SECOND REPORT 
ON 
Experimental Psychology: 
UPON THE DIAGRAM TESTS. 
BY 
Professor Charles Sedgwick Minot. 
[Reprinted from Vol. 1., No. 4, of the Proceedings of the American Society 
for Psychical Research.] SECOND REPORT 
ON 
EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 
UPON THE DIAGRAM TESTS. 
BY 
Professor Charles Sedgwick Minot. 302 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
SECOND REPORT ON EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: 
UPON THE DIAGRAM-TESTS. 
During the past year a large number of postal cards were distrib- 
uted, each bearing the printed request: “Please draw ten diagrams 
on this card, without receiving any suggestion from any other person, 
and add your name and address 
The committee has received for examination 501 postal cards with 
diagrams upon them. A few of the cards’had more than 10 diagrams 
upon them, and of such cards only the first 10 diagrams on each were 
counted. A few cards had less than 10 diagrams. 
The cards were divided into 3 sets; 1, men; 2, women; 3, 
without names. Each set of cards was numbered, and the diagrams 
on each card numbered. The tabulation was then begun according to 
this scheme: 
Figure Diamonds. 
Men. 
Women. 
No name. 
Card. 
Diagram. 
Card. Diagram. 
Card 
Diagram. 
16 
3 
6 9 
2 
2 
20 
1 
8 3 
6 
1 
27 
8 
10 1 
8 
10 
etc. 
etc. 
etc. 
Diagrams, 
total no. 28 
44 
8 
The cards and original tabulations have been preserved, and are 
in the charge of the Secretary of the Society. 
The number of cards were for men, 310 ; for women, 169 ; no 
name, 22, total 501, The number of figures which have been tabu- 
lated is 83. The results are given in the following table, in which the 
figures have been arranged according to their ?elative frequency. 
The numbers in the first column refer to the original manuscript 
tabulations. 
Table I 
Women. 
Men. 
No name. 
Total. 
8 
1 Circles 
60 
140 
9 
209 
7 
2 Squares 
61 
105 
8 
174 
4 
3 Equilateral triangles . 
58 
95 
7 
160 
14 
4 Crosses 
53 
103 
4 
160 
25 
5 Letters of the alphabet . . 
52 
30 
0 
82 Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
Women. 
Men. 
No name. 
Total. 
9 
6 Diamonds 
28 
44 
8 
80 
50 
7 Oblongs, horizontal . . . 
27 
50 
1 
78 
53 
8 Inscribed circles .... 
22 
56 
0 
78 
12 
9 Stars 
28 
46 
3 
77 
1 
10 Faces profile to the left . 
21 
33 
7 
61 
14 
11 Houses 
19 
35 
2 
56 
52 
12 Rhombi 
15 
41 
0 
56 
59 
13 Scrawls 
14 
32 
7 
53 
30 
14 Other animals and heads . 
12 
28 
8 
48 
33 
15 Flowers ....... 
28 
11 
7 
46 
34 
16 Leaves 
20 
25 
0 
45 
10 
17 Hexagons 
13 
28 
1 
42 
13 
18 Cubes 
17 
24 
1 
42 
5 
19 Right-angled triangles i\ 
9 
27 
0 
36 
48 
20 Figures of men .... 
6 
21 
5 
32 
60 
21 Scrolls 
16 
16 
0 
32 
80 
22 Inscribed squares .... 
14 
18 
0 
32 
21 
23 Hearts 
9 
20 
3 
32 
51 
24 Oblongs, vertical .... 
15 
15 
1 
31 
49 
25 Squares with crosses . 
16 
11 
3 
30 
16 
26 Octagons 
13 
13 
2' 
