THE SEARCH FOR PHRENOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOGNOMIC PRINCIPLES
THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE
The primitive magic, directed toward the formation of individual character,
was displaced by the personal clairvoyance which attempted to diagnose the
individual's mental and moral constitution on the basis of his own early
acts, expressions, and physical characteristics. This soon gave way to a
tendency to abandon, for the most part, such signs as did not relate in
some actual or fancied way, to the individual's brain. This limitation of
the field of significant signs may be related to the widespread interest in
human physiology, historically associated with the knowledge of anatomy.
The invention of the microscope, Harvey's proof of the circulation of the
blood, the discussion centering about the automaton theory of Descartes,
and the rapid development of surgical technique, brought about a most
interesting spread of curiosity concerning the nature and mechanism of the
human body. Balls and tournaments gave way to dissections and
demonstrations as means of courtly entertainment. Celebrated surgeons
exhibited their skill and knowledge, and lectured on the facts of
physiology and anatomy in the formal presence of royalty and society. Court
painters executed pictures such as "The Anatomy Lesson," some of them now
cherished as famous masterpieces.
Especially keen became the interest in the skull and brain in which, as
Descartes taught, might be found the seat of the soul. Among the earliest
of the rough discoveries was that concerned with the localization of
special sensory and motor functions of the organism in particular regions
of the brain. It was observed that irritation of certain parts of the
surface or "cortex" of the brain, in cases where a portion of the skull had
been removed, was followed by movement of particular parts of the body, and
that individuals who had suffered from injury to certain parts of the brain
seemed, on recovery, to be quite their usual selves, except that certain
special capacities, as for instance the function of speech, were interfered
with or quite destroyed. The unitary soul, described by Descartes as
probably having its seat in the pineal gland, now bade fair to disintegrate
into various minor faculties, each with its separate brain mechanism and
its particular abode in some region of the skull.
The discovery of these elementary facts of brain localization was at once
hit upon with zeal by those most interested in the means of foresight into
human fortunes. Ignoring the fact that the localized features were simply
the control of other parts of the body, as eyes, ears, limbs, speech
organs, and the like, these enthusiasts leaped to the conclusion that every
trait of character and every mental aptitude, every virtue and vice,
ability, interest and capacity, had each its own shelf or pew in the brain
area. Moreover, it was taken for granted that the relative development of
these various characteristics was indicated by the depressions, projections
and proportions of the skull bones. Here was light indeed on the destinies
of men, their fitnesses and propensities, their appropriate choice of work
and play! The enthusiasm and ardor that went into the elaboration of the
new clairvoyance of phrenology would have meant most valuable increase in
our knowledge of brain physiology had it been directed exclusively toward
further legitimate inquiry. But the urgent desire for control and foresight
was too great for practice to keep the slow pace of scientific fact.
Hastily the prophets drew up complicated and minute maps of the surface of
the cranium and assigned to each recognizable patch some "faculty" which
stood for an important mental or moral trait. Casual examination of the
skulls of friends who chanced to possess particularly marked traits to an
extreme degree was in some cases relied on to give guidance in the
assignment of these patches to the respective traits. In some of the
schemes the human traits conceived were so numerous that the bilateral
symmetry and functions of the brain were ignored, and the two sides of the
skull were assigned quite different functions. Thus arose phrenology, one
of the most persistent fallacies of vocational analysis. This movement was
founded by Gall and Spurzheim, two physicians and anatomists, in the latter
part of the eighteenth century.[1] With the customary naivete of the
medical science of their time, they overestimated the significance of
casual observations and fragmentary discoveries, and thus gave impetus to
the exaggerated and extravagant claims made by their enthusiastic
followers. "Phrenological societies" developed so rapidly and so widely
that the movement became relatively independent of the scientific
investigations which should have served to qualify and criticize its
doctrines. Its propaganda were so vigorous and the practical needs which it
promised to satisfy were so insistent, that even today many people hold
tenaciously to its dicta. Scores of professionals thrive on their lucrative
practice of its dogmas, and university graduates smile in a guilty way when
asked, "Do you believe in phrenology?"
The tenacious persistence of phrenology, the degree to which it is resorted
to and paid for by inquiring and earnest seekers after satisfactory paths
through life, make it seem worth while to present a brief statement of the
numerous errors and flagrant stupidities on which the practice of
phrenology is based. It may also be worth while to suggest some of the
rather interesting subsidiary reasons for its persistence as a cherished
popular delusion and even as a topic for current scientific discussions and
papers.
