Spearman noted that, though all functions seemed related to this “common factor,” they were not all equally related in his results; wherefore he formulated the concept of a hierarchy of relatedness. Discussion as to the essential nature of the fundamental factor was reserved, but it was predicted from the correlations made that “general intelligence” could and would be measured for practical purposes. This interpretation was based upon the fact that among abilities which yielded to his measurement, Spearman could find only positive coefficients of correlation, when the groups were large and the human beings non-select. In the United States, Thorndike and his collaborators were most struck by the fact that the coefficients obtained fell short, in many cases far short, of unity. They laid stress upon the imperfection of the relations revealed, and were able to show that between some functions, such as discriminating among the lengths of lines, and others, such as naming the opposites of words, the correlation dropped in groups investigated to approximately zero. As a result of interpretation from their point of view, they wrote as follows: “One is almost tempted to replace Spearman’s statement by the equally extravagant one that there is nothing whatever common to all mental functions, or to any half of them.” They maintained that mental functions are specialized, and that when excellence in one is correlated with excellence in another, “this is due chiefly to the fact that the two involve identical elements in their execution. It is not due to one and the same ‘faculty,’ which presides over their activities.” These two divergent interpretations of the same array of data have been cited, because the controversy involved is of first rate importance for mental measurement, for the understanding of individuals, and for education. The controversy now appears to have been one of emphasis. To recapitulate, Spearman stressed the positive aspect of the coefficients found, and declared mental traits to be distributed so that status in one is predictable from status in another. Thorndike emphasized the reduction from unity of the coefficients, and formulated the hypothesis that there is no absolutely predictable coherence among mental functions, that each is special to itself within an individual. No laboratory scientist has ever found reason for adding a third side to the controversy, by advocating seriously that mental traits are compensatory in relation to each other. Negative coefficients of correlation have never been found, except occasionally by chance or selection.[4] All know that the correlations among amounts of traits are positive. It is the reduction from unity which has caused the disagreements of interpretation.