THE HEREDITARIAN THEORY OF IQINADEQUATE CONDITIONS
Yerkes's protocol was rigorous and trying enough. His exam-
iners had to process men rapidly and grade the exams immedi-
ately, so that failures could be recalled for a different test. When
faced with the added burden of thinly veiled hostility from the
brass at several camps, Yerkes's testers were rarely able to carry out
more than a caricature of their own stated procedure. They contin-
ually compromised, backtracked, and altered in the face of neces-
sity. Procedures varied so much from camp to camp that results
could scarcely be collated and compared. The whole effort,
through no fault of Yerkes's beyond impracticality and overambi-
tion, became something of a shambles, if not a disgrace. The details
are all in Yerkes's monograph, but hardly anyone ever read it. The
summary statisdcs became an important social weapon for racists
and eugenicists; their rotten core lay exposed in the monograph,
but who looks within when the surface shines with such a congenial
message.
The army mandated that special buildings be supplied or even
constructed for Yerkes's examinations, but a different reality pre-
vailed (1921, p. 61). The examiners had to take what they could
get, often rooms in cramped barracks with no furnishings at all,
and inadequate acoustics, illumination, and lines of sight. The
chief tester at one camp complained (p. 106): "Part of this inaccu-
racy I believe to be due to the fact that the room in which the
examination is held is filled too full of men. As a result, the men
who are sitting in the rear of the room are unable to hear clearly
and thoroughly enough to understand the instructions."
Tensions rose between Yerkes's testers and regular officers.
The chief tester of Camp Custer complained (p. 111): "The igno-
rance of the subject on the part of the average officer is equalled
only by his indifference to it." Yerkes urged restraint and accom-
modation (p. 155):
The examiner should strive especially to take the military point of view.
Unwarranted claims concerning the accuracy of the results should be
avoided. In general, straightforward commonsense statements will be
found more convincing than technical descriptions, statistical exhibits, or
academic arguments.