THE ASSUMPTIONS AND ERRORS OF PHRENOLOGY
Underlying all of the various phrenological systems were four common
assumptions which briefly stated, were:
1. That such cerebral localization as exists is of fundamental and specific
traits of character or types of ability, such as secretiveness,
circumspection, love of babies, generosity, veneration, constructiveness,
etc.
2. That the more developed any one of these given traits is, the larger
will be the supposed area of the brain which contains its supposed organ.
3. That, since the skull fits fairly closely to the brain surface, the
relative development of a given portion of the brain will be indicated by
the relative prominence or size of the different parts of the cranium, so
that the degree of possession of the trait may be judged from an
examination of the exterior of the skull.
4. That the occasional casual observation of coincidence between
particularly marked mental qualities and particular cranial characteristics
is a sufficient basis for inferring universal and necessary connection
between these two features.
Each of these assumptions involves obvious error and misapprehension in the
light of what is now known concerning the nature of the human mind and the
structure and functions of the brain. In order that these fallacies may be
clearly disclosed the four main assumptions will be examined independently
in the order in which we have here presented them.
1. In the first place, the only sort of localization of functions that has
been authentically established is the projection, upon the brain structure,
of the other parts of the organism, and the localization of sensory-motor
centers which function in the connection of these various organs. Thus it
is known that each of the principal groups of muscles of the body has its
so-called center in the brain. From this part of the brain to the muscles
concerned run bundles of motor-nerve fibers, so that activity in that
particular part of the brain may result in the conduction of nervous
impulses to these muscles, and in their consequent contraction. Thus the
hand, the foot, the eyes, the speech-organs, etc., may be said to be
functionally represented, and in this sense localized, in particular
regions of the brain. The same thing is true of the sense-organs, as the
eye, ear, etc. Each incoming sensory nerve tract runs to or through some
portion of the brain. Injury to this part of the brain results in
functional incapacity of the corresponding sense-organ. The cortex, or
outer surface of the brain, may thus be conceived as a sort of terminal
station for nerves from other portions of the organism, a sort of
projection-center which enables them all to take part in a functional
unity of action. The functions which can be said in this sense to be
localized in the brain are such sensory-motor capacities as the ability to
raise the right arm, the ability to balance the body when standing erect
with eyes closed, the ability to see, the ability to move the eyeball, the
ability to feel pain in a certain area of the skin, the ability to
articulate words, to understand spoken or written language, to call up a
visual memory of a particular thing previously seen, etc.
The integrity of various parts of the brain is essential to the proper
coordination of all the sensibilities and responses of the individual.
Traits of character and types of ability, however, depend on the
characteristic modes of reaction of the organism as a whole to the factors
of its environment. Thus generosity as a human trait does not depend on the
massiveness of any set of muscles, nor on the keenness of any sense-organ,
but upon the characteristic type of reaction and motivation which the
individual as a whole displays. Jealousy, love of children,
destructiveness, etc., are characteristic modes of behavior of the whole
organism, and depend upon reactions which the given situation evokes, and
not upon some special organ.
2. As to the supposed correspondence between size and functional capacity,
no evidence has been presented which demonstrates that even the strength of
a muscle or the keenness of a sense-organ depends in any way on the
absolute size of the brain-area concerned with it. Nor has evidence been
presented to prove the existence, within any given species, of correlation
between volume, shape, or weight of the brain-tissues and even the more
general traits of character or ability. In the absence of such evidence we
are led to believe that functional capacity depends on complexity of
structure, chemical, molecular, and functional, rather than on the factors
of mass or shape. But even the nature of these correlations is as yet
largely unknown. The persistence of the faith in the significance of mass
and shape probably rests in part on the apparent existence of such
correlation when different species are roughly compared with one another.
Thus, among the higher vertebrates there seems to be a relation between
what we may call the general intelligence of the species and the erect
carriage of the body. From the quadrupeds, with their horizontal position,
through the apes, with their semiperpendicular mode of life, to the human
being, with his erect carriage, there is also a progression in prominence
of the forehead, opposition of thumb and finger, relatively greater
development of the cerebral mass, and also in mental capacity. The
intelligent human being walks in a more erect posture than does the stupid
ape. But no one has ventured to assert that a relation exists between
erectness of carriage and mental ability when human beings are compared
with one another, or when apes are compared with one another. Similarly in
the case of the physical features of the brain, the crude relationships
which exist empirically, as between different species, seem to be quite
slight in significance when compared with the differences in chemical,
molecular and functional complexity which are found among members of the
same species. Attempts to discover correlations between mental and moral
characteristics and various brain constants we may expect to continue for a
long time. What discoveries may be in store for us we do not know. But the
important point in the present connection is that, for the purposes of
vocational psychology, the practices of phrenology are based on evidence no
more relevant to its pretensions than were the "proofs" pointed to by
palmistry, horoscopy, and prenatal magic. Through cranial measurements
alone it is impossible to determine with certainty the race, age, or sex
of an individual, or even, indeed, whether he was a prehistoric savage, an
idiot, or a gorilla.