28 
3 
27 Faces, not in profile . 
12 
14 
1 
27 
6 
28 Right-angled triangles . 
5 
16 
3 
24 
22 
29 Moons 
8 
15 
1 
24 
31 
30 Hour-glasses . 
11 
8 
1 
20 
24 
31 Card spots 
6 
12 
1 
19 
44 
32 Spirals 
4 
12 
1 
17 
76 
33 Pentagons 
11 
5 
1 
17 
11 
34 Flags 
6 
8 
2 
16 
62 
35 Digits 
4 
12 
0 
16 
63 
36 Right-angles 
3 
11 
2 
16 
32 
37 Arrows 
5 
9 
1 
15 
36 
38 Books 
3 
12 
0 
15 
37 
39 Ships 
5 
9 
0 
14 
39 
40 Trees 
3 
10 
1 
14 
77 
41 Tools 
6 
8 
0 
14 
54 
42 
4 
8 
1 
13 
57 
43 Bottles 
4 
9 
0 
13 
41 
44 Boots 
6 
6 
0 
12 
18 
45 Mugs 
3 
6 
1 
10 
26 
46 Hands 
6 
4 
0 
10 
20 
47 Hats 
5 
4 
0 
9 
23 
48 Sun 
2 
5 
2 
9 
27 
49 Horses ....... 
2 
7 
0 
9 
29 
50 Cats ........ 
3 
4 
2 
9 
40 
51 Vases ....... 
4 
5 
0 
9 
Table I. Continued. Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
Table I. Concluded. 
Women. 
Men. 
No name. 
Total. 
43 
52 Anchors 
1 
8 
0 
9 
47 
53 Apples 
5 
3 
1 
9 
56 
54 Eyes 
2 
6 
1 
9 
2 
55 Faces, profile to the right . 
3 
5 
0 
8 
82 
56 Steps 
2 
4 
2 
8 
83 
57 Dishes 
6 
2 
0 
8 
38 
58 Branches 
2 
5 
0 
7 
84 
59 Signs of music .... 
5 
2 
0 
7 
17 
60 Pitchers 
2 
4 
0 
6 
19 
61 Chairs 
3 
3 
0 
6 
42 
62 Keys 
2 
4 
0 
6 
61 
63 Skull, and skull and cross 
bones 
0 
6 
0 
6 
81 
64 Punctuation marks . . . 
3 
3 
0 
6 
28 
65 Dogs 
2 
2 
1 
5 
64 
66 Clocks and watches . . . 
4 
1 
0 
5 
68 
67 Architectural plans . 
1 
3 
1 
5 
75 
68 Engines 
1 
4 
0 
5 
66 
69 Kites 
1 
3 
0 
4 
70 
70 Graves 
1 
3 
0 
4 
71 
71 Feathers 
2 
2 
0 
4 
72 
72 Spoons 
1 
3 
0 
4 
79 
73 Musical instruments . 
2 
2 
0 
4 
35 
74 Arms 
2 
1 
0 
3 
45 
75 Pears 
2 
1 
0 
3 
65 
7 6 Wheels 
2 
1 
0 
3 
69 
77 Candlesticks 
0 
2 
0 
2 
74 
78 Forks 
0 
2 
0 
2 
46 
79 Pineapple 
0 
1 
0 
1 
55 
80 Ear 
0 
1 
0 
1 
58 
81 Corkscrew 
0 
1 
0 
1 
67 
82 Bells 
1 
0 
0 
1 
73 
83 Knives 
0 
1 
0 
1 
This table shows that there is an enormous preponderance of a few 
figures, a great preponderance of some others, and a certain pre- 
ponderance of still others. The very simplest geometrical figures 
rank first, as will be seen still more strikingly if some of the diagrams 
which are now classed separately are put together into larger groups, 
but which, of course, are natural ones. Thus: there are circles, both 
plain, 209 ; and with inscribed figures, 78 ; of squares plain, 174 ; with 
cross lines inscribed, 30 ; and with other figures inscribed, 32. Of 
triangles, equilateral, 160; right-angled turned to the right, 36 ; Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
305 
right-angled turned to the left, 24. Other figures bounded by four 
straight lines ; oblongs, horizontal, 78 ; vertical, 31 ; rhombi, 56 ; dia- 
monds, 80. Geometrical figures bounded by a few straight lines ; hex- 
agons, 42 ; cubes, 42 ; octagons, 28 ; hour-glasses, 20 ; pentagons, 17. 
Tims we have, 
Circles 287 
Squares 236 
Triangles 220 
Four-sided figures 1 245 
Other straight-sided figures 1 149 
making of these very simple figures 1,137, or over one-fifth of the 
total number. If we add to these, stars 77, flags 16, and arrows 15, 
the total rises to 1,245, or almost one-fourth (1,250) of the whole. 
The following tables, 11. and 111., bring out still further the char- 
acter of the drawings. 
Table 11. 
FIGURES DRAWN WITH STRAIGHT LINES. 
Lines. 
Men. 
Women. 
No Name. 
Totals. 
1 
16 
5 
0 
21 
2 
78 
41 
2 
121 
3 
260 
138 
16 
414 
4 
378 
190 
28 
596 
5 
110 
64 
11 
185 
6 
139 
93 
9 
241 
7 
41 
25 
6 
72 
more than seven (7) 
415 
243 
36 
694 
GEOMETRICAL FIGURES DRAWN WITH CURVED LINES 
Table 111. 
