Formal discipline or transfer of training concerns itself with the question as to how far training in one subject, along one line, influences other lines.  How far, for instance, training in reasoning in mathematics helps a child to reason in history, in morals, in household administration; how far memorizing gems of poetry or dates in history aids memory when it is applied to learning stenography or botany; how far giving attention to the gymnasium will insure attention to sermons and one’s social engagements.  The question is, How far does the special training one gets in home and school fit him to react to the environment of life with its new and complex situations?  Put in another way, the question is what effect upon other bonds does forming this particular situation response series of bonds have.  The practical import of the question and its answer is tremendous.  Most of our present school system, both in subject matter and method, is built upon the assumption that one answer is correct—­if it is false, much work remains to be done by the present-day education.

The point of view which was held until recent years is best made clear by a series of quotations.

“Since the mind is a unit and the faculties are simply phases or manifestations of its activity, whatever strengthens one faculty indirectly strengthens all the others.  The verbal memory seems to be an exception to this statement, however, for it may be abnormally cultivated without involving to any profitable extent the other faculties.  But only things that are rightly perceived and rightly understood can be rightly remembered.  Hence whatever develops the acquisitive and assimilative powers will also strengthen memory; and, conversely, rightly strengthening the memory necessitates the developing and training of the other powers.” (R.N.  Roark, Method in Education, p. 27.)

“It is as a means of training the faculties of perception and generalization that the study of such a language as Latin in comparison with English is so valuable.” (C.L.  Morgan, Psychology for Teachers, p. 186.)

“Arithmetic, if judiciously taught, forms in the pupil habits of mental attention, argumentative sequence, absolute accuracy, and satisfaction in truth as a result, that do not seem to spring equally from the study of any other subject suitable to this elementary stage of instruction.” (Joseph Payne, Lectures on Education, Vol.  I, p. 260.)

“By means of experimental and observational work in science, not only will his attention be excited, the power of observation, previously awakened, much strengthened, and the senses exercised and disciplined, but the very important habit of doing homage to the authority of facts rather than to the authority of men, be initiated.” (Ibid., p. 261.)

The view maintained by these writers is that the mind is made up of certain elemental powers such as attention, reasoning, observation, imagination, and the like, each of which acts as a unit.  Training any one of these powers means simply its exercise irrespective of the material used.  The facility gained through this exercise may then be transferred to other subjects or situations, which are quite different.  The present point of view with regard to this question is very different, as is shown by the following quotations: