In the 1870s Mark Twain walked into the offices of the Fowler brothers and allowed Lorenzo Niles Fowler, one of the day's prominent phrenologists, to 'examine his head'. Phrenology is nearly forgotten now. It was defined as the science of classifying personality type and health by examining one's skull for tale-tell bumps and indentions. It may sound silly now but back then it was all the rage. Twain, on the other hand, did not fall for such trends in 'science'. He visited the Fowlers in order to perform a single-blind reliability test on the analysis technique.

I went to Fowler under an assumed name and he examined my elevations and depressions and gave me a chart which I carried home to the Langham Hotel and studied with great interest and amusement - the same interest and amusement which I should have found in the chart of an imposter who had been passing himself off for me and who did not resemble me in a single sharply defined detail. I waited for three months and went to Mr. Fowler again, heralding my arrival with a card bearing both my name and my nom de guerre. Again I carried away an elaborate chart. It contained several sharply defined details of my character, but it bore no recognizable resemblance to the earlier chart. (Neider, Charles [ed.] 1959. The Autobiography of Mark Twain. New York: Harper)

Twain also remarked on an experience in his youth when phrenologists passed through his town and exhibited their skills on willing customers. Everyone came away with "… character charts that would compare favorably with George Washington's." It's no wonder everyone was in love with phrenology.

Someone on the Sifter mailing list commented on what may be one of phrenology's grandchildren: the study of body and temperament types. The individual provided a link to "Tracking the Elusive Human, Vol. I: Chapter 4: William Sheldon's Body and Temperament Types", which resides at innerexplorations.com. I'm not sure, but I think this person might have bought the test's validity. I'm not necessarily discrediting the studies; after all, I was impressed at how reliable the results seemed to be. All I had to do was apply the test to myself to see how accurately well it defined me!

Of course, I'm no George Washington, and while Sheldon's work doesn't compliment so freely, it does allow a lot of breathing room for the subject to fill in certain blanks. This kind of type classification is doomed to reside in the shadow of provably legitimate science, now more than ever. But I'm sure its few supporters are utterly in love with it, and maybe with themselves as well.

This is extremely 'bloggable' in light of all the type classification tests currently circulating among netizens. It's very tongue-in-cheek behavior, but I'm afraid that many people, deep down, want to believe to some degree or another that the sources of 'psychology' these tests emanate from are legitimate, somehow. Maybe. Just a little? Do you consider mp3-swapping teenagers legitimate?