The physiognomic analyses, then, do not merit serious consideration as instruments of vocational guidance and selection. The mere facts of physical structure, contour, shape, texture, proportion, color, etc., yield no more information concerning capacities and interests than did the incantations of the primitive medicine-man or the absurd charts of the phrenologists. In so far as character and ability may be determined by facts of structure, it is by the minute structure of the microscopic elements of the brain and other vital tissues, about which we now know exceedingly little. We shall therefore dismiss from further consideration the futile attempts to diagnose mental constitution on the basis of bodily structure, and turn to the more reliable and scientifically conceived methods of inferring the individual's mental traits from his behavior or his actual performance when tests are made under controlled conditions. FOOTNOTES: [1] An interesting review of the origin and development of phrenology and other systems of character analysis is given by Joseph Jastrow, in an article in _Popular Science Monthly_, June, 1915. [2] To make clear the way in which these figures are secured, and to show concretely what they mean, suppose that the twenty photographs are lettered A, B, C, D, etc. They are to be arranged in an order by each judge according to his judgment of the intelligence of the individuals, the individuals being unknown to the judges. Suppose that the ten judges place photograph A respectively in the following positions: 9, 11, 5, 8, 9, 12, 7, 8, 7, 14. The average of these ten positions is 9, which we then take as the standard or most probable position of photograph A. Only two of the judges actually place A in the ninth position. The other eight judges all vary more or less from this position. We then find how much each judge varies from the average of the group, and the ten variations are respectively 0, 2, 4, 1, 0, 3, 2, 1, 2, 5 positions. The average of these individual variations is 2.0 positions. This figure indicates how closely the ten judges agree in their estimates of photograph A, a small average deviation indicating close agreement. In this way we find for each of the twenty photographs its average deviation; and if the twenty figures thus secured are in their turn averaged we secure an approximate measure of the disagreement of the judges when estimating the intelligence suggested by the photographs. Similarly we may compute average deviations for any other trait which is judged. These final figures are the ones which are given in the table, each of them being the average of twenty photographs as judged by ten persons. [3] In such experiments the actual magnitude of the measure of variation becomes larger as the number of judges is reduced, the number of photographs increased, or the photographs so selected as to resemble one another more closely.