Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 5960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108 of 763

And, by the way, I repeat, it was a very crucial idea. I mean, it was a nuclear idea, in terms of everything else I've ever done.

While we're on the subject of testing, what about the psychologist's role in vocational testing? The IQ question aside, but other types of vocational testing?

I don't think you can put the IQ question aside, because they are related-- because psychologists had a heyday of convincing the public that they had instruments that could predict people's abilities, aptitudes, vocation success, failure, etc. And they got away with this for too long a period of time.

Now, it is true that in a mass education culture, you know, or in a culture in which human beings and human resources have to be dealt with the way mass production of automobiles is dealt with, short-cuts are welcome. And the main value of the psychologists' aptitude and vocational and achievement and intelligence tests is that they really are short-cuts -- having all of the advantages and all, plus some new, disadvantages of short-cuts.

The main disadvantage, as I see it, is that it's not generally understood that they are short-cuts. That they're not end-alls and be-alls, you know. That people -- that people's lives have been determined by inadequate, imperfect instruments, and it took my field a hell of a long time to concede this. In fact, some of them are not conceding it yet, particularly those who make money off of it.

It's unfortunate. We do not, by any means, have the