Lines. 
Men. 
Women. 
No Name. 
Totals. 
1 
199 
83 
10 
292 
2 
85 
71 
9 
165 
3 
38 
25 
1 
64 
4 
26 
35 
3 
64 
5 
12 
5 
1 
18 
6 
8 
2 
1 
11 
7 
2 
1 
1 
4 
more than seven (7) 
26 
36 
1 
63 
• Cf. Table 11., also Table HI 306 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
straight lines, and 1,337 diagrams with less than six straight lines. 
Table 111. shows that 681 diagrams were drawn exclusively with 
simple curved lines, and that 603 diagrams were drawn with less than 
Table 11. shows that 2,344 diagrams were drawn exclusively with 
six such lines. To the significance of these tables we recur later. 
Next to the circles, squares, triangles, and four-sided figures, come 
the faces ; profiles facing to the left, 61 ; profiles to the right, 8 ; other 
faces 27 ; or 96 in all. 
Then follow, 
Letters of the alphabet .......... 82 
Houses 56 
Irregular scrawls . 53 
diagrams which are found on the cards 30 or more times. These 
first 25 diagrams occur in all 1,772 times, or on the average 70.9 
If we look at Table 1., we see that, as there classified, there are 25 
times each. 
Of the diagrams which are more or less often repeated, an interest- 
ing minority represent natural and artificial familiar objects, as can 
be conveniently seen by the following: 
Table IV. 
Animals, etc. 
Plants. 
Manufactured Objects. 
Men .... 
32 
Flowers . 
. 46 
Houses 
56 
Hands 
10 
Leaves . 
. 45 
Books . 
15 
Horses 
9 
Trees. 
. 14 
Ships . 
14 
Cats .... 
9 
Apples . 
9 
Tools . 
14 
Hogs .... 
5 
Branches 
7 
Bottles 
13 
Ears .... 
1 
Pears. 
3 
Boots . 
12 
Arms . 
1 
Pineapples . 
1 
Mugs . 
10 
Hats 
9 
Vases . 
9 
Anchors 
9 
Steps . 
8 
Dishes . 
8 
Pitchers 
6 
Chairs . 
. 
6 
etc. 
Another group of diagrams may be classed as professional figures, 
such as surveyors’ instruments, accurate pictures of engines, or 
parts thereof ; bones, sections of the spinal cord ; musical instru- 
ments, architectural plans, and of such many more. On the oO I 
diagrams Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
307 
cards we find 54 diagrams which belong unquestionably under this 
head, but they are from only 10 cards, and those all by men. On 
the other hand, among the women’s cards there are 4 on which the 10 
diagrams make a set; 2of these cards have the first 10 letters of the 
alphabet; the third has 10 hearts arranged like the pips on a playing 
card, but inside each heart are 4 marks ; the fourth card is a man 
drawn in separate pieces, the first piece is his hat, the second his 
head, then his neck, two arms, body, two legs, and two boots. 
Table Y. 
Women. 
Men. 
Men. W’n. 
Squares .... 
61— 
105 
Circles 
140—60 
Equilateral triangles 
58— 
95 
Circles inscribed . 
56—22 
Letters .... 
52— 
30 
Rhombi ..... 
41—15 
Diamonds 
28— 
44 
Scrawls 
32—14 
Stars 
28— 
46 
t\ 
27— 9 
Faces to left . . 
21— 
33 
Men 
21— 6 
Houses .... 
19— 
35 
Hearts 
20— 9 
Flowers .... 
28— 
11 
Zl 
16— 5 
Leaves .... 
20— 
25 
Spirals 
12— 4 
Cubes 
17— 
24 
Digits 
12— 4 
Scrolls .... 
16— 
16 
Right angles 
11— 3 
Inscribed squares . 
14— 
18 
Books 
12— 3 
Oblongs .... 
15— 
15 
Trees 
10— 3 
Squares with crosses 
16— 
11 
Octagons 
13— 
13 
Faces not in profile 
12 — 
14 
Hour-glasses 
11 — 
8 
Pentagons 
11— 
5 
Flags 
6— 
8 
Tools 
6— 
8 
Boots 
6— 
6 
Hands .... 
6— 
4 
RELATIVE PREPONDERANCE OF DIAGRAMS. 
