Talk:Phrenology

Bias?

The last few paragraphs of this article seems very biased to me. It is my understanding (based for example on articles by Stephen Jay Gould) that phrenology has been disproved empirically: a variety of experiments showed no correlation between skull shape and mental faculties. It is also my understanding that very few respected scientists adhere to phrenology these days. However, the article seems to claim that phrenology came into disfavor for irrelevant reasons (its abuse by racists and the advent of psychology). I hope someone can paint a more objective picture than this; I don't feel that I know enough to do so myself. --Zvika 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I read the last paragraphs and it reads like phrenology has a bad name because of people misusing it. However, it should be noted that phrenology is no longer taken seriously because it has little to no factual basis. Anyone want to try a rewrite? --Quasipalm 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well guys, seeing as nobody else seemed to mind, I did a bit of research myself, and ended up changing not only the last paragraph but also a few factual errors I found along the way. Also did some basic copyediting. I hope whoever is out there is satisfied with the result and particularly I hope this is not going to start another NPOV war. The main modifications are:

• Tried to organize the beginning of the history section and removed the bit about physiognomy which appears in the physiognomy article and is unrelated.
• Paragraph which began "In the 19th century" contained factual errors and has been corrected. Phrenology had ups and downs during the 19th century, with a peak interest around 1830 and another towards 1880; in any case, mainstream academia rejected it by around 1840, as demonstrated by the fact that the prestigious British Association for the Advancement of Science wouldn't hear of them.
• I do not agree with the description of the "renewed interest" in phrenology in the 20th century, but do not know enough to correct it, so I only expressed more accurately the reasons for its later fall into disfavor.
• The description as though a phrenological device is presented in a "science museum" in Minnesota is a deliberate half-truth IMO. In fact, the device is presented in a permanent collection entitled "Questionable Medical Devices". This has been noted.
• Most importantly, I changed the very POV ending to cite both the legacy of phrenology and its mistakes. As it turns out, some very important ideas in neuroscience were originally proposed by phrenologists (particularly the localized functionality of the brain). However there were also many ideas that are IMO disproved by modern methods like fMRI.

I have attempted to describe everything reservedly in the hope that I do not hurt any present-day phrenologist's feelings. I hope I succeeded. --Zvika 21:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect

It is meantioned that phrenology was a protoscience, this is incorrect. IMHO a protoscience can only be something of current scientific research that applies to the scientific dogma and is based on science that hasn`t been disproven due to lack of empiric data.

All of history was a major contributor to all modern sciences including astrology - which got people interested in stars and to ponder about star constellations and intensity etc. I think claiming that phrenology was a protoscience is bull, especially since protoscience is a modern term that IMHO can not correctly be applied to sciences of the past. Foremost key todo protoscience was the emergence of raw computing power, powerful and deep mathematics as well as algorithms and theoretical models.Slicky 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

IIRC, and I read about it last in '86 or so, it was generally about the shape but more specifically about the locations of various lumps and crannies on the head and how each (supposedly) corresponded to various psychological and emotional traits. --Koyaanis Qatsi

---

the inventor of Phrenology, whose name escapes me right now, also believed very strongly that living in octagonal houses was best - he had a very Feng Shui style justification for it (MY favorite pseudo-science du jour, by the way). There are octagonal houses all over America built on phrenological principles about 1845-1865. --MichaelTinkler

---

You mean Orson Squire Fowler, a 19th century American phrenologist an prolific writer who was in fact the inventor of the octogonal house. He was not the inventor of phrenology though (this was done by a German doctor, Franz Joseph Gall, but he did a lot of work in popularizing the subject. His brother Lorenzo Niles Fowler, who spent most of his life in London, became famous as the designer of the china "Phrenology head". LHOON

---

Hello I am new to Wikipedia. I think the article on Phrenology is great. Could you please confirm if I am allowed to translate "the article on Phrenology" in Dutch and edit it to www.wikipedia.nl (the Dutch wikipedia). Thanks, zo_vrolijk@hotmail.com

Of course! This is encouraged! Everyking 14:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inventor of the gall bladder

I don't think Gall invented the gall bladder, as stated in this article, but he may have discovered it.

