LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENCE

We do not wish you to misunderstand our claims for the science. Character a.n.a.lysis is not a science in the mathematical sense. As we said in our introduction, we cannot place a man on the scales and determine that he has so many milligrams of industry, or apply measurements and prove that he has so many centimeters of talent for salesmanship. Nor can we, using the method of the chemist, apply the litmus to his stream of consciousness and get his psychical reaction in a demonstrable way. We are glad we cannot, else humanity might lose the fine arts of coquetry and conquest.

Perhaps we never shall be able to do these things, but that is small cause for discouragement. What we do claim for the science of character a.n.a.lysis is that it is cla.s.sified knowledge based upon sound principles; that it is as accurate as the science of medicine; that it can be imparted to others; and, best of all, that anyone can test it for himself beyond any question of doubt.

TESTS SHOW UNTRAINED JUDGMENT UNRELIABLE

"Oh, I'm a pretty good judge of men," people say to us. We have heard this declaration thousands of times in the last seventeen years. Occasionally it was, no doubt, true, but more often not, even when the statement was made in the greatest sincerity. So we determined to test the ability of the public to a.n.a.lyze men. The first test appeared in a number of magazines, giving a profile and full-face view, showing the hands of a young man. A few simple questions were asked concerning him, such as these:

"Would you employ this man?

"If so, would you employ him as salesman, executive, cashier, clerk, chemist, mechanic?

"Is he healthy, honest, industrious, aggressive?

"Would you choose him as a friend?"

Of 5,000 replies but 4.1 per cent were right or nearly right. Some of the replies were astounding. One manager of a big business wrote: "This man would be an exceptionally honest and trustworthy cashier or treasurer."

One sales manager replied: "I would like to have this man on my sales force. He would make a hummer of a salesman, if I am any judge of men. His hands are identical with my own," etc., etc. But the climax was reached with this letter from a young lady: "He would be a devoted husband and father. I would like him as a friend."

Our own a.n.a.lysis of this man, from photographs on a test, was as follows:

"We would not employ this man.

"He is not healthy.

"He is intelligent.

"He is not honest.

"He is not industrious.

"He is aggressive in a disagreeable way.

"We would not choose him as a friend.

"John Doe is a natural mechanic who has had very little training in that line of work. Being exceedingly keen and intelligent, without right moral principles, he has used his natural mechanical ability in illegitimate lines."

Here is a brief sketch of John Doe, furnished by a gentleman who befriended him and has followed his career for years:

"John is thirty-one years of age and has just been released from a term in Sing Sing Prison. The crime for which he served sentence was burglary. He made a skeleton key with which he gained access to a loft where were stored valuable goods. He stole three thousand dollars worth of these from his employer. He admits that he has committed other crimes of forgery and theft. Perhaps the cleverest of these was forgery which was never discovered. He is exceedingly friendly and makes friends easily. He is, however, very erratic and irritable in disposition and often quarrelsome.

He is a fair example of a common type which has intelligence and skill but has not learned to direct his activities along constructive lines."

A more complicated advertis.e.m.e.nt followed this first one, giving the portraits of nine men, each successful in his chosen work because well fitted for it by natural apt.i.tude as well as by training. People were asked to state the vocation of each. Out of 4,876 replies but three were correct.

SOME FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS

Surely, when the untrained judgment of intelligent people goes so wide of the mark, it is worth while to inquire whether or not science can come to the rescue. Perhaps a brief examination of some well-established truths about human beings will aid in finding an answer to our query.

The science of character a.n.a.lysis by the observational method is based upon three very simple scientific truths:

First, man's body is the product of evolution through countless ages, and is what it is to-day as the result of the combined effect upon it of heredity and environment.

Second, man's mind is also the product of evolution through countless ages, and is what it is to-day as the result of the effect upon it of the same heredity and the same environment as have affected his body.

Third, man's body and man's mind profoundly affect each other in all of their actions and reactions and have affected each other through all the centuries of their simultaneous evolution.

EVOLUTION OF BLONDES AND BRUNETTES

Men's bodies differ from one another in many ways. A little scientific investigation soon proves to us that these differences are the result of differences in heredity and environment. Men's minds differ from one another in countless ways. Scientific investigation also proves that these mental differences, or differences in character, are also the result of differences in heredity and environment.

For example, people whose ancestors, through countless ages, lived in the bright sunlight and tropical luxuriance of the warmer climes, have dark eyes, dark hair, and dark skin because nature found it necessary to supply an abundance of pigmentation in order to protect the delicate tissues of the body from injury by the actinic rays of the sun. The same soft luxuriance of their environment has made these people slow, easy-going, hateful of change, introspective, philosophical and religious. On the other hand, people whose ancestors dwelt for centuries in the cold, dark, cloudy and foggy climate of Northwestern Europe have less need for pigmentation and are, therefore, flaxen-haired, blue-eyed and white-skinned.

