Let us first point out clearly the difference between science and guesswork. The vast majority of jobs are filled by guesswork. The farmer who hires a field hand, the housewife who employs a cook, the foreman who takes on a new “hand” in the factory, and even employers hiring persons for more responsible positions, all do it, to a greater degree than they imagine, by guesswork. They may make inquiries, more or less thorough depending upon the compensation and responsibility involved, of persons who are reputed to know by observation something of the candidate’s qualifications. Unless the individual under consideration be flagrantly and patently unfit the reports thus obtained are almost always favourable. In many cases no effort is made even to obtain such reports.
Many persons who regard themselves as intelligent employ men and women for all sorts of delicate operations and confidential and responsible relations as a result of observation alone; yet observation alone will tell no more about a man or a woman than it will about an automobile—the shape and the colouring.
When you observe a human being you can determine certain physical characteristics, such as size, complexion, colour of eyes and hair, soundness of teeth, shape of body and head, contour of face, features, and expression. You make up your mind that you like the person or you do not. But as for determining by means of anything your unaided observation discloses whether or not the person under examination is qualified either to perform or to learn how to perform efficiently a given task or set of tasks, you might as well expect to discover the hillclimbing power of an automobile by merely looking at it.
Yet that is precisely the way in which, in the vast majority of cases, the supremely important work of fitting individuals and jobs together is done in the world of business and industry.
True, the prospective employer usually asks a few questions, but the applicant’s manner and tone of voice have usually as much to do with the final decision as the actual replies.
Men and women are usually hired, in short, on their looks and on the impressions made at a single short interview. That it is too much to expect persons so selected to fit into even the simplest sort of a business or industrial organization should be obvious to every intelligent person; that sometimes they do fit should be no less obviously recognized as largely accidental.
We do not recognize the absurdity of this method of selecting persons for particular positions, partly because this is the only way most of us have ever known and partly because there is in almost every human being a secret or subconscious belief in his own peculiar powers of judging others by means of surface indications.
The fallacy of the belief that one may arrive at accurate conclusions as to individual capacity and characteristics by merely looking at the individuals concerned has been well set forth by Prof. L. M. Terman of Stanford University. Much of the popular belief in the efficacy of this method, Doctor Terman believes, is due to the fact that the public does not know that the pretensions of the pseudo-science of “phrenology” were long ago shown to be unwarranted. According to phrenology, definite and constant relations are believed to exist between certain mental traits and the contour of the head. Phrenologists teach, for example, that one’s endowment in such traits as intelligence, combativeness, sympathy, tenderness, honesty, religious fervour, and courage may be judged by the prominence of various parts of the skull. While the sincerity of Gall, the French physiologist of a century ago who invented the so-called science, and of his followers, is not to be questioned, the pretensions of phrenology itself have been thoroughly exploded. It has been demonstrated that traits like those above mentioned do not have separate and well-defined seats in the brain and that skull contour is not a reliable index of the brain development beneath.
“In the underworld of pseudo-science, however,” says Professor Terman, “phrenology and kindred fakes survive. Hundreds of men and women still earn their living by ‘feeling bumps on the head,’ reading character from the lines of the hand, etc.
“But if the rating of men by pseudo-science is misleading, perhaps science is still unnecessary. It may be argued that mental traits can be rated accurately enough for all practical purposes on the basis of ordinary observation of one’s behaviour, speech, and appearance. We are constantly judging people by this offhand method, because we are compelled to do so. Consequently we all acquire a certain facility in handling the method. For ordinary purposes it is infinitely better than nothing. A skilful observer can estimate roughly the height of an airplane; but if we would know its real height we must use the methods of science and perform a mathematical computation.