3. As for the third assumption of phrenology, namely, that brain
development is reflected in the cranial size or protuberances, it should be
sufficient to point out that even if this were so it would be meaningless
for our purpose, since we are compelled to abandon the belief in a relation
between mass of tissue and even the simplest sensory or motor capacity. But
such further disproof as may be required is readily furnished by an actual
attempt to remove from their cranial boxes the brains of various animals,
and by noting that the shape and thickness of the bones gives little
indication as to whether brain tissue, cerebrospinal fluid, or supporting
tissues are to be found underneath a given protuberance or depression.
4. The fourth assumption of phrenology, that sparse and casual observation
of striking cases is sufficient ground for generalization, we should be
able to dismiss at once as utterly inadequate and miscalculated. It is
impossible to find consistent recorded instances in which groups of
individuals, selected at random, with definitely determined and measured
mental or moral characteristics, have been shown to confirm, by their
cranial geography, even the most elementary doctrines of that phrenology
which still offers to diagnose the individual's psychic constitution and to
commend to his future consideration the vocation of engineering,
publishing, or preaching, as the case may be. Practicing phrenologists have
repeatedly been invited to submit one bit of objective evidence for their
pretensions, or to submit themselves to tests under controlled conditions.
The invitations are refused, and the inquirer is referred instead to the
dogma of some foreign and deceased authority. Such investigations as have
been recorded have resulted in negative conclusions, or in contradictory
data, or in coefficients with such high probable errors as to make the
figures unreliable.
THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF PHYSIOGNOMY
Very often practicing phrenologists and phrenological vocational experts
seek to justify their operations and pretensions by pointing out that they
do not rely solely on the cranial geography, but more often on other
characteristics of the individual's body, such as the concavity or
convexity of his profile, the shape of his jaw, the texture of his skin,
the shape of his hands, the color of his hair and eyes, the proportions of
his trunk, etc. Contemporary vocational counsellors who have enjoyed
considerable vogue and commercial repute are especially given to citing
these criteria; several recently published tables of these clues are
available. Historically, the attempts to formulate principles of
physiognomy antedate phrenology by many centuries. Logically, however,
physiognomy follows phrenology, as a transition from the formulation of
structure to the formulation of behavior. There is a very widespread belief
that many mental and moral characteristics betray themselves in special
facial items. The shifting eye, lofty brow, massive jaw, thin lips, large
ear, protruding or receding chin, dimple, wrinkle, tilted nose, thin skin,
prominent veins, and many other characteristics have come, in fiction and
in table-talk, to symbolize specific characteristics. The same thing is
true of the shuffling gait, the erect body, the protruding paunch, the
curved shoulders, enlarged knuckles, stubby or elongated fingers, the short
neck, the long arm, and the manner and rate of stride. It is but a step
from these to the signs afforded by clothing, its selection, care, and mode
of wearing.
Here is indeed a most confused mass of fact and fancy which finds credence
in varying degrees on diverse occasions. Seldom has it been analyzed into
the definite types of material which it really contains, and its
evaluation is commonly left to the haphazard opinion of each individual.
There is no doubt that we all tend to form our opinion of a stranger's
probable characteristics partly on the basis of these physiognomic,
physical, and sartorial factors. To what degree can these items be
formulated so as to afford reliable criteria in the analysis of
personality, as in the case of vocational selection and employment? We may
perhaps best answer this question by noting the various sources of the
belief in the validity of physiognomic and similar signs.
1. It is first of all true that many of these marks are the result of
habitual activity, and in so far as they originate in the expression of a
trait, they may be said to be signs of it. That the studious come to be
round-shouldered, the cheerful to have smooth countenances, the guilty to
have furtive eye-movements, may well be expected. But it is quite another
thing to reverse the proposition and to take stooped shoulders as a
universal sign of academic interests, dimples as a sign of guilelessness,
and nystagmus as the symptom of a criminal past. It is, however, often safe
to use these traits as reliable signs of the established general habits and
attitude which they express. We have all done this since earliest
childhood; yet any attempt to classify formally the signs and effects of
habit and constant expression would be pedantic. Unfortunately for the
purposes of vocational guidance of youth, these expressions require for
their formation habits of fairly long standing, and the critical period for
psychological guidance is likely to be passed long before these settled
habits have set the features into their identifiable molds.
