Review by 'Rerevisionist' of The Scientific Analysis of Personality by Raymond B. Cattell 4 June 2017Misleading 1965 cover design: 'Measurements' are mostly questionnaires.
The Pelican blurb (the book is A712) states that Cattell was born in 1905. There's no indication this book was published before 1965, though Cattell was part of the publish-or-perish industry from about 1945, and his 'over two hundred articles for scientific journals and fifteen books ...' suggests he had much of the material at hand, though chapters are ended with short bibliographies, typically of books published from about 1958-1965.
He of course missed the Great War; he studied chemistry at London University, but switched to a PhD under Charles Spearman. Then moved to university life in the USA. Most of his work seems to have been the rather conventional seeing-if-people-fit-jobs stuff. Cattell's conception of 'IQ' is in the original tradition of looking for pencil-and-paper workers. There is no test for cunning and ruthless manipulation of people, though of course this is arguably important to 'intelligence'.
And indeed all the categories are rather obvious, and also atomistic and individual: for example, nothing much on religion as an organisation, or (in particular) Jews and Jewish clannishness. I couldn't find a concept of the 'I prefer my own group, and would always prefer them' - 'agree definitely, down to disagree completely'. Or 'I would rather cheat than harm my interest group - I always put my community first'. Or 'Most people are so stupid I am entitled to get ahead of them by any means possible.' There is a factor Q3, but it's clear that 'Group adherence' means a subservient follower type, not an aggressive subset.
'Multivariate Experimental Psychology' is the official name for his approach. Part of this is to assign figures to various personality characteristics, and then find a one-figure summary: IQ tests where correct=1, incorrect=0, and a total added up, illustrate a simple version of the type of thing.
The maths involved is based on least-squares regressions, which is easy enough to calculate, though computers today could do a much more prolonged set of conversions and selections. The 'normal distribution' rules, so for example the '16 PF test profile' (from 1956) has 'stens' assumed to cluster around the middle values about 38% for scores of 5 or 6, and about 5% for 1 and 10. This is all 20th century algebra, excellent for sausage-machine applications—but the derivations are murky and obscure.
There's plenty of scope for cunning insertion of guessing corrections, tests for cheating, tests for sabotage, and so on, but generally the assumption is that people willingly do these tests, to get jobs or promotion, or perhaps not to get classified as something undesirable.
These tests often give a sinister impression, I think because they are so obviously based on US mass man outlooks.
At present, IPAT, Inc. (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) is listed as based in Savoy, Illinois, 'a reliable, validated tool with decades of data behind it.' Cattell directed this, or its precursor, from about 1945 to 1965. His daughter, Heather, as far as I can tell, continues the family business. I wonder if the 16 Personality Factors test translates well.
probably an underlying attitude is unthoughtful post-1945 Jewish aggression, mediated through US gullibility. Cattell mentions a test question: (p 125) on optimism about the influence of a remote event, such as a gold strike in Pakistan. But Cattell doesn't seem to realise that people with super-national connections might be liable to such optimism. Cattell mentions the Korean War, but permits himself no doubts as to reasons for its occurrence, or war crimes, cruelty etc: his job is to get the right people. He says (p 312) Churchill had 'high assertiveness' and was a leader, but with not the slightest criticism—for example, of Churchill's being paid to do what he was told. P. 356 has Cattell's judgment on monarchs who 'did well for their country': 'Frederick the Great ... and our definitely A(-) Queen Elizabeth I did better for their countries than, say, the warm-hearted Richard I and Charles II. ...' One of his categories is 'Conservatism vs Radicalism', disappointingly news-derived and feeble.
Validation of tests is discussed on pages 84-89. It obviously makes sense that the tests should give results resembling what they are supposed to be. Cattell is very keen to point out that face-to-face interviews seem to be less reliable than good pencil-and-paper tests. He also lists assorted tests, from musical taste to sweatiness, from reaction time measurements to word association, that may give some idea of underlying 'personality'. But Cattell doesn't say much on extremes: long careers, huge stretches of overtime, stress over many months. He assumes personalities tend to remain much the same as before, though of course his technical material is interrupted by real-world problems and issues. It's typical of Cattell that he makes no attempt to list the successes of his techniques. Very likely they are dominated by practical tests: skill in truck-driving or navigation or surgery or hair-cutting or plumbing or acting.
Cattell avoided the classics (i.e. Greek and Latin), going out of his way to point out that claims that they 'train the brain' and 'transfer into other fields' are unsubstantiated (though orators and writers might disagree). But it leaves the door open for neologisms, which avoid the problem of confusing special uses for existing words. Thus we have 'Premsia' vs 'Harria' (= 'protected emotional sensitivity' vs 'hard realism'). And 'Protension' vs 'Alaxia' (='... inner tension accompanied by projection..' vs ?). And 'Autia' vs 'Praxernia' (='tendency to be autistic, to perceive reality in accord with one's wishes' vs 'practical, careful, conventional'). Sizothymia vs Affectothymia, Threctia and Parmia, are two other examples.
I've tried to indicate in passing some of the weaknesses of this book; but possibly the tests might be extended and deepened. Though it might be difficult to get straight answers; many people are expert in deception and distraction.