When we leave the elementary processes for _complex experiences_, for perceptions and ideas, and ask how these are connected, we cannot return any completely satisfactory answer. Experiments may be made; thus, a familiar visual stimulus (word or simple picture) may be shown for a few seconds to the observer, with the instruction that he receive it passively and report the consequent course of his mental processes. Under these circumstances, it invariably happens that the stimulus is immediately named. After that, apparently, any one of _three typical things may happen_. First, the named perception is supplemented by a sense-feeling. A word printed in very small letters on a large background aroused the feeling of loneliness; a word printed in red, a feeling of excitement; the word ‘blinding,’ the disagreeable feeling of a dazzling light. Then the feeling gives way to an idea, which supplants the meaning of the stimulus. Secondly, the named perception is resolved into the idea of some object previously seen. An outline drawing of a face may be replaced by the idea of a friend, whose features are, so to say, read into the drawing; or the word ‘Tell,’ printed on a blue ground, may be replaced by the idea of the familiar picture of William Tell springing from a boat to the rocks; the blue of the background becomes the blue sky of the painting. Thirdly, and only occasionally, the named perception is followed by an idea which comes separate and detached; we have the traditional pattern of the ‘successive association.’ These three types of connection (there are, of course, intermediate forms) do not furnish a satisfactory answer to our question, mainly because the experiments are not properly under control; the observer comes to them with all sorts of associative tendencies at work; and unless we make a very large number of observations, we cannot be sure that our results are either representative or exhaustive.