Somewhat more hopeful is the reliance on expressive movements as indicative
of passing and transient emotional states and attitudes. Not easily can we
conceal from the astute observer the momentary passion that may be stirring
us. Prolonged intimate acquaintance with an individual's emotional
experiences and expressions may in time reveal to such an observer the
deeper lying and more permanent affective trends, the moods and sentiments
which indicate what we are accustomed to call the temperament of the
individual. Insight into the nature of these expressive movements is one of
the useful things to be derived from long and patient study of human
nature, both at first hand and through the classical descriptions of
emotional expression. The more one observes and the more individuals he
observes, the more he is impressed with the final variety and informal
complexity of these expressive movements, and their dependence on a vast
detail of circumstance, which again forbid rule-of-thumb formulation.
2. Another apparent source of these beliefs is in analogy. The clammy hand,
the fishy eye, the bull neck, the "blotting paper" voice, the asinine ear,
the willowy figure, the feline tread, and scores of such phrases indicate
that these characteristics remind us definitely of various species or
objects other than the human being, and that we expect to find back of them
the characteristic traits, habits, and instinctive tendencies of those
species. We seldom proceed so far as to check up our expectations with
facts, under controlled conditions.
3. The affective value of these analogies and their incorporation in
poetry, song, and fiction as adequate figures of speech lead us to react to
these traits in ways determined largely by the traditional usage. We are
humble before the "high-brow," merry in the presence of the dimpled,
cautious and prudent before him of the shifting eye. In so far as human
reactions are determined by the implied expectations of associates and the
demands of immediate circumstances, we should be surprised indeed if the
"high-brow" did not, on the strength of his cranium, evade our office-door
sentinel, the dimpled one respond to our facetious comment, and he of the
shifting eye be forced to steal for a living.
4. Another source of these notions is mainly responsible for such of them
as refer to definitely undesirable traits. This is the belief, so well
played upon by the school of Lombroso in criminology, that many of these
characteristics, along with the so-called physical stigmata, are indicative
of a degenerative or atavistic trend in the constitution of the individual.
Among these stigmata were enumerated every conceivable extreme variation of
every identifiable part of the human anatomy. Lombroso was inclined to
believe not only that the presence of such traits was a certain mark of
criminal propensities, but even that various types of criminals could be
recognized by the cataloging of their stigmata, as thieves, murderers,
forgers, etc. The history of the criticism of this view need not be
repeated here. Suffice it to say that we now understand that the underlying
truth of the matter is only that these stigmata are somewhat more frequent
among the vicious, degenerate, and defective groups than they are among
people selected on the basis of their morality and intelligence. The
criminally inclined individual may possess no stigmata, while an Abraham
Lincoln may possess several of them, and in marked degree. To be sure,
when an unusual number of stigmata are presented by an individual, we feel
disposed to suspect that the abnormal condition is not confined to his
bones and peripheral organs alone, but is probably so deep-seated as to
involve his nervous system as well. But on the basis of these stigmata
alone we are quite unable to decide whether he is an imbecile, a degenerate
criminal, a pervert, a genius, or only an average man, with an undue burden
of physical infirmity; still less can we diagnose his special mental or
moral qualities.
5. A further source of these physiognomic beliefs may be discerned: namely,
the fact that the features of a stranger are very likely to call more or
less clearly to our memory some other acquaintance whose traits we know, to
our sorrow perhaps, and whose features or manner or voice or apparel chance
to be very similar to that of the stranger. At once we are inclined to
endow the stranger with the character of the individual he resembles. We
seldom accurately check up these impressions on the basis of subsequent
discovery. Indeed we are much more likely to evoke the suspected traits by
our own attitude and by our treatment of the stranger, and we are eager to
pounce upon any act that may be construed as a confirmation of our snap
judgment. It is obvious that these impressions will vary from individual to
individual and that any attempt to formulate them would expose their
fallaciousness.
6. Finally, in this analysis of the origin of our belief in the signs of
physiognomy, is the mere insistence that as a matter of fact there are
definite relationships discoverable and formulable between typical features
and typical characteristics of personality. Beliefs of this dogmatic kind
are most likely to be exploited by the professional counsellor, since they
appear to the examinee to be unknown, mysterious, esoteric facts. The
following formulations, taken from an account of the performance of one of
the most widely advertised of professional vocational counsellors, may
serve as an example of this type of dogmatic physiognomic doctrine.
"The sensitive, delicate-minded man usually has a fine-textured skin; the
coarse-minded man a coarse-textured skin. It is an embryological fact that
the skin was and is the original seat of all sensations, and that spinal
cords and nerves are but modified and specialized in-turned skin. Of
necessity a man's skin indicates the texture of his brain.
