With this I began as in the previous experiment. The subject was asked to look at the series of repetitions, enjoy them as much as possible, telling what was the pleasant factor in the experience, and how he apperceived the series. The subjects separated into types as before; the spatial type immediately grouping the elements into a larger unity and enjoying the groups more for their own sake than for their repetition, while the temporal type went from one to the next in the series, enjoying the rhythm more than the elements as such. (It may be remarked here that the subjects were perfectly naïve as to their apperception. They did not know they were separated into types, nor were they urged to be consistent. Even the experimenter did not know of the distinctness with which these types separated themselves, and consistently held to their own method of apperception, until looking over the records afterwards.)
With the temporal type the four-group was the major group. Some expressed its prominence in terms of time, i. e., they spent more time on it, and less on the three-group. One felt it as emphasized, because he moved from one four-group to the next like it, and at each step moved back and forth from left to right, to see the alternate three-groups on each side, always resting on the four-groups.
It is noticeable with these subjects, in whom the rhythmic element was more strongly developed, that although they admitted that the language of "temporal rhythm" did not adequately cover their experience (because the element did not disappear after perception as in auditory rhythm, but remained in the visual field), still they could not express themselves in other terms. L., the most extreme of this type, insisted that the experience of repetition would be exactly as pleasant if he saw the elements pass one by one behind a moving window, with never more than one in the field at once. In other words, their temporal relations were all he felt.
The others did not go so far as this, and agreed to the significance of the whole field, even while especially interested in passing from one to the next. B. partook of the characteristics of both types, and by combining the apperceptions of both bridged the chasm between them.
With the four spatial subjects, the apperception showed its usual divergence. Three grouped the elements, either with the three-group in the centre on account of its being more compact and graceful, or the four-group because it was heavier. One of them could group it either way, distinguishing between the prominence in an element due to interest and due to beauty, i. e., he found the four-group more noticeable and interesting on account of its size, while the three-group was more beautiful as a unity, on account of its proportion and grace. Therefore according as one factor or the other predominated, one or the other figure was taken as the more prominent element, and placed in the centre of the group. Sometimes they separated into two series running along together, but this was not usual.
Having got these varied introspections, with yet a certain likeness running through them, the balance of the four-group and of the three-group were varied in turns, to see how the change in symmetry of elements would affect the series; and the relative value of symmetry for the major and minor units of a series.
First, the four-group was altered, by moving the second string further to the left, while the three-group remained symmetrical.
