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 naïveté 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 coördination 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, aëronauts, 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:
| Trait | Judgments by Associates Compared with the Judgments of the Photographs | ||
| 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.
| Judge | Individual Correctness of Judges in Estimating | ||
| 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.