MR. GALTON ON SCIENTIFIC MEN.
WE are very doubtful whether Mr. Galton, with all his study and knowledge of statistics, knows the limits within which statistics are useful, and beyond which they are mere masses of cumbersome and ostentatious detail. In the essay he has just published on "English Men of Science, their Nature and Nurture,"* he has given us a good deal that may be instructive, and that is certainly interesting, and a good deal also that is per- fectly childish, and which could hardly be more instructive than details, had he chosen to furnish such, as to the height of their insteps or the number and capacity of their pockets. For ex- ample, what conceivable use is there in telling you whether the parents of a hundred scientific men resembled or differed from each other in the colour of their hair and the character of their temperaments,--i.e., nervous, bilious, or lymphatic,—orin approxi- mating to the average height of each sex. Mr. Galton seems to persuade himself, if we understand him rightly, that we shall learn from that remarkably minute scrap of indication, whether the scientific temperament comes of a union between- people of opposite physical characteristics, or rather of a union between people moderately alike. "It appears," he says, "from the facts in this chapter, that the marriagei of parents of the scientific men on my list actually tend to produce differentia- tion and purity of race ; "—in simpler words, we suppose, a race of such physical characteristics as would arise from having fathers and mothers who were moderately alike, instead of strongly contrasted, in physical temperaments, complexions, and size. Even amongst the parents of scientific men it seems that there is too much tendency among " ' corpulent, stout, or plump' persons of one sex to have a peculiar and reciprocated liki g for spare, neat, or small' persons of the other." But this is the only quality, it appears, in relation to which the parents of our scientific men are apt to indulge themselves in the delights of contrast. "In the temperaments of their parents, harmony strongly pre- vails over contrast, the proportion being five to one in favour of the former. In colour of hair, harmony is twice as common as contrast. In figure it is equally common" only,—for the reason already alleged,—namely, that the inveterate preference of plump persons for spare, and vice versa, extends even to the otherwise somewhat monotonous tastes (i.e., monotonous, if Mr. Galton's statistics may be trusted) of the parents of scientific men. This inveterate preference of plumpness for spareness "is the only case in these tables," exclaims Mr. Galton, with enthu- siasm, "where a love of contrast equals that of harmony." But then, unfortunately, even in the hundred marriages or so of which he has given us these statistics, the tests provided of " contrast " and "harmony" are exceedingly meagre. Are there no such things as extraordinary contrasts between people of the same-coloured hair and the same so-called temperament? If "differentiation and purity of race" is to-mean the accumulation from both parents of these qualities merely,it must be an expression of very little mean- ing. If it is to mean more, there is no evidence to show it. Indeed, if Mr. Calton had asked whether both father and mother and paternal and maternal grand-parents were distinguished by pleasure in dress, or in parties, or the love of novels, or of dogs, or of games of chance, or of sea-bathing, we suspect he would have accumu- lated information quite as useful towards ascertaining "different- iation and purity of race" as he does by these insignificant and accidental physical particulars. We say accidental as well as insigni- ficant, because it is common-sense, and Mr. Galton's common-sense, as well as other people's, that "any young man is capable of falling in love with any one of at least one-third" [and probably a much larger proportion] " of the presentable young women of his race and social position, if they happen to see much of one another under favourable circumstances and without other distraction." Now, if that be the case, the predominating physical characteristics of so few as a hundred marriages can be no evidence at all of a special law, unless a great many more points of likeness and un- likeness of much more importance could be examined,—such as likeness in tastes, likeness in spirits, likeness in social qualities. Purity of race' usually means the likeness which results from marrying within a single caste supposed to have, and probably having, various common qualities. But as for the tendency in the parents of just a hundred scientific men to prefer marrying with persons of complexions or hair of the same general tone as their own, it seems to us to prove about as much tendency to purity of race, as it would if they had shown a tendency to marry people with names beginning or ending with the same letter. Suppose Mr. Galion looks a little into The statistics of second and third mar- riages, to find whether or not there be any tendency towards either constancy or variety in this question of preference for special com- plexions and hairs. If he should find that there is no distinguish- able tendency to either, and still more, if he should find any to the latter, he would probably make up his mind that it was not the result of any law, that in the case of the hundred marriages of the parents of scientific men in question there was more
* Macmillan and Co.
resemblance than difference between the complexions and hair - colours of the contracting parties. When the area of your statistical observation is extremely small, as it is in this case, it is sheer trifling to tabulate characteristics the connec- tion of which with any law of probable cause it is not easy to see. Had Mr. Galton asked his scientific constituency directly whether there was any general resemblance in taste and character beyond that which constant association usually brings about between their fathers and mothers, and tabulated the answers given, the information might have been material to his point. As it is, we confess, we look with more amusement than instruction on his elaborate statistics of 'harmonies' and 'contrasts.'
