In passing, it may be well to note that a number of papers have recently appeared in which the writers have failed to grasp the genetic concept of mentality. If it be true, these authors say, that variations in intellectual capacity can be interpreted by assuming that numerous genes combined into different patterns are involved, how is it that the contrast between a normal-minded person and an imbecile is to be represented by a mutation in a single gene? The answer is quite simple. A hundred genes, let us say, may function in producing the normal mind, and a good many of them must have varied into plus and minus types in order to account for the diverse grades of mentality actually observed. But since the evidence indicates that unions of feeble-minded persons produce only feeble-minded persons, one must conclude that only a single gene has become truly defective, though ninety-nine other genes are left to contribute to various grades of feeble-mindedness. A second defective gene may yet be discovered. Proof of its existence would be found in a union between two defectives which yielded only normal progeny, provided genetic tests of the offspring conformed with the results to be expected for individuals carrying two different genes for defectiveness. No such evidence is available at present.

Briefly, then, the genetic philosophy is this: Heredity allots to each individual certain mental and physical potentialities, governed in this allotment by the rigid laws controlling gene distribution; whether these potentialities are wholly realized or not depends upon circumstances. These facts are significant in two ways. The fundamental requirement for success in life is a satisfactory genetic constitution; this much is clear. But the old arrogant pride in blood which, at the worst, risked only a slight dilution of its powers by an ignoble union, has had to be abandoned. Dilution, whether of power or quality, is not an attribute of a gene. The geneticist yields to no one in his regard for good breeding; yet no one knows better than he the fallacies of ancestor worship. One out-cross can ruin an otherwise irreproachable lineage; one proper mating is all that is necessary to produce the true aristocrat. The genetic constitution of a distinguished family is likely to be compounded largely of good genes; hence the high probability of worth among its members; but the degenerate product of a bad genetic combination is not saved by the personal record of his ancestors. Nor, by the same token, is the genetically great to be condemned because his endowments are choice gifts from a scanty store. In the second place, a real appreciation of the great innate diversity of human beings leads to a proper conception of the tremendous importance of training. Sociologists appear to feel that education is of no consequence if this point of view is adopted. Quite the contrary. If all persons were products of the same mould, pedagogy would be a simple matter. It would merely be necessary to find out how best to polish up a single pattern. With all sorts of special aptitudes and tendencies, our instructors of youth have a more difficult task to perform.

Suppose we accept this genetic philosophy; to what practical conclusions does it drive us?

In the first place, it seems to me, must come the relinquishment of our professional acceptance of Jeffersonian democracy. Men are not created equally free or essentially equivalent. It is true, the governmental policies of the United States have never demonstrated complete faith in Jefferson's principles in any concrete manner. Sustained and, for the most part, logical action based on the doctrine of human parity has been carried out only by the Soviet Republics. The keystone of Communism is a religious acceptance of two biological errors, to wit, that all persons have the same innate intellectual equipment, and that acquired characters are inherited. The second tenet, by the way, means to the Communist that stuffing the present generation with schooling will make their descendants more intelligent. In the United States we have not carried matters so far. But we have labored to achieve democratic perfection by assuming that suffrage can be exercised wisely by anyone reaching the age of twenty-one years, provided he or she has been properly moulded into the American pattern by a primary school education. And, Fourth of July orations to the contrary notwithstanding, this is not a well-ordered scheme.

The country has become much more socialistic than most people realize. Theoretically it is committed to a policy of free medical advice, and free mental training in the public schools. This program is partly logical and partly illogical. It is logical in that every citizen should be given the opportunity to realize on every physical and mental asset he possesses. It is illogical in that we treat all individuals as if they were Boston terriers, trimming their ears and teaching them identical tricks, so that they will fit a single given standard. It would be much better, would it not, after patching up such physical disabilities as we may, to give each child all the education he can assimilate of the type for which he is fitted? There is no point in trying to teach our twenty million morons to read and write. It is hardly worth while to prod another twenty million dullards through grammar school. It is foolish to lower high-school and college standards so that everyone who has a mere social urge for educational gloss is able to obtain it. It would be a much better policy to reorganize the whole educational system in a way which would permit the establishment of specialized schools fitted to the different requirements of our variant population. The gifted child should be our special care. The progress of a people depends largely upon the upper 1 per cent. Dr. Cox has shown that the leaders of the world, the geniuses of various types who have made civilization, have been exceptionally intelligent as children. Intelligence tests have been sufficiently perfected to enable us to select such a group. Psychologists cannot guarantee that they will all be leaders; they can guarantee that the leaders will come from among them. What greater service to humanity could a government perform than to select and train everyone who shows promise of outstanding ability, no matter from what walk of life he comes?