of the subjects reported that the first image was usually followed by others of different types.  The conclusions then, that individuals, children as well as adults, are rarely of one fixed type, the mixed type being the usual one, is being generally accepted.  In fact, it seems much more probable that materials and outside conditions can more easily be classified as usually arousing a certain type of image, than people can be classified into types.

The third point of controversy grows out of the second.  Some psychologists are asking what is the value of such a classification?  Suppose people could be put under types in imagery, what would be the practical advantage?  Such an attempt at classification is futile and not worth while, for two reasons.  First, the result of the mental processes—­the goal arrived at is the important thing, and the particular type of image used is of little importance.  Does it make any difference to the business man whether his clerk thinks in terms of the visual images of words or in terms of motor images so long as he sells the goods?  To the teacher of geography, does it make any difference whether John in his thinking of the value of trees is seeing them in his mind’s eye, or hearing the wind rustle through the leaves, or smelling the moist earth, leaf-mold, or having none of these images, if he gets the meaning, and reaches a right conclusion?  Second, the sense which gives the clearest, most dependable impressions is not the one necessarily in terms of which the experience is recalled.  One of the chief values urged for a classification according to image type of people, especially children, has been that the appeal could then be made through the corresponding sense organs.  For instance, Group A, being visualizers, will be asked to read the material silently; Group B, audiles, will have the material read to them; Group C, motiles, will be asked to read the material orally, or asked to dramatize it.  For each group the major appeal should be made in terms of the sense corresponding to their image type.  But such a correspondence as this does not exist.  An individual may learn best by use of his eyes and yet very seldom use visual images in recall.  This is true of most people in reading.  Most people grasp the meaning of a passage better when they read it than when they hear it read, and yet the predominant type of word image is auditory-motor.  Hence if any classification of children is attempted it should be according to the sense by means of which they learn best, and not according to some supposed image type.  Many methods of appeal for all children is the safest practical suggestion.