"Texture is a great classifier of humanity. The individual of fine hair,
fine-textured skin, delicately chiseled features, slender, graceful body
and limbs, as a general rule, is refined, loves beauty and grace, and likes
work either purely mental in its nature or offering an opportunity to
handle fine, delicate materials and tools. On the other hand the man with
coarse hair, coarse-textured skin, and large, strongly formed features
inclines as a general rule to occupations in which strength, vigor,
virility, and ability to live and work in the midst of harsh, rough and
unbeautiful conditions are prime requirements.
"It is no secret to observant employers of labor that blondes, as a general
rule, are changeable, variety loving, optimistic, and speculative, while
brunettes are consistent, steady, dependable, serious, and conservative."
"It turns out as one might naturally expect that the man who resembles the
greyhound in form is quicker, keener, more responsive, and less enduring
than the man who resembles the bulldog in form.
"A most cursory examination of the portraits of poets, educators, and
essayists will show a marked tendency in them to resemble the triangle in
structure of the head and body--both head and body wide above and narrower
in the lower portions. An examination of the portraits of a hundred great
generals, pioneers, builders, engineers, explorers, athletes, automobile
racers, aeronauts, and others who lead a life of great activity will show a
general tendency toward structure on the lines of the square--square face,
square body, square hands. Reference to the portraits of great judges,
financiers, organizers, and commercial kings will show a general tendency
toward structure upon the lines of the circle--round face, rounded body and
a tendency to roundness in hands and limbs.
"Anything which is hard in consistency has comparatively great resistance
and persistence. That which is elastic in consistency is adaptable and
seems to have spring, life, and energy within it. These principles have
been found to apply to human beings."
The existence of quite definite beliefs in these relations between
character and physiognomy is readily shown by experiments in which groups
of ten people were asked to arrange twenty photographs of women in an order
of merit. On different occasions and by varying groups of mature college
students, these photographs were arranged on the basis of seven different
traits, viz.: intelligence, humor, perseverance, kindness, conceit,
courage, and deceitfulness. Different judges show quite striking agreement
in their estimates of the characteristics suggested by a given photograph.
Thus, if the average position assigned to each photograph be taken as the
standard and the divergences of the ten judges from this standard be
averaged in the case of all the photographs, the average divergences for
the different traits are as follows[2]:
Intelligence 2.86 places
Perseverance 3.32 "
Kindliness 3.55 "
Conceit 3.57 "
Courage 3.69 "
Humor 3.90 "
Deceitfulness 4.14 "
This means that in the long run a stranger will place a given individual in
a group of twenty persons not over three or four positions away from the
place to which other strangers would assign him. The individual's
physiognomy, however little it may actually reveal of his personality,
nevertheless suggests rather definite characteristics to those whom he
meets, and to that degree determines their reaction toward him,
expectations of him, and belief in him. The definiteness or agreement of
these impressions seems also to vary with the trait in question; it is high
for intelligence and perseverance, low for humor and deceitfulness, and
intermediate for kindliness, conceit, and courage. Our own results,
however, must be taken only as suggestive, rather than as general, since
they may easily have been determined partly by the particular set of
photographs we used and by our particular and diverse sets of judges.[3]
Results of this character, and many similar ones which we are accumulating,
suggest, however, an interesting set of problems. It is psychologically as
interesting to inquire just what impressions people actually receive from
one's physiognomy and expression, as it is to ask whether these impressions
are correct. One's ultimate vocational accomplishment often depends on the
first impression he creates, the type of reception his appearance invites,
even though there may be no necessary connection whatever between
appearance and mental constitution. Vocational success depends not only on
the traits one really possesses, but also somewhat on the traits one is
believed to possess.
It is also interesting to observe that high correlations exist between some
of the traits as judged merely on the basis of photographs. Let 1.00 be
taken to indicate complete correspondence between two orders of merit, so
that the highest in the one scale is also the highest in the other scale,
the second in one the second in the other, and so on; then -1.00 will
indicate a completely reversed order, the best in one class being the
poorest in the other, etc.; a coefficient of 0 will mean only a chance
relationship, i. e., none at all. Then from 1.00 through 0 to -1.00 we have
represented all possible degrees of correspondence.[4] These figures are
called "coefficients of correlation," and can easily be computed by proper
statistical methods. In the present case the coefficients for all
combinations of two traits are as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Intelligence| Humor |Perseverance|Kindliness|Conceit|Courage
-------------+------------+-------+------------+----------+-------+-------
Humor | .47 | | | | |
Perseverance | .88 | .33 | | | |
Kindliness | .76 | .65 | .39 | | |
Conceit | .28 | -.03 | .08 | -.56 | |
Courage | .89 | .43 | .79 | .72 | -.25 |
Deceitfulness| -.11 | -.28 | -.02 | -.69 | .66 | -.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be seen that the intelligent, humorous, persevering, kindly, and
courageous countenances tend to be the same ones, and that the faces
suggesting the opposites or low degrees of these traits also tend to be
very much the same ones. This is indicated by the high positive
coefficients between these traits. But conceit and deceitfulness show
negative or very low positive correlation with all traits except each
other. In this latter case the correlation is positive and high (.66).
