Showing the Relation between Ability To Judge Others and Ability To Judge Oneself

TraitCorrelation between
Judicial Capacity and Accuracy
of the Individual's Self-Estimates
Refinement .54
Humor .53
Beauty .47
Sociability .46
Intelligence .44
Conceit .26
Neatness .22
Vulgarity .22
Snobbishness .15

All the coefficients are positive, their median value being .44. In the long run it is true that she who knows herself best is the best judge of others. The degree to which this is true, however, varies with the trait in question. With the "undesirable" traits of snobbishness, conceit and vulgarity, the coefficients are so low as to be quite unreliable and perhaps represent only chance. The same is true of neatness. But in the cases of refinement, humor, beauty, sociability and intelligence the coefficients are fairly high.

VIII. What correlations are found among various traits of character, as these are estimated by associates? For example, is an individual who is judged intelligent also likely to be judged to be humorous, or refined, or snobbish, etc.? If there are such correlations between estimated traits, what is their direction and amount? The following table shows the average correlations (from the two groups) in the case of all the traits:

TABLE 10

Showing the Intercorrelation or Estimated Traits(1)

Neat.Intel.Hum.Con.Beau.Vulg.Snob.Refin.Socia.
Neatness — .39 .29 .51 .50 .09 .57 .32 .10
Intelligence .39 — .59 .44 .34 .06 .43 .49 .25
Humor .29 .59 — .32 .50 .40 .50 .23 .55
Conceit .51 .44 .32 — .51 .24 .75 .33 .07
Beauty .50 .34 .50 .51 —-.09 .41 .56 .32
Vulgarity .09 .06 .40 .24-.09 — .40-.37 .18
Snobbishness .57 .43 .50 .75 .41 .40 — .20-.12
Refinement .32 .49 .23 .33 .56 -.37 .20 — .34
Sociability .10 .25 .55 .07 .32 .18-.12 .34 —

[Note 1: The upper parts of this table and the one following repeat the figures given in the lower parts, for greater convenience in making comparisons and in presenting averages.]

Interesting as these coefficients are to one who has the passion for correlation, it is peculiarly difficult to state precisely what they mean. Neatness correlates, in varying degrees, with all the traits except vulgarity and sociability; intelligence with all except vulgarity and perhaps sociability; humor with all except neatness, conceit and refinement, where the coefficients are low; conceit correlates especially closely with neatness, beauty and snobbishness; beauty with neatness, humor, conceit and refinement; vulgarity correlates positively with only humor and snobbishness, and negatively with refinement; refinement, with everything except humor, snobbishness and vulgarity; snobbishness with all but refinement and sociability; while sociability correlates with nothing except humor. How far these figures measure definite relations between different and specific traits, how far they measure the degree to which one's impressions of various traits conspire to make up one's notion of other characteristics, or how far they measure only the degree of confusion that exists as to the precise meaning of the various words, it is exceedingly difficult to say.

IX. What degree of correlation exists among the academic records in the various college subjects? Is the individual who stands high in certain subjects likely to stand either high or low in other subjects or in all subjects? The following table shows the intercorrelations between eight subjects as calculated by the rather rough mode of grading and averaging previously described. Since the correlations are by the method of relative position, the fallacy of treating the various grades as susceptible of quantitative treatment is of very slight importance.