide all sorts of interesting materials, equipment, tools, and activities so that free self-expression does not flag. This approach overlooks some essential conditions for achieving genuine freedom.

(a) Direct immediate discharge or expression of an impulsive tendency is fatal to thinking. Only when the impulse is to some extent checked and thrown back upon itself does reflection ensue. It is, indeed, a stupid error to suppose that arbitrary tasks must be imposed from without in order to furnish the factor of perplexity and difficulty which is the necessary cue to thought. Every vital activity of any depth and range inevitably meets obstacles in the course of its effort to realize itself—a fact that renders the search for artificial or external problems quite superfluous. The difficulties that present themselves within the development of an experience are, however, to be cherished by the educator, not minimized, for they are the natural stimuli to reflective inquiry. Freedom does not consist in keeping up uninterrupted and unimpeded external activity, but is something achieved through conquering, by personal reflection, a way out of the difficulties that prevent an immediate overflow and a spontaneous success.

(a) Acting on an impulse immediately leaves no room for thought. Reflection occurs only when the impulse is checked to some extent and turned back on itself. It is a foolish mistake to think that tasks must be imposed from outside to create the confusion and difficulty that prompt thought. Every meaningful activity of any depth and scope inevitably meets obstacles as it tries to fulfill itself. There is no need to look for artificial or external problems. Educators should value the difficulties that arise as an experience develops, rather than minimize them. These difficulties naturally stimulate reflective inquiry. Freedom does not consist in keeping external activity continuous and unobstructed. Instead, freedom is achieved by using personal reflection to find a way through difficulties that prevent immediate expression and spontaneous success.

(b) The method that emphasizes the psychological and natural, but yet fails to see what an important part of the natural tendencies is constituted at every period of growth by curiosity, inference, and the desire to test, cannot secure a natural development. In natural growth each successive stage of activity prepares unconsciously, but thoroughly, the conditions for the manifestation of the next stage—as in the cycle of a plant's growth. There is no ground for assuming that "thinking" is a special, isolated natural tendency that will bloom inevitably in due season simply because various sense and motor activities have been freely manifested before; or because observation, memory, imagination, and manual skill have been previously exercised without thought. Only when thinking is constantly employed in using the senses and muscles for the guidance and application of observations and movements, is the way prepared for subsequent higher types of thinking.

(b) A method may emphasize what is psychological and natural, yet fail to recognize something important. At every stage of growth, curiosity, inference, and the desire to test are important natural tendencies. A method that fails to recognize this cannot achieve natural development. In natural growth, each stage of activity unconsciously but thoroughly prepares the conditions for the next stage to appear. A plant’s growth follows this cycle. There is no reason to assume that "thinking" is a separate, isolated natural tendency that will inevitably bloom in its own time. It does not inevitably bloom simply because the senses and muscles have previously been used freely. Nor does it do so because observation, memory, imagination, and manual skill have previously been exercised without thought. The way is prepared for higher forms of thinking only when thinking is constantly used to guide the senses and muscles and to guide and apply observations and movements.

At present, the notion is current that childhood is almost entirely unreflective—a period of mere sensory, motor, and memory development, while adolescence suddenly brings the manifestation of thought and reason.

Today, many people believe that children hardly reflect at all. They see childhood as a period of sensory, motor, and memory development, with thought and reason suddenly appearing in adolescence.

Adolescence is not, however, a synonym for magic. Doubtless youth should bring with it an enlargement of the horizon of childhood, a susceptibility to larger concerns and issues, a more generous and a more general standpoint toward nature and social life. This development affords an opportunity for thinking of a more comprehensive and abstract type than has previously obtained. But thinking itself remains just what it has been all the time: a matter of following up and testing the conclusions suggested by the facts and events of life. Thinking begins as soon as the baby who has lost the ball that he is playing with begins to foresee the possibility of something not yet existing—its recovery; and begins to forecast steps toward the realization of this possibility, and, by experimentation, to guide his acts by his ideas and thereby also test the ideas. Only by making the most of the thought-factor, already active in the experiences of childhood, is there any promise or warrant for the emergence of superior reflective power at adolescence, or at any later period.

Adolescence, however, is not magic. Youth should surely broaden the horizons of childhood. It should bring greater awareness of larger concerns and issues, and a more generous, broader view of nature and social life. This development creates an opportunity for broader and more abstract thinking than was possible before. But thinking itself remains what it has always been: following up and testing the conclusions suggested by life’s facts and events. Thinking begins when a baby who has lost a ball begins to imagine a possibility that has not yet occurred: finding it again. The baby then begins to plan steps toward finding the ball. Through experimentation, the baby uses ideas to guide actions and, in doing so, tests those ideas. Only by making the most of the thinking already active in childhood experiences can we expect or have reason to expect greater powers of reflection in adolescence or at any later stage.

(c) In any case positive habits are being formed: if not habits of careful looking into things, then habits of hasty, heedless, impatient glancing over the surface; if not habits of consecutively following up the suggestions that occur, then habits of haphazard, grasshopper-like guessing; if not habits of suspending judgment till inferences have been tested by the examination of evidence, then habits of credulity alternating with flippant incredulity, belief or unbelief being based, in either case, upon whim, emotion, or accidental circumstances. The only way to achieve traits of carefulness, thoroughness, and continuity (traits that are, as we have seen, the elements of the "logical") is by exercising these traits from the beginning, and by seeing to it that conditions call for their exercise.

(c) In any case, definite habits are being formed. If people do not develop habits of looking into things carefully, they develop habits of glancing over the surface hastily, carelessly, and impatiently. If they do not develop habits of following up each suggestion in order, they develop habits of random guessing, jumping about like grasshoppers. If they do not develop habits of withholding judgment until they have tested their conclusions by examining evidence, they develop habits of alternating between gullibility and casual disbelief. In either case, belief or disbelief is based on whim, emotion, or chance circumstances. As we have seen, carefulness, thoroughness, and continuity are the elements of the "logical." The only way to develop these traits is to practice them from the beginning and ensure that conditions call for their use.

Genuine freedom, in short, is intellectual; it rests in the trained power of thought, in ability to "turn things over," to look at matters deliberately, to judge whether the amount and kind of evidence requisite for decision is at hand, and if not, to tell where and how to seek such evidence. If a man's actions are not guided by thoughtful conclusions, then they are guided by inconsiderate impulse, unbalanced appetite, caprice, or the circumstances of the moment. To cultivate unhindered, unreflective external activity is to foster enslavement, for it leaves the person at the mercy of appetite, sense, and circumstance.

Genuine freedom, in short, is intellectual. It rests on the trained power of thought, on the ability to "turn things over" and consider matters carefully. It means judging whether enough of the right kind of evidence is available to make a decision. If not, it means knowing where and how to look for that evidence. If a person’s actions are not guided by thoughtful conclusions, they are guided by thoughtless impulse, unchecked desire, whim, or the circumstances of the moment. Encouraging unrestricted activity without reflection fosters enslavement. It leaves a person at the mercy of desire, sensation, and circumstance.