Perhaps these remarks account for the respective uniformities of the judgments of E and H, and their departure from the tendency of the other subjects to give the more complex filling constantly the shorter space.  But subjects F and G also had judgments (secondary with both of them) giving to the complex filling a larger extent than to the parallels.  With them one of two principles, I think, applies:  The judgments are either instances of abstraction from the filling, as with H, or one of simpler gravity or vertical balance, as distinguished from the horizontal equivalence which I conceive to be at the basis of the other divisions.  With F it is likely to be the latter, since the divisions of the figures under discussion do not approach very closely those of the simple line, and because introspectively he found that the divisions giving the complex the larger space were ‘balance’ divisions, while the others were determined with ‘reference to the character of the fillings.’  From G I had no introspection, and the approximation of his judgments to those he gave for the simple line make it probable that with him the changes in the character of the filling had little significance.  The average of his judgments in which the complex filling held the greater space is 66, while the averages on the simple line were 65 on the left, and 64 on the right.  And, in general, abstraction from filling was easy, and to be guarded against.  Subject C, in the course of the work, confessed to it, quite unsolicited, and corrected himself by giving thenceforth all complex fillings much smaller space than before.  Two others noticed that it was particularly hard not to abstract.  Further, none of the four subjects mentioned (with that possible exception of E) showed a sensitiveness similar to that of the other five.

With the exception of H, and in accord with the constant practice of the other five, these subjects, too, occasionally found no pleasing division in which the complex filling preponderated in length over the horizontals.  It was uniformly true, furthermore, in every variation introduced in the course of the investigation, involving a complex and a simple filling, that all the nine subjects but H preferred the complex in the shorter space; that five refused any divisions offering it in the larger space; that these five showed more sensitiveness to differences in the character of fillings; and that with one exception (C) the divisions of the simple line which these subjects gave were nearer the ends than those of the others.  It surely seems plausible that those most endowed with aesthetic sensitiveness would find a division near the center more unequal than one nearer the end; for one side only slightly shorter than the other would at once seem to mean the same thing to them, and yet, because of the obvious difference in length, be something markedly different, and they would therefore demand a part short enough to give them sharp qualitative difference, with, however, in some way, quantitative equivalence.  When the short part is too long, it is overcharged with significance, it strives to be two things at once and yet neither in its fulness.