(SCT. 22.] Arrangement and Formation of the Series. 51 



ipidity with which the superior degrees of excellence tend 

 become scarce. Every one, of course, can see at once, in 

 numerical way at least, what is involved in being one of a 

 illion ; but they would not at all understand, how very 

 ttle extra superiority is to be looked for in the man who is 

 me of two million . They would confound the mere nu- 

 lerical distinction, which seems in some way to imply 

 ouble excellence, with the intrinsic superiority, which 

 ould mostly be represented by a very small fractional ad- 

 antage. To be one of ten million sounds very grand, but 

 the qualities under consideration could be estimated in 

 lemselves without the knowledge of the vastly wider area 

 om which the selection had been made, and in freedom 

 lerefore from any consequent numerical bias, people would 

 e surprised to find what a very slight comparative superi- 

 dty was, as a rule, thus obtained. 



22. The point just mentioned is an important one in 

 rguments from statistics. If, for instance, we find a small 

 roup of persons, connected together by blood-relationship, 

 id all possessing some mental characteristic in marked 

 iperiority, much depends upon the comparative rarity of 

 ich excellence when we are endeavouring to decide whether 

 not the common possession of these qualities was acci- 

 mtal. Such a decision can never be more than a rough 

 le, but if it is to be made at all this consideration must 

 iter as a factor. Again, when we are comparing one nation 

 ith another 1 , say the Athenian with any modern European 

 iople, does the popular mind at all appreciate what sort of 

 ddence of general superiority is implied by the production, 

 it of one nation, of such a group as can be composed of 

 Derates, Plato, and a few of their contemporaries ? In this 



1 See Galton s Hereditary Genius, pp. 336 350, &quot;On the comparative 

 &amp;gt;rth of different races.&quot; 



42 



