To be compatible, patterns should be adapted to the following components: (1) the _hominid component_, which is the biological human being; (2) the _social component_, which includes the potentialities for social relations as they are affected by “the number of human beings in the situation, their distribution in space, their ages, their sex, their native ability to interstimulate and interact, the interference of environmental hindrances or helps, and the presence and amount of certain types of social equipment”; (3) the _environmental component_, or all the “natural” features of the situation except the hominid, the social, the psychological and artifactual components; it includes topography, physiography, flora, fauna, weather, geology, soil, etc.; (4) the _psychological component_, defined as the principles involving the acquisition and performance of human customs not adequately explained on purely biological principles; (5) the _artifactual component_, which consists collectively of the material results and adjuncts of human customary activities.[160] It is not always safe for the layman to generalize about the value of specific sociological findings, but I am inclined to think that this is verbiage, resulting from analysis pushed beyond any useful purpose. There is a real if obscure relationship between the vitality of what one is saying and the palatability of one’s rhetoric. No rhythm, no _tournure_ of phrase, no architecture of the sentences could make this a good piece of writing, for its content lies on the outer fringe of significance. It is the nature of such pedantry to habit itself in a harsh and crabbed style. The primary step in literary composition is _invention_, or the discovering of something to talk about. No writer is finally able to make good the claim that his subject matter is one thing and his style of expression another; the subject matter enters into the expression inevitably and extensively, although sometimes in ways too subtle for elucidation. What of the invention of this passage? If we take the word in its etymological sense of “finding,” are not these distinctions “findings” for findings’ sake? Analysis carried to such a humorless extreme reflects discredit upon the very principle of division which was employed.