Piti/rfinfof/tral fnvestigationa 277 



He refers to his statement in Nature, of June 25, 1885', entitled "Measure 

 of Fidget." In tliiit paper he descnlHid liow lie had counted in a section of 

 an aiidi«'nct' duving th<' i-cidinL'' "'' •' w.^mi i-^hhm- im-iiini!- I In- \:ir\iiii/ rate 

 of H(lget^ 



"I have 8ince frequently trie«l thin mothiMl ; it is an niiiuHiuK wiiy of pansing an otluTwiHO 

 (lull cvoning, but in (Irnwin^ conduKiimM from tlui numlxtr of nioviMiicntB tho av«Tng(> age of 

 the auili(!iic(t and their lial>itn of thou^lit have to \to taken into account. The niethiKl, how- 

 ever, rather niea.sures the dullnesH of the |M*rfornianco than the true mental fatigue of the 

 audience." 



The second suggestion Galton gives is based upon the exjieriinental fiict 

 that tlie (luickiiess ami magnitude of the individual's reaction to a stimulus 

 are greatly allected hy tiitigue. 



"There is an experiment, not ho well known as it Hhould bo, that a/ter a class has had 

 practice in i)erfoniiing it, can Ik? repentiHl ut any time in a few .soeoiids, which gives an excellent 

 measure of the varying amount of reaction tinu'. The cla.s.s tjike hands all round, the teacher 

 l>eing include<l in the circle, a watch with a sec<mdH hand lies on the table Ix-fore him. All the 

 pupils shut their eyes. When the .seconds hand of the watch comes over a division the teacher 

 gives a squeeze with his left hand to the right hand of the pupil next to hiro. That pupil 

 forthwith with his left hand squeezes the right hand of the next pupil, and so on. Thus the 

 squeeze travels round the class and is finally receivetl by the right hand of the teacher, who 

 then records the elapstsl time since he started it; or he may let it make many circuits U-fore 

 he does so. This interval divide<l by the number of pupils in the class and by the number of 

 circuits gives the average reaction time of each pupil. The squeeze takes usually atM)ut a 

 second of time to pass through each dozen or tifteen persons. Wo should expect to find 



' Vol. x.x.xii, p. 174. In this paper Galton refers first to "the unequal horizontal inter- 

 space between head and head" in a bored audience, while in an attentive audience all sit 

 upright with their heads almost equi-distant. In a bored audience the bodies sway from side 

 to side, and the intervals In'twwn faces vary greatly. But Galton failed to find any numerical 

 expression for this variability of distance. He wa.s more successful when he counted fidgets as 

 an expression against this "mutiny of constraint." The hall in which the uninteresting paper 

 was read was .semicircular and divided by columns into sectors each containing at)out 50 

 people. He watched one of these sectors rej>eate<lly and counte<l the number of distinct move- 

 ments; this was very uniform, amounting to al)out 4.5 per minute or nearly one per person. 

 The audience was elderly, the young would have Ik-cu more mobile. When occasionally the 

 audience was roused to ti'mjwrary attention the frequency of fidget was not only re<luced to 

 less than one half, but the amplitude as well as the perio<l of the motion were notably re- 

 duced. "The swaying of head, trunk and arms had before been wide and sluggish, and when 

 rolling from side to side the individuals seeme<l to 'yaw,' that is to say they lingered in ex- 

 treme position.s. Whenever they l)ecame intent this peculiarity disappeared, and they per- 

 formed thi>ir fidgets smartly. Let this suggest to observant philosopliers when the meetings 

 they attend may prove dull to occupy themsehcs in estimating the frequency, amplitude and 

 duration of the fidgets of their fellow sufferers. They must do .so during jxriixls lM)th of 

 intcnsi-ness and of indifference, so as to estimate what may be called natund fidget, and then 

 1 think they may acquire the new art of giving numerical expression to the amount of boredom 

 expres-sed by the audience generally during the reading of any particular memoir." 



- Ignorant of Galton and in a much le.ss scientific manner I can recall practising his 

 metlio<l lus a child in the sixties. The locus was a family pew in tlie chai>el of the Foundling 

 Hospital; there was an old and dull chaplain, the last clergyman of the Church of England 

 that I remember in a Genevan gown. He usc<l to preach for alwut .35 minutes, and I was 

 accustomed to anmso myself and to nieasuit) the dullness of his discourse by counting the 

 nunilKH- of coughs given in that Sunday's 35 minutes. My brother and .sister would rememl)er 

 the text, but I could only say on the Imsis of niy sinful and secret statistics, that the preacher 

 had been rather more or rather less inspiring than usual. 