T Stewart

I think perhaps someone is confusing him with Dr Samuel Gall, who actually invented the gall bladder, see [1]... 129.67.126.135 02:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: that was prob a joke. The link says nothing of that kind. Don't follow it (I'm protected behind Debian/GNU/Linux). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed "inventor of the gall bladder" comment added by 143.48.119.27 20:41, 3 Apr 2005, tongue-in-cheek response of 129.67.126.135 above notwithstanding... Jokestress 02:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Phrenology as Protoscience

This section is silly. Phrenology only bears the most superficial resemblance to modern neurology, and even that is a stretch. Yes, its been quite well established that personality is a function of the brain; but thats quite different from saying skull shape offers any glimpse into personality--and the nearness of the skull and brain offers absolutely no basis for saying that the ideas of phrenology were incorporated into neurology, as seems to be the unstated premise of the section. This section was not worth its page space--I think most people would agree aside from the person who wrote the section. Atleast be more specific as to what ideas were incorporated. (the gall area thing doesn't count, a chance nearness to broca's area means nothing.) I'm confident if pressed to be mores specific little can be said for the idea. --Brentt 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think that phrenology is a silly, outdated idea. However, I don't think that means this section needs to be deleted. I think the section is fairly NPOV, and if you disagree, why not edit it instead of delete it?

Many totally wrong ideas have contributed to science, and this deserves mention: I believe one of the first people to seriously research EEG was in fact looking for evidence for telepathy. If it is factually correct that phrenology was the first to claim localized brain activity, and the fact that emotion takes place in the brain, then why not mention it? As to the language faculty, that seems like a fairly minor issue to me, but I believe that this sentence just serves to point out how wrong the theory was: out of all the faculties suggested, only one was even close to being correct. The way I see it, this sentence reduces the credibility of phrenology, rather than increasing it.

Anyway, not wanting to start an edit war, I did not revert your deletion yet -- but I hope you revert it or at least replace it with something more to your liking. --Zvika 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Has phrenology been debunked or not?

The last sentence of the intro says: "the basic premise that personality is determined by skull shape is largely considered to be false" (emphasis added). Why qualify the statement? Could we replace this with something like: "the basic premise that personality is determined by skull shape no longer has any support within the scientific community"? --Smithfarm 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The real problem with this article is that it's not consistent. How can you start the article saying that phrenology is wrong (with or without qualification) and then give a detailed description of 21st-century would-be scientists working on phrenology? --Zvika 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are many authors and experts who consider phrenology to be pseudoscience. Of course this can be more clarified using better attribution of quotes. I believe that phrenology has influenced the development of pseudosciences in general though. Especially regarding neuroscientific sounding pseudosciences (neuroscams). I will provide some research that shows this view in time. Bookmain 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody supports it anymore. I keep deleting words such as 'largely', but they keep coming back.--Orthologist 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about parts of it being proven today and just put generally considered to be false in the last sentence, it sounded better than saying it was generally considered to be rubbish :) Fmehdi 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I believe Fozzy performed it on Kermit once. It was hilarious.

Direct quote...?

I'm fairly certain that the section referencing phrenology in Terry Pratchet's works is a direct quote, and should probably be marked as such. I would, but I don't have the text. Inspector Baynes 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Phrenology Lives on and Evolves... (esp. re. HAIGWOOD MASTERS- Sydney Australia- Phrenologist...)

  "Science" is a mutable word, a mute point.
  Phrenology was used thousands of years ago in Eastern Cultures,
esp. China and is still practised widely today in some Asiatic regions.
[Why Such a bias to all things Western in all matters of the "Mind" and "Sciences" 

in most Encyclopaedias? (Rhet)]

  "The Greeks" or "Roman Times", what about around the time of Tzu Wei or Confucious.

  Phrenology is inexoribaly linked with physiognomy, funntion follows form , 

as the face shows what the mind feels/thinks.

They can be studied "seperately" but this is only giving part of a bigger picture.
Phrenology is in no way a simple subject although it is certainly Subjective and Relative, 

it is not an easy Science to learn and use with measurable degrees of accuracy, however it can be done with measureable degrees of accuracy approaching unity, well over 90%. 99%+ for the general outlines. However the practitioner must start from correct referents and not suppositions or assumptions.