Further insight into the peculiarities of these diagrams is gained 
by comparing the women and men. This cannot be done as accu- 
rately as desirable, because in some of the cards the names are given 
with the initials only, and when the persons were not known to the 
committee the cards had to be assumed to be from women or men 
according to the character of the handwriting. There is, therefore, 
a certain amount of error. But, of course, this error tends only to 308 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
mask the differences between men and women, since some of the 
women are tabulated with the men, and vice versa. It will be re- 
membered that the number of men, 310, is nearly double that of 
women, 169 ; hence if the preponderances were perfectly regular in 
each sex, the men’s cards ought to show nearly twice as many of a 
given diagram as the women’s ; but this is by no means the case ; on 
the contrary, as shown by Table V., women’s repetitions greatly 
preponderate ; yet there are curious exceptions, which cannot be con- 
sidered accidental, thus circles and right-angled triangles, under 
both the heads in which they appear, are on the men’s side. On the 
other hand, that gentlemen preponderate with hearts, and ladies with 
hands, perhaps may seem to many a natural consequence of our 
social conditions. The general difference is, that there is much less 
variety among women than among men. 
If the cards are examined, the great majority are found to have 
ten different diagrams upon them, the respondents apparently hav- 
ing assumed that the ten diagrams ought to be unlike one another. 
Hence it is evident that if we wish to measure the relative prepon- 
derance of the diagrams we shall reach the most accurate results by 
tabulating the number of cards on which the various diagrams 
occur, because most persons have thought that after they had drawn 
a given figure on their card they ought not to draw it again, and 
though it may have recurred to their mind and predominated there, 
they have not allowed would not allow their hand to put it on 
the card. In the following table the diagrams are arranged in 
order according to the number of cards on which they occur. The 
figures in the first column refer to the original manuscript tabula- 
tions of the committee. 
No. 
Diagram. 
Men. 
Women. 
No Name. 
Total. 
8 
Circles 
186 
60 
7 
202 
7 
Squares 
100 
60 
8 
168 
4 
Equilateral triangles .... 
92 
54 
7 
153 
15 
Crosses 
80 
40 
4 
124 
9 
Diamonds 
44 
27 
8 
79 
50 
Oblongs, horizontal .... 
50 
27 
1 
78 
14 
Stars 
43 
19 
3 
65 
53 
Circles with inscribed figures . 
47 
17 
0 
64 
14 
Houses 
33 
19 
2 
54 
52 
Rhomb i 
36 
15 
0 
51 
i 
Profiles to left . ... 
28 
16 
3 
47 
Table Vf Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
Table VI. Continued. 
No. 
Diagram. 
Men. 
Women. 
No name. 
Total. 
10 
Hexagons 
28 
12 
1 
41 
13 
Cubes 
23 
17 
1 
41 
25 
Letters of alphabet . 
20 
20 
0 
40 
30 
Other animals and heads 
22 
12 
5 
39 
34 
Leaves 
21 
16 
0 
37 
5 
Right-angled triangle. j\ . 
25 
9 
0 
34 
51 
Oblongs, vertical 
15 
15 
1 
31 
33 
Flowers 
10 
17 
3 
30 
49 
Squares with crosses .... 
11 
15 
3 
29 
60 
Scrolls 
16 
13 
0 
29 
16 
Octagons 
13 
13 
2 
28 
80 
Squares with inscribed figures 
15 
11 
0 
26 
21 
Hearts 
11 
9 
3 
23 
6 
Right-angled triangles /I 
15 
5 
3 
23 
59 
Scrawls 
16 
4 
2 
22 
22 
Moons 
13 
7 
1 
21 
48 
Figures of men ... 
15 
4 
' 2 
21 
31 
Hour-glasses 
8 
11 
1 
20 
3 
Faces not in profile .... 
10 
7 
1 
18 
76 
Pentagons 
5 
11 
1 
17 
44 
Spirals 
12 
4 
1 
17 
24 
Card spots . ■ 
12 
4 
1 
17 
11 
Flags 
8 
6 
2 
16 
63 
Right angles 
11 
3 
2 
16 
36 
Books 
12 
3 
0 
15 
32 
Arrows 
9 
5 
1 
15 
62 
o 
8 
4 
1 
13 
54 
Bottles 
8 
4 
0 
12 
62 
Digits 
8 
4 
0 
12 
39 
Trees 
9 
3 
0 
12 
37 
Ships 
8 
3 
0 
11 
41 
Boots 
6 
5 
0 
11 
18 
Mugs 
7 
2 
1 
10 
26 
Hands 
4 
6 
0 
10 
40 
Vases 
6 
4 
0 
10 
20 
Hats 
4 
5 
0 
9 
23 
Sun 
5 
2 
2 
9 
27 
Horses and horses’ heads . 
