Butafterallqualificationshavebeenmade，thefactstillisapparentthattheeverydaylifeofthoseclasseswhichareengagedinbusinessdiffersmateriallyintherespectcitedfromthelifeoftheclassesengagedinindustryproper。Thereisanappreciableandwideningdifferencebetweenthehabitsoflifeofthetwoclasses；andthiscarrieswithitawideningdifferenceinthedisciplinetowhichthetwoclassesaresubjected。Itinducesadifferenceinthehabitsofthoughtandthehabitualgroundsandmethodsofreasoningresortedtobyeachclass。Thereresultsadifferenceinthepointofview，inthefactsdweltupon，inthemethodsofargument，inthegroundsofvalidityappealedto；andthisdifferencegainsinmagnitudeandconsistencyasthedifferentiationofoccupationsgoeson。Sothatthetwoclassescometohaveanincreasingdifficultyinunderstandingoneanotherandappreciatingoneanother’sconvictions，ideals，capacities，andshortcomings。
Theultimategroundofvalidityforthethinkingofthebusinessclassesisthenatural-rightsgroundofproperty，-aconventional，anthropomorphicfacthavinganinstitutionalvalidity，ratherthanamatter-of-factvaliditysuchascanbeformulatedintermsofmaterialcauseandeffect；whiletheclassesengagedinthemachineindustryarehabituallyoccupiedwithmattersofcausalsequence，whichdonotlendthemselvestostatementinanthropomorphictermsofnaturalrightsandwhichaffordnoguidanceinquestionsofinstitutionalrightandwrong，orofconventionalreasonandconsequence。Argumentswhichproceedonmaterialcauseandeffectcannotbemetwithargumentsfromconventionalprecedentordialecticallysufficientreason，andconversely。
Thethinkingrequiredbythepecuniaryoccupationsproceedsongroundsofconventionality，whereasthatinvolvedintheindustrialoccupationsruns，inthemain，ongroundsofmechanicalsequenceorcausation，totheneglectofconventionality。Theinstitutionhabitofthoughtofownershiporpropertyisaconventionalfact；andthelogicofpecuniarythinking-thatistosay，ofthinkingonmattersofownership-
isaworkingoutoftheimplicationsofthispostulate，thisconceptofownershiporproperty。Thecharacteristichabitsofthoughtgivenbysuchworkarehabitsofrecoursetoconventionalgroundsoffinalityorvalidity，toanthropomorphism，toexplanationsofphenomenaintermsofhumanrelation，discretion，authenticity，andchoice。Thefinalgroundofcertaintyininquiriesonthisnatural-rightsplaneisalwaysagroundofauthenticity，ofprecedent，oraccepteddecision。Theargumentisanargumentdejure，notdefacto，andthetraininggivenlendsfacilityandcertaintyinthepursuitofdejuredistinctionsandgeneralizations，ratherthaninthepursuitortheassimilationofadefactoknowledgeofimpersonalphenomena。Theendofsuchreasoningistheinterpretationofnewfactsintermsofaccreditedprecedents，ratherthanarevisionoftheknowledgedrawnfrompastexperienceinthematter-of-factlightofnewphenomena。Theendeavoristomakefactsconformtolaw，nottomakethelaworgeneralruleconformtofacts。Thebentsogivenfavorstheacceptanceofthegeneral，abstract，custom-maderuleassomethingrealwitharealitysuperiortotherealityofimpersonal，non-conventionalfacts。Suchtraininggivesreachandsubtletyinmetaphysicalargumentandinwhatisknownasthe“practical“managementofaffairs；itgivesexecutiveoradministrativeefficiency，so-called，asdistinguishedfrommechanicalwork。“Practical“efficiencymeanstheabilitytoturnfactstoaccountforthepurposesoftheacceptedconventions，togivealargeeffecttothesituationintermsofthepecuniaryconventionsinforce。11*
Thespiritualattitudegivenbythistraininginreasoningdejure，frompecuniarypremisestopecuniaryconclusions，isnecessarilyconservative。Thisspeciesofreasoningassumesthevalidityoftheconventionallyestablishedpostulates，andisconsequentlyunabletotakeascepticalattitudetowardthesepostulatesortowardtheinstitutionsinwhichthesepostulatesareembodied。Itmayleadtoscepticismtouchingother，older，institutionsthatareatvariancewithitsownnatural-rights