However, Mr. Gahm has recorded for us many much more useful facts than these. For instance, he shows, what is not likely to be accidental, that elder sons appear nearly twice as often in his list as younger cons; that only sons occur almost as frequently as eldest sons, but that, as re- gards intermediate children, the elder and younger halves of the family contribute equally. From this, he infers that the elder and only sons have, on the whole, "decided advantages of nurture "—i.e., in the circumstances of their educa- tion and advancement in life—" over younger sons." "They are more likely to become possessed of independent means, and therefore able to follow the pursuits that have most attraction to their tastes ; they are treated more as companions by their parents, and have earlier responsibility, both of which would de- velop independence of character." Evidently, then, the preference of our fairy tales for the youngest son was founded on the natural aversion of the fairy tale to the scientific temper. However, it is quite possible that this favour of fortune towards elder sons applies no less to the development of other besides scientific tastes, and probably would be found to have a far more emphatic application to political than to scientific eminence. There may be a reason also for the fact which Mr. Galton states, that "an unusual number of the mothers of the scientific men were between 30 and 34 at the time of their birth,"—i.e., were "less youthful" than the mothers of other eminent men whose history he has ex- amined, for it is not unnatural that a certain partial subsidence of the livelier youthful emotions in the mother should contribute to the intellectual balance of the temperament of the son. It is worth remark, too, that while the health of men of science shows a very high average, it indicates, according to Mr. Galton, "a noticeable falling-off from the yet more robust condition of the previous generation." In other words, we suppose, you must have a robust generation, which does not ex- haust itself in any intellectual pursuit, before you can get one fit for the highest intellectual work ; and if it were only possible to sandwich a generation that prefers healthy play to high-pressure work, between each generation of high-pressure workers, you would have a much better chance of keeping up the race of scientific thinkers. That, again, no doubt, has just as much application to eminent men of other exhausting callings as it has to men of science. Another result, applying as much to intel- lectual men of other types of eminence, ci this,—that high activity and energy seem common in men of small heads, while the men of exceptionally large heads, though they may evince quite equal intel- lectual capacity and insight, are not men of anything like the same restless energy. "It appears that the average circumference of an English gentleman's head is 22+ in. to 22i. in. Now I have only thirteen cases under 22 in., but eight cases of 24 in. or upwards. The general scientific position of the small-headed (who are mostly slender, but not necessarily short) and large-headed men seems equally good ; but the fact is conspicuous that out of the thirteen of the former, there are only two or three who have not remark- able energy ; and out of the latter, there is only one who has." In other words, if a very large head seems to denote weight of character, it denotes also that kind of inertia which is slow in getting into action, which is manceuvred with difficulty.
But to come to some of Mr. Galton's conclusions concerning the qualities which belong exclusively to men of science. It seems he has satisfied himself that in the larger proportion of cases their taste for science is inborn,—which, however, does not at all necessarily imply that it is hereditary. Mr. Galton states that on the authority of the answers he has received to his ques- Cow, in ninety-one total cases, he believes the scientific bias to have been "decidedly innate" in no less than fifty-six, "de- cidedly not innate" in only eleven, while the answer is doubtful in twenty-four cases ; and that in all the cases where it was innate, it persevered (indeed, we suppose the questions would hardly have been addressed to any in whom it had failed to persevere). But there is but "one case of inheritance to four that are not
inherited from either parent." At the same time, though special scientific aptitudes seem to be so seldom inherited, the in- heritance of eminent capacity in some form or other appears to be exceedingly common. Thus Mr. Galton gives the story of thirteen families, each containing some of the scien- tific men on his list, which have been noteworthy "during two, three, or more generations," and he shows us the immensely larger proportion of ability existing in these families than any thirteen families, if taken at random from the same classes, would produce. But the special type of ability changes very remarkably in some of these families. Thus, in Mr. Galton's analysis of the Roscoe family, which he takes because it has recently produced an eminent chemist, Professor Henry Roscoe, and an eminent logician, statistician, and critic of scientific method generally, Professor Stanley Jevons, it is remarkable enough that the primitive type of ability was strictly literary, poetic, and artistic, and that in these late instances the specific mental quality is widely distinct from that which prevailed for two generations. The type of ability of the Darwin family, on the other hand, has been almost exclusively scientific. The Wedgwoods, however, who are closely connected with the Darwins, seem to have begun with an artistic type of eminence, and to have passed into the more scientific phase through a genius for chemical investigation which was a link between the two, since it had practical ends and scien- tific methods. Certainly, the result of Mr. Galton's inquiries is, as might be expected a priori, to correlate very closely, in the process of hereditary transmission, literary and artistic with scientific ability.
Perhaps one, not of the most curious, but certainly of the most emphatic results of Mr. Galton's inquiries is the evidence it gives of the close connection between business habits and scientific success. Probably even in relation to literary success, business habits are more common than has usually been supposed ; but whenever method of thought is of the essence of success, as it is in science, it is not surprising that it should be closely connected with method in practical habits also. Of Mr. Galton's corre- spondents, seventeen are heads of great commercial undertakings ; ten are medical men in the highest rank of practice ; and eighteen others fill, or have filled, important official posts. Only two re- gard themselves as deficient in capacity for business. And of those who speak of their capacity for business as great, half, at least, claim that they have inherited it from their parents.
Mr. Galton seems to us much too vague when he treats of " independence of character" as one of the marks of a scientific man. What, we ask, does he regard as the test of independence of character? Fifty of his correspondents say they possess it in excess, and in only two, he says, is it below par. But can you trust a man to know whether he has independence of character or not, in any sense in which it is of much use as an objective criterion of a type ? As far as it is a true test of scientific capacity, it should mean, we suppose, a readiness to be convinced by evidence, apart from prejudice or influence, or merelp reactionary currents of feeling. But when a correspondent writes "Opinions in almost all respects opposed to those in which I was educated," one wants to know whether this revolution was due to "independence of character," or what you may call combativeness of character, which is very different, and not properly scientifically useful at all. Mr. Galton speaks of independence of character as indicated by the practice of doing what you prefer, without respect to the fashion of the day. Well, if that includes a taste for positively snubbing the fashion of the day, as it often does, it is certainly not one that promotes a scientific habit of mind. There is dependence (of a kind) on circumstances, rather than an independence of them, in the pleasure which many people take in going full butt, as it were, against the drift of events, and we should say, one as fatal to the scientific temperament as that of too pliant conformity. In defining his critical questions to men of science, Mr. Galton has been by no means uniformly scientific himself. But his essay, though encumbered by too much detail and some very super- fluous matter, is an interesting study in the physiology of eminent ability, especially of that of the scientific life.
Previous page