   HAIGWOOD MASTERS,(c.1900-1977) whom has a mention on a web-site at University in Sydney/Australia. 

Started "Reading" heads as it were, as a young man (still at school) getting it mostly incorrect, despite reading all the literature he could find on the subject...

(as an aside I believe his interest came about because Haig had
drawn a picture of his father as a cave-man and entitled it 'an 

example of low-intelligence'. The father is alleged to have said to

Haig 'Ya should ave ya head resd.", Haig already having red hair
decided to take his father literally and learnt to "read" 

heads) ...Taking what worked from countless resources and adding practical knowledge empirically HAIGWOOD developed a system that was uniquely his and earned him and his 2nd wife Josephine (c.1915-....)

renouned fame from a very successful Vocational-Guidance business
reading-heads in Sydney from the 40's to retirement. 

   For those that could afford Haigwood's or Josephine's services 

it was considered pounds well spent. They enjoyed the support of Ridgeways Business Journal and the support and respect of many of the big business personalities not just in Australia but further afield.

 Josephine was a lecturer at Sydney University in Psychology 

(Freudian) after aquiring her doctorate (pre WWII). Meeting and having to work with/under/beside Haigwood during personell selection

for the war department in Australia during WWII at first Josephine 

believed Haigwood to be a charlatan; however within a matter of weeks she had married Haig and the reast as they say is... PHRENOLOGY

  A Very successful match. Josephine claimed never to be as good as 

Haigwood was at reading people, they were both very successful, respected professionals. Haig could sum up a person in a matter of minutes, any reporter that went along to "debunk" Haig went out the door a believer in "magic", the impossible or that Haigwood could actually "read" minds or had sold his soul to the devil.

  A brief overview of Haigwood Masters Phrenelogical-System 

includes Body shape and posture/gestures, Phrenology and Physiognomy, add a pinch of how a question is answered or asked and the change of expression. Give it ten miutes to an hour and Haigwood

would know 90+% about 90+% of people, not just what they were like 

and had done in the past but also what they were most likely to do in the future.

###It is all done with scientific measurements but when you take 4 

dozen odd characteristics all at 6 different degrees of influence and know which cancels out what other characteristic and which compliments another you have a staggeringly large data base then you have as well 4 basic structure types and a few more details... we already have in the close order of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 individual and distinct personalities or people! seriously. That is wherin comes the "ART" of the "SCIENCE" of "PHRENOLOGY"; as that number is preposterous to calculate all permutations so when one does a reading with Haigwood's unique system of Phrenelogical-guidance it is necessary to be selective and only refine if the "client/subject/student/teacher," wants more data

or accuracy. Sometimes you can not get the answers with Phrenology,
the lack is not that the answers are not there; the amount of 

mental calculations needed for complete ahalysis is so staggering sometimes one can not find the trees for the wood...###

All the answers are there, as the ancient-greek fellow wrote "function follows form,"(?) axiomatic.    

However "reading" the answers with Phrenology is certainly no easy task- being a Doctor, Psychiatrist, Counsellor, (Con-man), is easier by comparison,- It is a Science and an Art, a tool that works if used correctly.

Written By  18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)David 
Olen 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)DAVID OLEN . AUSTRALIA. January 

30th 2007 . 4am EST

References, my head and personal knowledge (first hand), 
Can be contacted by E-Mail   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.148.101.45 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC).David Olen 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

