7. What relation exists between the individual's opinion of himself and the results of objective measurements of him, such as those afforded by psychological tests? How do the results of tests compare with the judgments of associates? 8. Are individuals who themselves possess a given trait in high degree better judges of that trait in themselves or in others than are those who possess the trait in less degree? 9. What intercorrelations exist between the estimates of self and others, when different traits are compared? 10. In the case of people in school, what relations exist between the self-estimate, the estimate of others, and the results of tests, on the one hand, and school standing, academic success, and extra-academic activities? What relation between these factors and successfulness in later life? On the first three of these questions I shall indicate in following sections such material as is available, pointing out where the more valuable and detailed information may be found. On the remaining seven questions recorded information is much rarer. Here I shall summarize the available material and shall also present tentative answers based on an original investigation which was conducted for the express purpose of calling more definite attention to the problems, as well as to suggest fruitful methods, and at least make a beginning in the accumulation of facts concerning these very interesting features of human nature. There is perhaps no proof required that complete and systematic self-analysis is more desirable than random and undirected introspections, whatever value may be attached to the results of such analysis. Whatever be the purpose of self analysis, it will be the more useful and suggestive the more completely it compasses the total range of capacities and inclinations. Comparison of different analyses by different individuals should result in a synthesis of traits, an acceptable terminology and a mode of statement better calculated to throw light on individual equipment than is secured by the methods of casual and unguided rumination. So far as possible such analyses should proceed in terms of identifiable, comparable and measurable characteristics rather than by the vague categories of conversation and literary description. Such categories, traits and terminology should be used as will best enable the individual not only to state his own reactions in figures of speech, but also to compare himself with his immediate associates and with characters less directly known. One of the first attempts to draw up a list of fundamental qualities as an aid in the inventory of a given individual's particular nature was made by Professor Cattell in an article concerning the characteristics of men of science. Twenty-four traits are enumerated, as follows: