A few years ago we were content to guess, to follow tradition, and to charge up to the caprices of fate or an all-wise Providence the failures we experienced as a result of our ignorance. Then someone, less bound by tradition than the average, discovered that exact knowledge was obtainable about most subjects. Scientific research took the place of guess-work or mere haphazard leaps in the dark. We began to observe, classify, measure, weigh, test, and record, instead of guess. Thus science was born. As far back as human records go men have made observations upon others, have formed certain conclusions as a result of these observations, and have recorded them. Some were accurate and valuable; others merely ludicrous and misleading. Tens of thousands of men and women have attempted to analyze human character, but most of them became lost in a maze of apparent contradictions and gave up in despair, content to follow impression and intuition. Though they became discouraged and abandoned the field, each of these workers contributed something of value to the subject, and to-day we have a science of character analysis exact enough to add very greatly to our wisdom in dealing with humanity and its problems. LIMITATIONS OF THE SCIENCE We do not wish you to misunderstand our claims for the science. Character analysis 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 analysis is that it is classified 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 analyze 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?"