August 13, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



207 



sus of 1860 as our basis, llassachusetts has 

 produced 11.6 per cent, of the total, or 2.0 

 times the expected. This is not as great a 

 disproportion as one finds in Professor Cat- 

 tell's statistics, but it is a high one. Massa- 

 chusetts leads all other states, and is easily ten 

 to thirty times ahead of some states. Further- 

 more, it is almost certain that the standard 

 represented by Professor Cattell's list of one 

 thousand is somewhat higher than that repre- 

 sented by admission into " Who's Who in 

 America." This I assume to be the case be- 

 cause I have calculated that there are about 

 two thousand names of scientific men in the 

 latter volume who would be included under 

 the various specialties tabulated in Professor 

 Cattell's study. 



One of the chief reasons which this investi- 

 gator gives for doubting that his results are 

 due to differences in stock is the fact that 

 Massachusetts has not produced relatively 

 more men of the highest grades in science. 

 His figures are sixty in the total for the 

 superior grades (I.-V.) and seventy-four in 

 the less superior grades (VT.-X.). This 

 would doubtless be a very strong argument in 

 just the direction which he has indicated if 

 it should be substantiated by further statistics ; 

 but I have several reasons for thinking that as 

 the figures here stand, this unexpected ratio 

 in the single case of Massachusetts is caused 

 by the smallness of the figures themselves. I 

 have arranged the states in two groups, so that 

 one group, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecti- 

 cut, Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, 

 New York, Maine and New Hampshire, con- 

 tains half the total number of scientists, and 

 all the superior ratio states in the order of 

 their superiority. Massachusetts then ap- 

 pears to be an exception, for the group as a 

 whole does average more names in the I.-V. 

 grades than in the VI.-X. The difference ia, 

 however, only a slight one, being 227 against 

 205. This is outside of, though not twice, the 

 probable error 7, so the difference is suggest- 

 ive if not significant, and the total number of 

 cases is at the same time proved not great 

 enough for a final conclusion- If, however, 

 the same ratio were maintained for a greater 

 mass of data, it would soon become significant 



as showing a higher average standing for 

 scientists born in the high-ratio states. Thus 

 if the totals were all raised a hundredfold, 

 since the probable error would be increased 

 only tenfold, the difference would then be 

 fifteen times the probable error, and the 

 chances against mere hazard's explaining the 

 result would be enormous. 



It may be that the actual intellectual differ- 

 ences between those in the I.-V. and those in 

 the VI.-X. grades are really not very great 

 after all. I fancy there are many more names 

 of older men in the I.-V. or higher grades, 

 who with the same amount of brains as many 

 younger men in the lower grades have had a 

 longer time in which to gain a reputation. 

 Even so, the I.-V. grades should average some- 

 what above the VI.-X., in real ability, though 

 it is easy to see that something of the true 

 difference in actual merit between the two 

 groups is lost as soon as differences in age- 

 average exist between them. Such a force 

 would work mathematically in two opposed 

 directions and cause confusion. Without the 

 age-averages of the two groups, it is impos- 

 sible to say how this factor might affect the 

 results. 



I thought it would be interesting to know 

 if the ratio of scientific men born in Massa- 

 chusetts would be as high if all examples be 

 taken into the discussion, using the entire 

 book " American Men of Science " instead of 

 the thousand selected and presumably su- 

 perior group used by Professor Cattell. I have 

 therefore had a count made of the entire num- 

 ber in this book of 4,000 names. There are 

 436 reported as born in Massachusetts. The 

 exact total number of names is unfortunately 

 not printed in the book, but is given as more 

 than 4,000. Taking the number even as low 

 as 4,000 and assuming that 87 per cent, were 

 born in this country, as is the case with the 

 1,000 superior ones, the per cent, born in 

 Massachusetts is reduced from 15.4, found for 

 the superior group, to 12.5 for scientists of all 

 degrees of merit. Thus there is something to 

 show that Massachusetts has produced rela- 

 tively more men of science of the superior sort 



Turning now from special aptitude in sci- 

 ence to general mental eminence, as shown in 



