Table of ContentsView AllTable of ContentsHistory of PhrenologyThe 35 “Faculties"Phrenology ReadingsCriticismInfluence of PhrenologyModern Findings Dispute Phrenology’s ClaimsScientific Racism
Table of ContentsView All
View All
Table of Contents
History of Phrenology
The 35 “Faculties”
Phrenology Readings
Criticism
Influence of Phrenology
Modern Findings Dispute Phrenology’s Claims
Scientific Racism
Close
Phrenology was a pseudoscience that linked the bumps on a person’s head to certain aspects of their personality and character. Phrenologists used phrenology heads or busts to perform “skull readings, " supposedly revealing information about a person’s character and tendencies.
The practice was based on the idea that certain functions were located in specific brain areas. Phrenologists suggested that the brain was composed of muscles that, like other body areas, grew bigger when used more often. As a result, phrenologists proposed bumps were produced in those areas on the skull.
At a GlancePhrenology attempted to link the bumps on a person’s scalp to bumps on a person’s brain, supposedly connected to specific personality traits. This idea took hold during the late 1700s and early 1800s, but is today seen as a pseudoscientific practice. The practice did help increase scientific interest in the localization of different brain functions. While it is often portrayed as nothing more than a quirky and amusing pseudoscience, it’s important to be aware of how this practice was used to perpetuate scientific racism.
At a Glance
Phrenology attempted to link the bumps on a person’s scalp to bumps on a person’s brain, supposedly connected to specific personality traits. This idea took hold during the late 1700s and early 1800s, but is today seen as a pseudoscientific practice. The practice did help increase scientific interest in the localization of different brain functions. While it is often portrayed as nothing more than a quirky and amusing pseudoscience, it’s important to be aware of how this practice was used to perpetuate scientific racism.
Gall noticed that the cerebral cortex of humans was much larger than that of animals, which he believed was what made humans intellectually superior. Eventually, he became convinced that the physical features of the cortex could also be seen in the shape and size of the skull.
After examining the heads of young pickpockets, Gall found that many had bumps on their skull just above their ears. He suggested that these bumps were associated with “acquisitiveness,” or a tendency to steal, hoard, or exhibit greed.
In his book on phrenology, Gall suggested thatmoraland intellectual faculties were innate. In other words, people were born with their moral character and intelligence. If you were a thief, it was because you were born with a predisposition to deceitfulness.
Gall believed that the brain was composed of many different organs that each controlled different faculties, propensities, and sentiments. The form of the skull represented and reflected the form and development of the brain’s organs.
Recap
The 35 “Faculties” in Phrenology
RecapWhile Gall originally suggested that there were 27 faculties, more were eventually added. Phrenology heads or charts typically show 35 different faculties, tendencies, and propensities.
While Gall originally suggested that there were 27 faculties, more were eventually added. Phrenology heads or charts typically show 35 different faculties, tendencies, and propensities.
How a Phrenology Reading Worked
During a skull reading, a phrenologist would carefully feel the individual’s head and make note of bumps and indentations. The phrenologist would compare these findings to that of a phrenology bust in order to determine what the surface of the skull had to say about the individual’s natural aptitudes, character, and tendencies.
While phrenology was eventually shown to be pseudoscience, the idea that certain abilities might be linked to specific areas of the brain did have an influence on the field of neurology and the study of the localization of brain functions.
Criticism of Gall’s Phrenology
After Gall’s death in 1828, some of his followers continued to develop phrenology, and references of the theory began seeping into mainstream popular culture. Despite phrenology’s brief popularity, it eventually became viewed as a pseudoscience in the same vein as astrology, numerology, and palmistry.
Criticism from well-known brain researchers played an important role in this reversal of popular views of phrenology.
During the early- to mid-1800s, the renowned French physician Marie Jean Pierre Flourens, a pioneer in brain studies and cerebral localization, found that the fundamental assumption of phrenology—that the contours of the skull corresponded to the underlying shape of the brain—was wrong.
In 1844, the French physiologist Francois Magendie summed up his dismissal: “Phrenology, a pseudo-science of the present day; like astrology, necromancy, and alchemy of former times, pretends to localize in the brain the different kinds ofmemory. But its efforts are mere assertions, which will not bear examination for an instant.”