Other interesting relations between these judgments of character can be
inferred from the table of coefficients. But it should be remembered that
we are not here dealing with traits as demonstrably present, but only as
judged on the basis of facial characteristics and expression. The actual
relation between the physiognomic details and the true character of the
individual displaying them is a totally different matter. The close
correlations between the several desirable traits and between the several
undesirable traits, as found in this table of coefficients, seem to have a
further significance and suggest that the observers do not judge each trait
on the basis of particular and specific physiognomic details. They seem,
rather, to get a general impression of favorableness or unfavorableness,
and to rank the photographs on the basis of this general impression, no
matter which trait is being judged.
It is a common practice for employers, superintendents, agencies, etc., to
request the applicant for a position to send his or her photograph for
inspection. The urgency of some of these requests and the emphasis placed
on them seem to indicate that the photograph is believed to be valuable not
only for its service in revealing the general features but also for some
further and more specific indications which it affords. Very few attempts
seem to have been made to test actually the value of judgments of character
when they are based on photographs rather than on acquaintance. Experiments
recently conducted yield some interesting preliminary data on this
question. The question proposed was: "What relation exists between the
judgments which strangers form, on the basis of an individual's photograph,
and the judgments which acquaintances make on the basis of daily
familiarity and long observation?"[5]
All the members of a group of college women were judged by twenty-four of
their associates, for a number of more or less definite characteristics.
The twenty-five individuals constituting the group were arranged in an
order of merit for each trait, by each of the twenty-four judges. Only one
arrangement, for one trait, was made by any one judge within a given week.
The judgments were thus distributed over a considerable interval so that
judgments for one trait might influence as slightly as possible the
judgments of later traits. All these twenty-four judgments were then
averaged for each trait, and the final position of each person in each
trait thus determined by the consensus of opinion of the judges. This
measure is then a combined estimate on the basis of actual conduct and
behavior.
Photographs of all the members of the group were then secured, all of them
taken by the same photographer, in the same style and size. These
photographs were now judged, by a group of twenty-five men and a group of
twenty-five women, all of whom were _totally unacquainted_ with the
individuals who were being judged. These strangers arranged the photographs
in order of merit for the various traits of character, just as the earlier
group of judges had arranged the names of the members of the group, with
all of whom they were acquainted. The various arrangements of the
photographs were then averaged, yielding for each photograph an average
position in each trait. We thus have three measures of the group of college
women: (1) the judgments of their intimate associates; (2) the judgments
of twenty-five men, on the basis of photographs, and (3) the judgments of
twenty-five women, on the basis of photographs. All of these measures may
be compared with each other, and correlated so as to show their respective
amounts of correspondence. The results are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------
| Judgments by Associates Compared with
| the Judgments of the Photographs
Trait |--------------------------------------
| By 25 Men | By 25 Women | Average
-------------+------------+--------------+----------
Neatness | .03 | .07 | .05
Conceit | .10 | .27 | .19
Sociability | .29 | .29 | .29
Humor | .21 | .45 | .33
Likeability | .30 | .45 | .38
Intelligence | .42 | .61 | .51
Refinement | .50 | .52 | .51
Beauty | .60 | .49 | .55
Snobbishness | .58 | .53 | .56
Vulgarity | .61 | .69 | .65
|------------+--------------+----------
Average | .36 | .43 | .40
----------------------------------------------------
The correspondence between judgments of acquaintance and judgments of
photographs is seen to vary with the trait in question. Such traits as
neatness, conceit, sociability, humor, and likeability, important as they
are for vocational success or failure, show very low correlation. The
judgments of the photographs tell almost nothing at all of the nature of
the impression which the individual makes on her acquaintances, her true
character. With the remaining traits--beauty, intelligence, refinement,
snobbishness, and vulgarity--the coefficients are considerably larger, and
suggest that the photographs tend to be judged by the strangers in somewhat
the same way as the individuals are judged by their acquaintances.
