514 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



"Who's Who is America," it was found in 1909 that those not of city 



birth were about twice as many as the city-born." 



(No. 1): "Accordingly it would seem likely that birth and early training 

 in non-urban surroundings are more conducive to the development of ability 

 than are birth and early training in urban surroundings." (High). 



(Part 2): "At the last previous decennial census in the United 



States (1900) the non-urban population was twice as numerous as the 



urban." 



(No. 2): "The division of the leading men as to non-urban and urban 

 origin in the proportion of two to one respectively does not indicate, therefore, 

 that non-urban origin is more conducive to the development of ability; on the 

 contrary, this proportion, corresponding as it does with the proportion of the 

 total non-urban to the total urban population, shows rather that the two origins 

 are equally conducive to such development." (High). 



(Part 3): "During the last century, however, the urban popu- 

 lation in that country grew so much more rapidly than the non-ur- 

 ban that in 1860, the period when the present leaders were born, the 

 urban population formed but one-sixth of the total. This section, 

 by supplying one third of the present leaders as listed in the above directory 

 contributed twice its proportionate share to that particular group." 



Parts 1 and 2 of the evidence in this case are based on two letters 

 of Professor Frederick Adams Woods, giving the results of his exam- 

 ination of this question, in Science, N.S., vol. xxix. No. 745, April 

 9, 1909, pp. 577-579, and vol. xxx. No. 757, July 2, 1909, pp. 17-21. 

 The proportionate increase of urban population in the United States 

 during the last century is given in Nelson s Encyclopaedia, vol. xii, 

 p. 293, ("United States," section on "Population.") In the 1st 

 probable conclusion one cannot infer that the degree of probability 

 is 2/3 or 2:1 because the leaders of non-urban origin outnumber the 

 urban by two to one. On this basis, in the 2nd conclusion the degree 

 of probability would be only 1 /2 or 1 :1 because there the two groups 

 seem proportionately equal. On the contrary, according as the non- 

 urban group is substantially greater than, equal to, or less than the 

 urban, there is a like degree of probability that non-urban origin is 

 more conducive than urban to the development of ability, or equally 

 conducive, or less conducive respectively. This degree of probability 

 is very great, but it is difficult to suggest a basis for a numerical esti- 

 mate, hence the degree in these cases has been rated simply as "high." 

 The 1st conclusion, however, has an element of superficiality which 

 the 2nd has not; for in the 2nd conclusion one would scarcely expect, 

 apart from evidence, so great a change in the respective proportions of 

 the two groups of population since the present leaders were born, 

 while in the 1st, even without evidence, a possible difference in the 

 size of the two sections of population might well be anticipated. As a 

 matter of fact, this possible difference has been frequently overlooked; 