David Olen 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

Levine2112 has repeatedly removed the categorisation of Category:Quack medicine from this article, apparently based on nothing more than his/her irrational dislike of the category, which he/she has already nominated for deletion. His/her last removal included an attempt to pass off the general guidelines on categorisation as absolute rules; specifically, the one involving applicability of the most specific categories. Unfortunately, this guideline only applies in case of transitive categorisation; phrenology, being both a former protoscience *and* current former and current pseudoscience in addition to plain old quackery, thus merits indivudual categorisation under Category:Quack medicine. Accordingly, I have reverted. Further reversal without adequate (!) explanation will be considered vandalism and appropriately reported. Digwuren 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't think edit-warring is a solution here. --Ronz 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I say, keep the cat.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss Wikipedia:Categorization_and_subcategories and how you feel this is an exception to that rule. Thanks. "apparently based on nothing more than his/her irrational dislike of the category", Please WP:AGF, nothing can be further from the truth. As you can see, I didn't touch "Quack Medicine", but rather removed "Pseudoscience" of which "Quack Medicine" is a subset. That's typically how things are done here at Wiki. If you feel that this is an exception, then please explain calmly and rationally (and please observe WP:NPA). Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POT. No need for edit-warring from you either. --Ronz 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful and untrue. I am talking about "personal attacks" and "assuming good faith"; neither of which I have done here. Your baiting here, Ronz, doesn't help. Try and keep the peace and let's work together to work this out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POT "Baiting" is just your latest meaningless word of choice to attack editors who point out your rule violations. Meaningless and ignored. --Ronz 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would take it to heart and stop with your personal attacks, trying to get some reaction from me. Can't we all just get along? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for observing NPA this time. Now please observe WP:AGF and WP:TALK too. --Ronz 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess I will just ignore your baiting here too from now on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Amitav Ghosh repeated reference

Removed last reference in popular culture because it was already at the beginning. --Forloyo

Phrenology is Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Phrenology category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Phrenology category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess per WP:PSCI, I always just considered Phrenology as one of those obvious pseudosciences. That said, I am willing to accept that my own opinion here could be biased and wrong. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica does categorize phrenology as a pseudoscientific practice and I think that a mainstream encyclopedia such as Britannica may be enough to show that phrenology is generally considered pseudoscience (thus satisfying WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a difficult time getting anything out of that website, but if did find this

"Phrenology enjoyed great popular appeal well into the 20th century but was wholly discredited by scientific research."

Is this what you meant about Britannica 'generally considering phrenology pseudoscience'? Is your idea of pseudoscience that it includes theories discredited by scientific research? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but also that it is categorized right underneath the page title as a "pseudoscientific practice". That's very telling in my opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more direct than another encyclopedia, since

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

per desirable sources standards, but understand the issue well enough to know it's easily found. I gather that this is an abandoned scientific field which has lapsed into divination now. Some scientists don't even seem to understand that it bears a relation to physiognomancy and palmistry for diviners.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea about the relations of phrenology or much about the subject itself. And I agree with you in that I certainly do prefer higher quality sources such as peer-reviewed journals and university published books; however a good tertiary source such as the Encyclopedia Britannica may be one of the best ways to gauge general knowledge (though perhaps not the best basis for a detailed discussion). Thus if Britannica calls something a pseudoscience, I think it is safe to say that the subject is generally considered a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfully argued, thank you for your time. :) -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice of copy

Anyone car to advise http://www.taiwandna.com/NewsletterGeneticTraits.html that their website needs an update to conform to the GFDL licence agreement. --CyclePat (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Brodmann's Areas

I am removing the introduction's mention of Brodmann's areas because in the way it currently is phrased it implies that these were used by phrenologists, when in fact phrenology was practially dead as a credible field at the time of Brodmann's publication. I think I'm right in saying that most people who were subjected to phrenological examinations would have gone with Gall's completely baseless chart instead. Nach0king (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have found some history on this subject

It's cunningly like the old Kingdom of Hungary, as you see.

Mind you I have been editing the Hungarian articles too much lately, almost everything is starting to look like Hungary to me now.

SimonTrew (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

I seem to remember that Sherlock Holmes used phrenology. This article makes no mention of that. --87.198.16.181 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd-George and C.P. Snow

I do not know if there is any basis whatsoever to the anecdote about David Lloyd-George and C.P. Snow (no source is given), but, in any case, they do not belong to the Victorian era, as the article implies. They are both 20th century figures, and Queen Victoria died in January 1901. Lloyd-George did not become a Cabinet Minister until 1906, and was Prime Minister from 1916-1922. Snow was not even born until 1905, and did not become prominent until the 1940s and 50's. Although it is possible that Lloyd-George was a believer in phrenology (although by his time it was already widely discredited), and it is possible that Snow met him in his old age, neither of them were Victorians. I am going to remove this anecdote. Even if true, it is misplaced and misdated. Treharne (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)