What can I tell about your character by the shape of your head?

I have a book published in 1868 entitled ” New Physiognomy or Signs of Character” written by Samuel R. Wells, then editor of “The Phrenological Journal and Life Illustrated.” It is a lengthy book, totaling just under 800 pages, about something called phrenology, the study of facial characteristics and head shapes to discern details of character.

Phrenology was originally described by a Germany physician a century earlier and was popular in 19th century Europe. Students of phrenology claimed, for example, to be able to determine aspects of someone’s character or ability judging by the bumps on their scalp. Adherents also claimed that various diagnoses of mental illness could also be made. This was, for many years, a matter of serious study, including the establishment of the Edinburgh Phrenological Society in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1820. In 1828, a Scottish attorney published a book, The Constitution of Man, that became one of the bestselling books of the century. The idea gained even greater popularity when Europeans came to believe that, if some phrenological measured showed a deficiency, e.g., low intelligence or poor parental abilities, it could be improved and thereby reflected in an “improved” head shape. It was even applied in policing and law enforcement, with head and facial details that suggested dishonesty or criminal behavior used as evidence to incriminate someone.

Here is an example of the slope of the forehead and shape of the nose and mouth used to judge intelligence:

There’s even a section that purports to judge character by comparing human facial features with animals. Here is an example of a “hoggish” head:

The author describes the hoggish man as “greedy, makes a god of his belly and inhospitably drives away not only the stranger, but even his own kin, because however well supplied his table, he has only enough for himself.”

Of course, despite more than a century’s worth of widespread popularity, phrenology proved to be an example of elaborate nonsense. None of it was true, despite being presented by academics, attorneys, and psychologists. Why do I tell you all this? It is my caution that everything that seems novel is not always true. It was true in 1868, it is true today—but worse. Misinformation does not only spread faster, given the pace of information dissemination in our time, but it has also been monetized. A lot of money is made, for instance, by selling nutritional supplements to support longevity based on “evidence” extrapolated from worms, an incomplete understanding of physiology, and, not uncommonly, outright fraud. A few months ago, I attended a major health event in Las Vegas that was centered around longevity. But it became clear that the principal interest was in selling supplements with, at best, dubious claims of extending life, and plenty of interest by attendees on injected fillers, Botox, plastic surgery, and other cosmetic efforts that do not, obviously, extend life.

One day, it’s phrenology. Another day it’s electroshock therapy to cure homosexuality, or Kellogg’s Asthma Cigarettes, or hysterectomies to cure female hysteria. Today it’s “nutritional supplements” that some claim will allow you to live to 140 years or longer. Of course, we want innovation around here, but we want innovation backed up reasoning, evidence, and not driven primarily by desire for dishonest profit nor promoted with fake testimonials or unjustifiable claims. If you believe that the slope of your forehead or the shape of your nose reveals something about your character, well then maybe methylene blue or nicotinamide mononucleotide are for you.