Two points of special importance should be noted in this connection. The
first is that these correlations are not between the judgments of single
individuals. It is the combined or group judgment of twenty-five judges
which is required to yield these coefficients which even then average only
about .40 correlation with the estimates of associates. The following table
shows the ability of ten judges, chosen at random, to estimate these
characteristics through the examination of the photographs. In securing
this table the arrangement made by each individual judge was correlated
with the established order as determined by the estimates of associates, in
the case of the three traits--intelligence, neatness and sociability.
+--------+--------------------------------------+
| | Individual Correctness of Judges in |
| | Estimating |
| Judge |--------------------------------------+
| | Intelligence | Neatness |Sociability |
+--------+--------------+----------+------------+
| I | .51 | .11 | .39 |
| II | .11 | .10 | .08 |
| III | .15 | .29 | .05 |
| IV | -.27 | .06 | .49 |
| V | .08 | .24 | .08 |
| VI | .43 | .41 | .28 |
| VII | .04 | .11 | .02 |
| VIII | .39 | -.09 | .32 |
| IX | .22 | -.08 | .00 |
| X | .30 | .02 | .55 |
+--------+--------------+----------+------------+
|Average | .19 | .11 | .22 |
+--------+--------------+----------+------------+
These random samples of individual judicial capacity show at once how
unreliable individual judgment is in these matters. The individual judges
vary widely among themselves and they also depart widely from the
established order. Moreover, a judge who may happen to show a reasonable
degree of correctness in judging sociability may be very far away from
correctness in judging the other traits, or may, indeed, judge in quite the
reverse of the correct order. To have accepted the verdicts of a single
judge would not only have been manifestly unfair to the individual but also
hazardous to the employer. The combined impressions of twenty-five judges
is here required for the correlations for even half of the traits to reach
over .38.
The second point to be noted is that even under these circumstances the
coefficients are far from perfect, even for those traits in which they are
the highest. Only if beauty, snobbishness, or vulgarity are the traits
which are crucial, are judgments of the photographs reliable enough to be
worth considering. It would appear that the vocations which depend markedly
on these characteristics are exceedingly few. And even here, although the
reliance on coefficients of .55 might in all probability aid the employer
in decreasing the percentage of the snobbish or the vulgar among his
employees, grave injustice would most certainly be done to those many
individuals who constitute exceptions and keep the correlations from being
perfect. Only when correlation coefficients are very high can their
indications be applied in the guidance of individuals (as distinguished
from the selection of groups) with safety and justice.
Dean Schneider reports an attempt to verify the principles of a certain
system of physiognomics by putting them to an actual test. He writes:
"A group in the scientific management field affirmed that an examination of
physical characteristics such as the shape of the fingers and shape of the
head, disclosed aptitudes and abilities. For example, a directive,
money-making executive will have a certain shaped head and hand. A number
of money-making executives were picked at random and their physical
characteristics charted. We do not find that they conform at all to any
law. Also we found men who had the physical characteristics that ought to
make them executives, but they were anything but executives. A number of
tests of this kind gave negative results. We were forced to the conclusion
that this system was not reliable."
We must content ourselves on this point by insisting that the formulated
facts of physiognomy are so unsupported, contradictory, and extravagant
that the vocational psychologist cannot afford to trifle with them. General
impressions on the basis of the totality of an individual's appearance,
bearing, and behavior we shall always tend to receive. Whether one judges
more accurately by an analytic recording of each detail or by ignoring
these in favor of his own more or less unanalyzed total impression has
never been demonstrated. Under any circumstances one is likely to look
about for such details as may lend support to the total impression. But it
is quite unjustifiable--though perhaps commercially expedient--to pretend
that the judgment is really based on the details selected.
The life of him who bases his expectations of human conduct on the
physiognomy of his neighbors is bound to be full of delightful as well as
fearful surprises. I shall never forget the practical lesson in the
principles of physiognomics I learned when watching a shipload of
immigrants pass the physical and mental examinations at Ellis Island.
Admission to the new land, and to the theater of their vocational plans,
depended on the results of these examinations. Ellis Island is perhaps the
one place in the world where principles of individual psychology are most
in demand, and where such principles as are relied on lead to results of
the most serious human consequences. I watched the line file past the
preliminary gate, by the inspectors who scrutinized them still more
carefully, and on into the inner room where the suspected ones were
submitted to more searching examination. One young woman stood out among
her companions as easily the most comely and attractive of the women. She
was the only one of that shipload who was finally certified as an imbecile,
and refused admission to the mainland.
