| Sinclair Set | Average of the 20 Guessing Sets | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W. F. P.’s Estimate | Miss H’s Estimate | ||||
| S. | 3 | S. | 0 | S. | 0 |
| P. S. | 5 | P. S. | 3⁄20 | P. S. | 1⁄20 |
| Sug. | 4 | Sug. | 3⁄5 | Sug. | 7⁄10 |
| S. Sug. | 0 | S. Sug. | 13⁄20 | S. Sug. | 3⁄5 |
| F. | 1 | F. | 11 3⁄5 | F. | 11 13⁄20 |
But there is perhaps a surer way of making comparisons. It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between a Success and a Partial Success, a Partial Success and a Suggestive, a Suggestive and a Slightly Suggestive. But when the drawings represent not simple diagrams, but objects animate and inanimate, and a reproduction by Mrs. Sinclair is placed beside a like-numbered one in any of the 20 guessing sets, it is very seldom that one cannot be certain whether one is better as compared with the common original, and within fair limits how much better. And the proof of this statement is found in the fact that when two persons passed upon the 20 sets of guessing reproductions, comparing them with the 1 set of Sinclair reproductions, to determine, case for case, in 260, which were more nearly like the originals, and to what degree, their rating was almost identical, although they worked in entire and absolute mutual independence of each other.
In the following table, Si. = Sinclair drawing, G. = a Guessing drawing, v.m.b. = very much better, m.b. = much better, b. = better.
W. F. P. found the guessing reproduction of experiment 1 to be bad to a degree equal with the Mrs. Sinclair failure, in 16 instances. Miss Hoffmann found it equally bad also in 16 instances, and deemed another reproduction equally to possess some tiniest resemblance to the original in 1 instance. Aside from these we have
| In the 20 Sets (10 Ladies and Miss H’s 10) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W. F. P.’s Estimate | Miss H’s Estimate | ||||
| Si.v.m.b. | 222 | Si.v.m.b. | 222 | ||
| Si.m.b. | 11 | Si.m.b. | 13 | ||
| Si.b. | 7 | Si.b. | 4 | ||
| G.v.m.b. | 2 | G.v.m.b. | 2 | ||
| G.b. | 2 | G.b. | 2 | ||
| 240 | 4 | 239 | 4 | ||
It is almost incredible that two human beings could come to so close an agreement, unless one had some clue to the opinions of the other, but it is even so, no smallest hint passed in either direction. The fact is that in very few instances can there be the slightest hesitancy in deciding which is nearer the common original, the Sinclair or the guessing reproduction.
If there is any reproduction of the Sinclair series whose resemblance to the original might seem illusory it is that coupling with the leaf of a tree or plant (Figs. [148], [148a]). But of the 20 guesses of that original not one is so near; in 18 instances (W. F. P.) or at least 15 (Miss H) Mrs. Sinclair’s is very much the better, in 1 (W. F. P.) to 3 (Miss H) it is much better, and in 1 (W. F. P.) or 2 (Miss H) it is better.
Perhaps some persons would think that such resemblance as there is between the butterfly and Mrs. Sinclair’s reproduction (Figs. [97], [97a]) is too faint to count, or at least is accidental. But, by the independent judgment of two persons, not a single one of the corresponding guessing reproductions is as near the original or anything like so near.
Or one might sneer at calling Mrs. Sinclair’s reproduction of Figure 147 “Suggestive.” Only 5 vertical lines, wrongly curving at the top, crossed by three lines, to stand for a “door with hinges, lower sash,” and wire screen covering the upper half! But not a single one of the 20 guesses approaches so much resemblance. Miss H says that of 19 of these, and W. F. P. of 16, “Si.v.m.b.” Miss H says of 1, W. F. P. of 2, “Si.m.b.,” while W. F. P. at least is sure of his remaining 2, “Si.b.”
In the light of such tests as those just now made, even such degrees of resemblance as we have found in the very weakest numbers of the 13 in this Sinclair series take on deep significance. And the whole mass of our counter-experiments clearly indicates that the reproductions by Mrs. Sinclair in that series are prodigiously beyond the reach of chance guessing.