The hardships and rigors of this Northern climate made these people aggressive, active, restless, fond of variety, and, because of their fierce struggle for existence, exceedingly practical, matter-of-fact, and material.

WHY NOSES DIFFER IN SIZE AND SHAPE

Another example ill.u.s.trates this truth clearly: The type of human nose evolved in warm, humid climates is low and flat, with large, short pa.s.sageways directly to the lungs. People living in such a climate have little need for great energy and activity, since there is food in abundance all around them. On the other hand, the type of nose evolved in a cold, dry climate is high in the bridge, with thin nostrils, so that the air may be both warmed and moistened before reaching the lungs. People living in such a climate have great need for activity, both in order to secure the means of subsistence and in order to keep themselves warm. Thus we find that the low, flat nose is everywhere the nose of indolence and pa.s.sivity, while the large nose, high in the bridge, is everywhere an indication of energy and aggressiveness.

WHY SOME HEADS ARE HARD, OTHERS SOFT

In brief, then, darkness of color is not the cause of deliberation and conservatism, but both darkness of color and conservatism are results of the same causes, namely, a heredity and environment which produce these characteristics. Blonde coloring is not a cause of restless activity, but both the color and the activity are the result of evolution in a cold, dark, rigorous climate.

A striking example of the working out of the three truths which we have given is seen in the consistency of the body. Hard hands, hard muscles, and, in general, a dense, compact, unyielding consistency of fiber, are both inherited and acquired as the result of hard physical labor and the enduring of hardships. As is well known, those who spend their lives in grinding toil in the midst of hard conditions care little for the finer sentiments and sympathies of life. They have no time for them, no energy left for them. By the very necessities of their lot they are compelled to be hostile to change, free from all extravagance, and largely impervious to new ideas. Therefore, wherever we find hardness of consistency we find a tendency to narrowness, parsimony, conservatism, and lack of sympathy.

Looking at this fact from a little different angle, we see that, since the body affects the mind and the mind the body so profoundly, the body of hard fiber, being impervious to physical impressions, will yield but slowly and meagerly to those molecular changes which naturally accompany emotional response and intellectual receptivity.

These are but a few examples of the truths upon which the science of character a.n.a.lysis by the observational method is based. Many others may occur to you. Many others have been observed, traced and verified in our work upon this science.

A BRIEF RECAPITULATION

Briefly recapitulating, we see that for every physical difference between men there is a corresponding mental difference, because both the physical differences and the mental differences are the result of the same heredity and environment. We see, further, that these physical and mental differences are not only results of the same environment affecting the individual through his remote ancestry, but that they are tied together by cause and effect in the individual as he stands to-day.

BASIS OF CLa.s.sIFICATION

We have told you that the science of character a.n.a.lysis is cla.s.sified knowledge. It is clear to you by this time that the knowledge which lies at the basis of this science is knowledge concerning physical and mental differences and their correspondences. In this science, therefore, since we are to observe physical differences and from them to determine differences in intellect, in disposition, in natural talents, in character in general, our first cla.s.sification must deal with these physical differences.

Men differ from one another in nine fundamental ways These ways are: color, form, size, structure, texture, consistency, proportion, expression, and condition. Let us consider each of them briefly.

COLOR

Color is, perhaps, the most striking variable. You instantly observe whether a person is white or black, brown or yellow. Indeed, so striking are these variations that they were formerly the basis upon which humanity was divided into races.

We have already briefly touched upon the cause for pigmentation and the indications of differences in color. For many years anthropologists were at a loss to understand exactly why some men were black and others white.

About twenty years ago, however, Von Schmaedel propounded the theory that pigmentation in the hair, eyes and skin was Nature's way of protecting the tissues from injury by the actinic or ultra-violet rays of the sun, which destroy protoplasm. Following the enunciation of Von Schmaedel's theory, prolonged experimentation was made by many anthropologists, chief among whom was our own late Major Charles E. Woodruff, of the U.S. Army. In Major Woodruff's book, "The Effects of Tropical Light Upon White Men," are to be found, set forth in a most fascinating way, evidences amounting almost to proof of the correctness of Von Schmaedel's theory.

Since Major Woodruff's book appeared, many other anthropologists have declared their acceptance of the theory, so that to-day we may a.s.sert with confidence that the black man is black because of the excessive sunlight of his environment, and that the white man is white because he and his ancestors did not need protection from the sun. Mountain climbers cover their faces and hands with a mixture of grease and lamp-black in order to prevent sunburn. When in India we wore actinic underwear, dark gla.s.ses, and solar topees to protect us from the excessive light.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BLONDES AND BRUNETTES