EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
'238 
ships, when long continued, depend on such a large num 
ber and variety of subtleties, that it is reckless to call a 
man a good mixer simply because he has a bluff and 
hearty manner. Many men can mix well with others 
during the first few hours, but very poorly as soon as the 
first impression they make has been supplemented by a 
more prolonged acquaintance. 
In all these instances, it is apparent that observation 
relies upon signs, and that in order to form an estimate 
of a man, the interviewer must be able to read the proper 
meaning into the signs which are revealed to him. Here 
lies the crux of the weakness of this method. This weak 
ness is implied by the single word interpretation. Before 
the observer can arrive at an estimate of an individual, he 
must first interpret the signs which this individual reveals. 
But how is he to interpret them? What standard or rule 
or system is there which will guide him in his interpreta 
tion? There is none. It is entirely a matter of judgment 
or knack on the part of the interviewer. And, as a conse 
quence of this fact, all the objections which were raised 
in the introduction against the unscientific method and 
against any method which is open to the variables of the 
human equation, can be raised against the observational 
method. In the absence of any plan or standard of 
interpretation, each interviewer must be his own stand 
ard, and the manner in which he interprets the signs he 
sees will depend entirely upon the kind of man he is. The 
observer will be guided by his previous experience, by the 
mood he happens to be in, by his racial and social preju 
dices, and by the hundred and one other factors which 
unconsciously go to make up his attitude. Moreover, 
when one interviewer in an employment office is replaced 
by another, he brings with him a new and probably en-