even if one part of the face really did mean something definite,
no one could figure out its character value because of the
influence of other features--contradictory, inconsistent,
supplementary. Just as the wisest man of his day took bribes as
Lord Chancellor, so the finest face may be invalidated by some
disharmony, and a fatal weakness may disintegrate a splendid
character. Moreover, no one really studies faces disinterestedly,
impartially, without prejudice. We like or dislike too readily,
we are blinded by the race, sex and age of the one studied, and,
most fatal of all, we judge by standards of beauty that are
totally misleading. The sweetest face may hide the most arrant
egoist, for facial beauty has very little to do with the nature
behind the face. In fact, facial make-up is more influenced by
diet, disease and racial tendency than by character.

It would be idle to take up in any detail the claims of
phrenologist and palmist. The former had a very respectable start
in the work of Broca and Gall[1] in that the localization of
function in the various parts of the brain made at least partly
logical the belief that the conformation of the head also
indicated functions of character. But there are two fatal flaws
in the system of phrenological claims. First, even if there were
an exact cerebral localization of powers, which there is not, it
would by no means follow that the shape of the head outlined the
brain. In fact, it does not, for the long-headed are not
long-brained, nor are the short-headed short-brained. Second, the
size and disposal of the sinuses, the state of nutrition in
childhood have far more to do with the "bumps" of the head than
brain or character. The bump of philoprogenitiveness has in my
experience more often been the result of rickets than a sign of