acknowledged as a desirable end. The application of anatomy,
physiology, and pathology may just as well be used for the opposite
end of killing a man. Whether it is wise to work toward long life, or
whether it is better to kill people, is again a problem which lies
outside the sphere of the applied sciences. Ethics or social
philosophy or religion have to solve these preliminary' questions. The
physician as such has only to deal with the means which lead toward
that goal.

We must make the same discrimination in the psychotechnical field. The
psychologist may point out the methods by which an involuntary
confession can be secured from a defendant, but whether it is
justifiable to extort involuntary confessions is a problem which does
not concern the psychologist. The lawyers or the legislators must
decide as to the right or wrong, the legality or illegality, of
forcing a man to show his bidden ideas. If such an end is desirable,
the psychotechnical student can determine the right means, and that is
the limit of his office. We ought to keep in mind that the same holds
true for the application of psychology in economic life. Economic
psychotechnics may serve certain ends of commerce and industry, but
whether these ends are the best ones is not a care with which the
psychologist has to be burdened. For instance, the end may be the
selection of the most efficient laborers for particular industries.
The psychologist may develop methods in his laboratory by which this
purpose can be fulfilled. But if some mills prefer another goal,--for
instance, to have not the most efficient but the cheapest possible
laborers,--entirely different means for the selection are necessary.
The psychologist is, therefore, not entangled in the economic
discussions of the day; it is not his concern to decide whether the
policy of the trusts or the policy of the trade-unions or any other