men in general, and to relate them to certain fundamental tendencies of their psychophysical organism.  As soon as this is done, it is easy theoretically to deduce that certain industrial functions are excellently adapted to the minds of women and that certain others stand in striking antagonism to them.  If the employment of large numbers is in question, and average values alone are involved, such a decision on the basis of group psychology may be adequate.  In most factories this vague sex psychology, to be sure, usually with a strong admixture of wage questions, suggests for which machines men and for which women ought to be employed.  But here again it is not at all improbable that in the case of a particular woman the traditional group value may be entirely misleading and the personality accordingly unfit for the place.  Only the subtle psychological individual analysis can overcome the superficial prejudices of group psychology.  The situation lies differently when problems of economic policy are before us.  Such general policies as, for instance, colonial politics, or immigration politics, or politics concerned with city and rural communities, or with coast and mountain population, will always have to be based on group psychology as far as the economic problems are involved, inasmuch as they refer to the average and not to the individual, differences.

Finally, another indirect scheme to determine the personal qualities needed for economic efficiency may be suggested by the psychology of the typical correlations of human traits.  We have seen that group psychology proclaims that a certain individual probably has certain traits because he belongs to this or that nation or to this or that otherwise well-known group.  Correlation psychology proclaims that a particular individual possesses or does not possess certain traits because he shows or does not show some other definite qualities.  A correlation, for instance, which the commercial world often presupposes, may exist between individual traits and the handwriting.  Graphologists are convinced that a certain loop or flourish, or the steepness or the length of the letters, or the position of the i dot, is a definite indication that the writer possesses certain qualities of personality; and if just these qualities are essential requirements for the position, the impression of the handwriting in a letter may be taken as a sufficient basis for appointment.  The scientist has reason to look upon this particular case of graphological correlation with distrust.  Yet even he may acknowledge that certain correlations exist between the neatness, carefulness, uniformity energy, and similar features of the letter, and the general carefulness, steadiness, neatness, and energy of the personality.