While phrenology has long been identified as a pseudoscience, it did make some contributions to the field of neurology. It helped researchers become more interested in the concept of cortical localization, which suggested that certain mental functions were localized in particular areas of the brain.
While Gall and other phrenologists incorrectly believed that bumps on the head corresponded to personality and abilities, they were correct in believing that different mental abilities were associated with different areas of the brain.
Modern research methods allow scientists to use sophisticated tools such as MRI and PET scans to learn more about the localization of functions within the brain.
Phrenologists also used what they concluded was an ‘average’ person as a tool for comparison. Researchers suggest this is notable since it means the phrenologists were among the first to compare individuals to a statistical norm (albeit an imagined one).
A 2018 evaluation of phrenology’s claims (i.e. that the scalp’s morphology is linked to personality traits) utilized high-quality structural MRIs to quantify the curvature of the scalp and see if these bumps were connected to specific personality traits.
The researchers noted that this is the most rigorous scientific investigation into phenology’s claims. The researchers found no evidence to support phenology’s main premise.
In fact, the researchers suggested that the phrenology busts that are still popular today should be left entirely blank because no region of the head was found to correlate to any of the faculties that the researchers tested.
Phrenology and Scientific Racism
While phrenology is often presented today as nothing more than a quirky pseudoscience of the past, it is important to recognize its place as part of the scientific racism of the 19th century. It was frequently used as a way to justify slavery and racial inequality, with proponents of the pseudoscience suggesting that it “proved” the biological superiority of white people.
It is also important to notes that while phrenology has been dismissed as a pseudoscience, other forms of scientific racism persist today.
Studies suggesting that differences in arrest rates andIQ scoresare due to inherent differences in racial groups and not a reflection of systemicracismare more modern examples of scientific racism.
Takeaway
Phrenology was a pseudoscience that proposed that the bumps on a person’s head could be used to determine their traits and character. Briefly popular during the Victorian era, phrenology heads or busts were often used to “read” a person’s personality.
While brain researchers eventually demonstrated that phrenology was incorrect, it did help inspire research on the localization of brain function, which played an important part in the development of neurology. Phrenology also represented a form of scientific racism, since it was used to support racist beliefs and practices.
Overview of Personality Psychology
14 Sources
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
Parker Jones O, Alfaro-Almagro F, Jbabdi S.An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology.Cortex. 2018;106:26–35. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011
Eling P, Finger S.Franz Joseph Gall’s non‐cortical faculties and their organs.J Hist Behav Sci. 2020;56(1):7-19. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21994
Fowler O, Fowler L.New Illustrated Self-instructor in Phrenology and Physiology. S.R. Wells & Company, 1869.
Gall FJ.On the Functions of the Brain and of Each of Its Parts. Marsh, Capen & Lyon; 1835.
York University.The 27 faculties of Franz Joseph Gall.
Eling P, Finger S.Franz Joseph Gall’s non‐cortical faculties and their organs. TheHistory of the Behavioral Sciences. 2019;56(1):7-19. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21994
Levinson S.Return of the living dead: Re-reading Pierre Flourens' contributions to neurophysiology and literature.Prog Brain Res. 2013;205:149-72. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63273-9.00009-5
Magendie F.An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. Harper & Brothers; 1844.
Sutterer MJ, Tranel D.Neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience in the fMRI era: A recapitulation of localizationist and connectionist views.Neuropsychology. 2017;31(8):972–980. doi:10.1037/neu0000408
Catana C, Drzezga A, Heiss WD, Rosen BR.PET/MRI for neurologic applications.J Nucl Med. 2012;53(12):1916–1925. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.105346
Sysling F.Phrenology and the average person, 1840–1940.History of the Human Sciences. 2021;34(2):27-45. doi:10.1177/0952695120984070
Parker Jones O, Alfaro-Almagro F, Jbabdi S.An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology.Cortex. 2018;106:26-35. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.04.011
Harvard Library.Scientific racism.
Meet Our Review Board
Share Feedback
Was this page helpful?Thanks for your feedback!What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
Was this page helpful?
Thanks for your feedback!
What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
What is your feedback?
