Vocational Psychology: Its Problems and Methods

by Harry L. Hollingworth; Leta Stetter Hollingworth

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.