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-