“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. “The trouble with the observational method is its lack of a universal standard of judgment. One observer may use a high, another a low standard of comparison. A four-story building in the midst of New York’s ‘sky-scrapers’ looks very low; placed in the midst of a wide expanse of one-story structures it would look very tall. “Moreover, we are easily misled by appearances. The writer knows a young man who looks so foolish that he is often mistaken by casual acquaintances for a mental defective. In reality he is one of the half dozen brightest students in a large university. Another man who in reality has the mentality of a ten-year-old child is so intelligent looking that he was able to secure employment as a city policeman. “Language is a great deceiver. The fluent talker is likely to be overrated, the person of stumbling or monosyllabic speech to be underrated. Similar errors are made in judging the intelligence of the sprightly and the stolid, the aggressive and the timid, etc. Our tendency is also to overestimate the intellectual quality of our friends and to underestimate that of persons we do not like. “If the method of offhand judgment were reliable, different judges would agree in their ratings of the same individual. When the judges disagree it is evident that not all can be correct. When intelligence is rated in this way wide differences of opinion invariably appear. Twenty-five members of a university class who had worked together intimately for a year were asked to rate the individuals of the class from 1 to 25 in order of intelligence. The result was surprising. Almost every member of the class was rated among the brightest by someone, and almost every member of the class among the dullest by someone. Doubtless the judges were misled by all sorts of irrelevant matters, such as personal appearance, fluency of speech, positiveness of manner, personal likes and dislikes, etc.