Exploring the Flawed Legacy of Phrenology: A Historical Perspective
Written on
The Origins and Misconceptions of Phrenology
My initial introduction to phrenology occurred during a basic neuroscience course, where it was described as a pseudoscience that attempted to connect personality traits with the contours of the skull. Phrenology is built upon six key principles:
- The brain serves as the mind's organ, opposing Cartesian dualism.
- The mind consists of several distinct, inherent faculties.
- Each faculty must have a separate "organ" in the brain due to their distinct nature.
- The size of each organ, all else being equal, indicates its potency.
- The brain's shape is influenced by the development of its various organs.
- Since the skull molds itself to the brain, its surface can be interpreted as a reliable reflection of psychological abilities and tendencies.
Franz Gall, a physiologist from Vienna, is recognized as the primary architect of phrenology. He identified 27 regions within the brain, each linked to specific personality traits, either independently or in collaboration with others. For further exploration of phrenology, you can visit a valuable resource created by Dr. John van Wyhe: http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/.
Despite its fundamentally flawed premises, phrenology was widely embraced and discussed throughout much of the 19th century, even experiencing a resurgence in the 20th century. This raises the question: How did such a misguided concept gain traction?
A Closer Examination of Phrenology's Flaws
Researchers have long understood that there is a connection between the brain and behavior. To investigate this, they studied the relevant variables: brain structure and behavior itself. For instance, anatomists like Broca and Wernicke employed lesion-symptom mapping, observing how brain injuries correlated with specific behavioral defects. This provided concrete evidence linking brain activity with behavior. In stark contrast, phrenologists utilized less rigorous methods. Instead of directly measuring the brain, they relied on unproven correlations, measuring scalp characteristics as a substitute.
If their claims were valid, phrenology would present a more convincing argument. However, the evidence shows otherwise. A contemporary study from the University of Oxford utilized MRI technology to disprove phrenological claims.
Moreover, the methods used by phrenologists were often based on stereotypes of various social groups. For example, they hypothesized the location of the "Organ of Amativeness" (associated with romantic love) by examining the heads of emotionally expressive young women and recently bereaved individuals. Conversely, they sought out flat areas on the scalps of "Hindoos and Ceylonese," labeled as peaceful, to locate the "Organ of Combativeness" (linked to aggression) (Combe, 1835: 46).
Phrenologists often employed deductive reasoning, positing that if the premise (the scalp reflects brain size and brain size indicates faculty strength) is correct, then the conclusion (the scalp also reflects faculty strength) must also hold true. Although the initial premise has been debunked, one might argue that the technological limitations of the time (such as the absence of MRI scans) contributed to their misguided beliefs.
To challenge their assertions, one could use deductive reasoning to find a counterexample. For instance, Descartes had a small forehead, traditionally associated with intelligence, which could suggest that brain size does not correlate with cognitive ability. However, Gall dismissed this counterargument by suggesting that Descartes was not as exceptional as commonly believed, showcasing Gall's confirmation bias.
Phrenology's flawed theories perpetuated harmful ideologies, including racism, gender stereotypes, and the misclassification of mental disorders. An American phrenologist even suggested that lawyers could use phrenology to better understand the dispositions of jurors or witnesses (3).
While the tenets and methodologies of phrenology are fundamentally flawed, some aspects were ahead of their time, particularly the notion that the brain consists of functionally distinct regions, challenging the holistic view of the mind.
This leads to further inquiries: If phrenology is inherently incorrect, why did it persist for so long? What led scientists to endorse such beliefs?
References:
Schlag, Pierre. (1997). Law and phrenology. Harvard Law Review, 110(4), 877–921.
Exploring Phrenology's Historical Context
This video delves into whether the bumps on your head can actually reveal aspects of your personality, examining the claims of phrenology.
Phrenology and Pseudoscience in Focus
An analysis of phrenology's place in the realm of pseudoscience, exploring its historical significance and modern-day implications.