If we judge by the objective records themselves, we may still choose between two views. (1) We may say that the monkeys did come to have ideas of the acts of going down to the bottom of the cage and of staying still, and that their learning represented the association of the sense-impressions of the two signals, one with each of these ideas, or possibly their association with two other ideas (of being fed and of not being fed), and through them with the acts. Or (2) we may say that the monkeys had no such ideas, but merely by the common animal sort of association came to react in the profitable way to each signal. If we take the first view, we must explain the failure of the animals to change suddenly in some of the experiments, must explain why, for instance, No. 1 in g should, after he had responded correctly to the ‘no’ signal for 27 trials out of 30, fail in one trial out of four for a hundred or more trials. If the 27 successes were due to ideas, why was there regression? If the animal came to respond by staying still on seeing the K (card 104), because that sight was associated with the idea of no food or the idea of staying still, why did he, in his memory trial, act sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, for eleven trials after his acting rightly twice. If he stayed still because the idea was aroused, why did he not stay still as soon as he had a few trials to remind him of the idea? It is easy, one may say, to see why, with a capacity to select movements and associate them with sense-presentations very quickly, in cases where habit provides only two movements for selection and where the sense-presentation is very clear and simple, an animal should practically at once be confirmed in the one act on an occasion when he does it with the sense-impression in the focus of attention. It is easy, therefore, to explain the sudden change in i, l, m, B, C and E. But our critic may add, “It is very hard to suppose that an animal that learned by connecting the sight of a card with the idea ‘stay still’ or the idea ‘no food,’ should be so long in making the connection as was the case in some of these experiments, should take 10, 20 or 40 trials to change from a high percentage of wrong to a high percentage of right reactions.” If we take the second view, we have to face the fact that many of the records are nothing like the single one we have for comparison, that of the kitten shown in Fig. 30, and that the appeal to a capacity to form animal associations very quickly seems like a far-fetched refuge from the other view rather than a natural interpretation. If we take the records to be summation points in a more gradual process, this difficulty is relieved.