The quest for objectivity and measurements in phrenology's "bumpy" history.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q1 HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
S. Finger, P. Eling
{"title":"The quest for objectivity and measurements in phrenology's \"bumpy\" history.","authors":"S. Finger, P. Eling","doi":"10.1037/hop0000213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Phrenology is based on correlating character traits with visible or palpable cranial bumps (or depressions) thought to reflect underlying brain areas differing in size and levels of activity. Franz Joseph Gall, who introduced the doctrine during the 1790s, relied heavily on seeing and feeling skulls when he formulated his theory, as did Johann Spurzheim, who served as his assistant until 1813 and then set forth on his own. But Peter Mark Roget, a British critic of the doctrine, first assailed these methods as too subjective in 1818, and never changed his mind. George Combe, a Scotsman who admired Spurzheim, introduced calipers and other measuring instruments during the 1820s, hoping to make phrenology more like the admired physical sciences. In the United States, the Fowlers also called for more numbers, including measuring distances between the cortical sites above the organs of mind. Nonetheless, phrenologists realized they faced formidable barriers when it came to measuring the physical organs of mind, as opposed to basic skull dimensions. This essay examines the subjectivity that left phrenology open to criticism and shows how some phrenologists tried to overcome it. It also shows how vision and touch remained features of phrenological examinations throughout the numbers-obsessed 19th century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":51852,"journal":{"name":"History of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000213","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Phrenology is based on correlating character traits with visible or palpable cranial bumps (or depressions) thought to reflect underlying brain areas differing in size and levels of activity. Franz Joseph Gall, who introduced the doctrine during the 1790s, relied heavily on seeing and feeling skulls when he formulated his theory, as did Johann Spurzheim, who served as his assistant until 1813 and then set forth on his own. But Peter Mark Roget, a British critic of the doctrine, first assailed these methods as too subjective in 1818, and never changed his mind. George Combe, a Scotsman who admired Spurzheim, introduced calipers and other measuring instruments during the 1820s, hoping to make phrenology more like the admired physical sciences. In the United States, the Fowlers also called for more numbers, including measuring distances between the cortical sites above the organs of mind. Nonetheless, phrenologists realized they faced formidable barriers when it came to measuring the physical organs of mind, as opposed to basic skull dimensions. This essay examines the subjectivity that left phrenology open to criticism and shows how some phrenologists tried to overcome it. It also shows how vision and touch remained features of phrenological examinations throughout the numbers-obsessed 19th century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
在颅相学“坎坷”的历史中寻求客观性和测量。
Phrenology是基于将特征特征与可见或可触摸的颅骨隆起(或凹陷)相关联,这些隆起被认为反映了不同大小和活动水平的潜在大脑区域。Franz Joseph Gall在1790年代引入了这一学说,在制定他的理论时,他在很大程度上依赖于看到和感觉头骨,Johann Spurzheim也是如此,他一直担任他的助手,直到1813年,然后独自出发。但1818年,该学说的英国评论家彼得·马克·罗吉首次抨击这些方法过于主观,并从未改变主意。苏格兰人乔治·库姆(George Combe)钦佩斯波海姆(Spurzheim),他在19世纪20年代引入了卡尺和其他测量仪器,希望使颅相学更像受人钦佩的物理科学。在美国,Fowlers夫妇还呼吁提供更多的数字,包括测量大脑器官上方皮层部位之间的距离。尽管如此,颅相学专家意识到,在测量大脑的物理器官时,他们面临着巨大的障碍,而不是头骨的基本尺寸。本文探讨了使颅相学受到批评的主观性,并展示了一些颅相学学者如何试图克服这种主观性。它还展示了视觉和触觉在整个痴迷于数字的19世纪是如何保持颅相学检查的特征的。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: History of Psychology features refereed articles addressing all aspects of psychology"s past and of its interrelationship with the many contexts within which it has emerged and has been practiced. It also publishes scholarly work in closely related areas, such as historical psychology (the history of consciousness and behavior), psychohistory, theory in psychology as it pertains to history, historiography, biography and autobiography, and the teaching of the history of psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信