But two lengths, which when tested with the same foot rule are found to be exactly equal, are not necessarily equal in the estimate formed of them by the mind. Look, for instance, at the two lines in [Fig. 25]. According to the foot rule each of them is just one inch in length, but the mind unhesitatingly pronounces the upright one to be considerably longer than the other; the standard which it applies is not, like a physical one, identical in the two cases. Many other examples might be cited illustrative of the general uncertainty of mental estimates.
Fig. 25.—Illusion of Length.
The variation of the vague mental standard which we unconsciously employ seems to be governed by a law of very wide if not universal application. Though this law is in itself simple and intelligible enough, it cannot easily be formulated in terms of adequate generality. The best result of my efforts is the following unwieldy statement:—The mental standard which is applied in the estimation of a quality or a condition tends to assimilate itself, as regards the quality or condition in question, to the object or other entity under comparison of which the same (quality or condition) is an attribute.
In plainer but less precise language, there is a disposition to minimise extremes of whatever kind; to underestimate any deviation from a mean or average state of things, and consequently to vary our conception of the mean or standard condition in such a manner that the deviation from it which is presented to our notice in any particular instance may seem to be small rather than large.
Thus, when we look at a thing which impresses us as being long or tall, the mental standard of length is at once increased. It is as if, in making a physical measurement, our foot rule were automatically to add some inches to its length, while still supposed to represent a standard foot: clearly anything measured by means of the augmented rule would seem to contain a fewer number of feet, and, therefore, to be shorter than if the rule had not undergone a change.
It is not an uncommon thing for people visiting Switzerland for the first time to express disappointment at the apparently small height of the mountains. A mountain of 10,000 feet certainly does not seem to be twenty times as lofty as a hill of 500. The fact is that a different scale of measurement is applied in the two cases; though the observer is unaware of it, the mountain is estimated in terms of a larger unit than the hill.
