362 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



MIND-EEADING BY THE EAR. 

 To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



SINCE the publication of my article on 

 " Physiology of Mind-Reading," in the 

 February number of your Monthly, I have 

 received the following, which, as presenting 

 a new phase of the subject, is of much in- 

 terest. 



There are three general methods of mind- 

 reading by the touch, by the eye, and by 

 the ear. My article was devoted only to the 

 method and modifications of the method in- 

 troduced by Brown by the touch. Mind- 

 reading by the eye that is, watching the 

 movements and changes of the features, or 

 of the hand or fingers is done every day 

 by all of us, and is frequently utilized with 

 great success by mediums. Mind-reading 

 by the eav, as described in the first experi- 

 ment noted in the following letter, is not so 

 well known. The author of the letter, who 

 does not wish to have his name used, is also 

 an expert in the art of mind-reading by the 

 eye or by the touch. 



The "general physiological principle is 

 the same in all these methods of mind- 

 reading namely, the detecting by the op- 

 erator, through some one of the senses, of 

 the unconscious muscular or bodily move- 

 ments of the subject, through mind acting 

 on body. Gkorge M. Beard, M. D. 



Dr. George 31. Beard 



Dear Sir : I was much interested in 

 your article on the "Physiology of Mind- 

 JReading," as I have paid more or less at- 

 tention to the subject, in an amateur way, 

 for eight or ten years past, and I think that 

 I can give you some new "developments." 



While your theory is undoubtedly cor- 

 rect, you describe certain conditions as 

 "essential" which I have found by fre- 

 quent successful practice to be unnecessary. 

 Thus you say that the connection between 

 the subject or subjects must be such "as 

 easily to allow the sense of muscular tension 

 to be communicated." The operator or 

 medium " must be in physical connection 

 with the subject." Again, "where the con- 

 nection of the operator with the subject 

 is made by a wire, so arranged that mass- 

 motion cannot be communicated, . . . the 

 operator does just what he would do by 

 pure chance and no more." In reply to this, 

 I would say that I am in the habit of re- 

 peating Brown's tricks of finding hidden 

 objects, designating persons and things 

 thought of, etc., without any physical con- 



tact whatever, while I am blindfolded, pre- 

 cisely as Brown was in his public perform- 

 ances. 

 The only condition I require of the 

 subject is, that he shall follow me at a 

 distance of about three or four feet, as I 

 grope my way apparently at random, keep- 

 ing his mind fixed upon the object. I am 

 able to tell, by close attention, when he fol- 

 lows me readily, and when reluctantly ; in 

 this way I cautiously map out the direction 

 in which he tends to follow me most readily. 

 When I approach the vicinity of the object 

 thought of, he shows no inclination to move 

 in any one direction. There is, of course, 

 a certain element of uncertainty in the find- 

 ing of a small object under these circum- 

 stances, but the proportion of failures is as- 

 tonishingly small. I reached this result by 

 a succession of experiments, first through 

 a rigid rod, then through a wire, then a 

 stretched string, then a string with a loop. 

 I then worked without contact not blind- 

 folded. I would walk backward, holding 

 out my right forefinger, and directing the 

 "subject" to hold his right forefinger, at a 

 distance of six inches (this would convey to 

 most people the impression of two terminal 

 poles of a battery or electrical machine), 

 and he would often have an imaginary 

 pricking, as of sparks at the finger-tip. I 

 would then proceed around the room, and 

 when moving in the right direction the 

 hiatus would be rapidly closed between the 

 two fingers. 



I can almost invariably distinguish an 

 intentional or accidental indication from an 

 involuntary one, and I do not find that 

 keeping the "arm perfectly stiff" interferes 

 very seriously. The indications are not con- 

 fined to muscular contractions or relaxations 

 of the arm, but it is a sympathetic move- 

 ment of the whole body. 



It is a curious fact that subjects who 

 naturally work well will be very slightly 

 influenced by the explanation of the ap- 

 parent mystery. You may assure them that 

 every correct movement you make is only a 

 translation of their own, and they will de- 

 clare positively that they are trying to move 

 in the opptmte direction, and, in fact, they 

 often do hold back with their feet, while 

 giving the most positive indications with 

 their arms. 



I have found that a large majority of 

 well-educated people have an innate bias 

 for mysteries, and prefer to refer these 

 " phenomena " to animal magnetism, auras, 

 psychic or odic force, or any incompre- 