The physiognomic analyses, then, do not merit serious consideration as
instruments of vocational guidance and selection. The mere facts of
physical structure, contour, shape, texture, proportion, color, etc., yield
no more information concerning capacities and interests than did the
incantations of the primitive medicine-man or the absurd charts of the
phrenologists. In so far as character and ability may be determined by
facts of structure, it is by the minute structure of the microscopic
elements of the brain and other vital tissues, about which we now know
exceedingly little. We shall therefore dismiss from further consideration
the futile attempts to diagnose mental constitution on the basis of bodily
structure, and turn to the more reliable and scientifically conceived
methods of inferring the individual's mental traits from his behavior or
his actual performance when tests are made under controlled conditions.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] An interesting review of the origin and development of phrenology and
other systems of character analysis is given by Joseph Jastrow, in an
article in _Popular Science Monthly_, June, 1915.
[2] To make clear the way in which these figures are secured, and to show
concretely what they mean, suppose that the twenty photographs are lettered
A, B, C, D, etc. They are to be arranged in an order by each judge
according to his judgment of the intelligence of the individuals, the
individuals being unknown to the judges. Suppose that the ten judges place
photograph A respectively in the following positions: 9, 11, 5, 8, 9, 12,
7, 8, 7, 14. The average of these ten positions is 9, which we then take as
the standard or most probable position of photograph A. Only two of the
judges actually place A in the ninth position. The other eight judges all
vary more or less from this position. We then find how much each judge
varies from the average of the group, and the ten variations are
respectively 0, 2, 4, 1, 0, 3, 2, 1, 2, 5 positions. The average of these
individual variations is 2.0 positions. This figure indicates how closely
the ten judges agree in their estimates of photograph A, a small average
deviation indicating close agreement. In this way we find for each of the
twenty photographs its average deviation; and if the twenty figures thus
secured are in their turn averaged we secure an approximate measure of the
disagreement of the judges when estimating the intelligence suggested by
the photographs. Similarly we may compute average deviations for any other
trait which is judged. These final figures are the ones which are given in
the table, each of them being the average of twenty photographs as judged
by ten persons.
[3] In such experiments the actual magnitude of the measure of variation
becomes larger as the number of judges is reduced, the number of
photographs increased, or the photographs so selected as to resemble one
another more closely.
[4] Since such coefficients of correlation will be frequently used
throughout the book as measures of the amount of correspondence or
relationship between two things, it may be well at this point to indicate
briefly how they are computed. Suppose that, as arranged in order on the
basis of their final averages, the photographs stand in the following
positions for the two traits--courage and kindliness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo | Courage |Kindliness| d |d^{2}
------+---------+----------+---+----+---------------------------------
A | 2 | 5 | 3 | 9 | When the several values
B | 5 | 1 | 4 | 16 | under d^{2} are added their
C | 10 | 13 | 3 | 9 | sum is 376. This, multiplied
D | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | by 6, according to the
E | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | formula, gives 2256. The
F | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | denominator of the fraction
G | 14 | 10 | 4 | 16 | is, since there are 20 cases,
H | 20 | 15 | 5 | 25 | 7980. Dividing 2256 by
I | 16 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 7980 gives us .28; for 7980 is
J | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 20 times 399, which in turn is
K | 8 | 14 | 6 | 36 | 20^{2}--1. When this is subtracted
L | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | from 1.00 it gives us
M | 12 | 20 | 8 | 64 | .72, which is the measure of
N | 15 | 11 | 4 | 16 | correlation between the two
O | 17 | 18 | 1 | 1 | orders. Since it is very high
P | 9 | 7 | 2 | 4 | it suggests that the two
Q | 6 | 17 | 9 | 81 | traits are judged in much
R | 13 | 9 | 4 | 16 | the same way.
S | 18 | 16 | 2 | 4 |
T | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A formula is provided by mathematicians which enables us to compute the
degree of resemblance between these two orders. There are, in fact, several
formulae for such purposes, all of which yield substantially the same
results. The one used in this case was r = 1.00-(6 Sigma d^{2})/(n(n^{2}-1)).
In this formula _r_ stands for the coefficient of correlation for which we
are working; _d_ is the difference between the positions which each of the
photographs receives in the two traits; Sigma means the sum of these
differences when each has been squared or multiplied by itself; _n_ means
the number of cases, which is in this case 20, since there are that number
of photographs. When these substitutions are made and the equation solved,
the result will be the measure of resemblance, which will lie somewhere
between +1.00 and -1.00, as explained in the text. This calculation is
carried out here for the two sample traits, for the convenience of readers
who may not be familiar with statistical methods.
[5] These experiments were conducted by Lucy G. Cogan, M. A., to whom I am
indebted for permission to use the results in advance of their more
detailed publication in her forthcoming paper on "Judgments of Character on
the Basis of Photographs."