7 
2 
0 
9 
29 
Cats and cats’ heads .... 
4 
3 
2 
9 
43 
Anchors 
8 
1 
0 
9 
47 
Apples 
3 
5 
1 
9 
56 
Eyes 
6 
2 
1 
9 
77 
Tools 
5 
4 
0 
9 
2 
Profiles to right 
5 
3 
0 
8 
83 
Dishes 
2 
6 
0 
8 310 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
Table VI. Concluded 
No. 
Diagram. 
Men. 
Women. 
No name. 
Total. 
38 
Branches 
5 
2 
0 
' 7 
82 
Steps 
4 
2 
1 
7 
17 
Pitchers . 
4 
2 
0 
6 
42 
Key8 
4 
2 
0 
6 
61 
Skulls, or skull and cross bones 
6 
0 
0 
6 
84 
Signs of music 
2 
4 
0 
6 
81 
Punctuation marks .... 
3 
2 
0 
5 
75 
Engines 
4 
1 
0 
5 
71 
Feathers 
3 
2 
0 
5 
68 
Architectural plans .... 
3 
1 
1 
5 
64 
Watches and clocks . . . 
4 
1 
0 
5 
28 
Dogs and dogs’ heads . . . 
2 
2 
1 
5 
19 
Chairs 
2 
3 
0 
5 
66 
Kites ........ 
3 
1 
0 
4 
70 
Graves 
3 
1 
0 
4 
72 
Spoons 
3 
1 
0 
4 
79 
Musical instruments .... 
2 
2 
0 
4 
65 
Wheels 
1 
2 
0 
3 
45 
Pears 
1 
2 
0 
3 
74 
Forks 
2 
0 
0 
2 
69 
Candlesticks . . .... 
2 
0 
0 
2 
35 
Arms 
1 
1 
0 
2 
73 
Knives 
1 
0 
0 
1 
67 
Bells ... 
0 
1 
0 
1 
58 
Corkscrews ....... 
1 
0 
0 
1 
55 
Ears 
1 
0 
0 
1 
46 
Pineapples 
1 
0 
0 
1 
There is one other manner in which we have sought to ascertain 
the order of precedence of the diagrams. The diagrams on each 
card have been numbered, beginning at the upper left hand cor- 
ner, then across the card, then down and across again from left to 
right, following the succession natural in writing. The numbering, 
therefore, presumably corresponds approximately to the actual order 
in which the diagrams were drawn. The average of all these is, for 
instance, in the case of plain circles 3.9, which is therefore the average 
place of a plain circle, when it is drawn as one of the ten diagrams. 
The average places of diagrams 1-59, inclusive of Table 1., are 
given in the following table. The figures in the first column refer to 
the original manuscript tabulations. Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
311 
Table VII. 
Figure. 
Place, j 
Figure. 
Place. 
4 
Equilateral triangles . 
2.6 
25 
Letters of alphabet 
5.7 
7 I 
Squares 
3.2 
37 
Ships 
5.7 
6 1 
Right-angled triangles /I 
3.8 
33 
Flowers 
5.8 
8 
Circles 
3.9 
27 
Horses 
5.8 
5 
Right-angled triangle [\ 
4.1 
48 
Figures of men . 
5.8 
O 
O 
Faces not in profile , 
4.4 
51 
Oblongs, vertical . 
5.9 
2 
Faces, profile to right 
4.5 
62 
Digits 
6. 
9 
Diamonds .... 
4.6 
38 
Branches .... 
6. 
50 
Oblongs, horizontal . 
4.6 
47 
Apples . . . , . 
6.3 
1 
Faces, profile to left . 
4.7 
40 
Vases 
6.3 
34 
Leaves 
5.0 
30 
Other animals and heads 
6.4 
12 
Stars 
5.0 
36 
Books 
6.4 
52 
Rhombi 
5.0 
24 
Card spots .... 
6.4 
10 
Hexagons .... 
5.0 
14 
Houses 
6.5 
83 
Dishes 
5.1 
43 
Anchors 
6.6 
15 
Crosses 
5.2 
80 
Inscribed squares . 
6.6 
84 
Signs of music . 
5.3 
59 
Scrawls 
6.6 
77 
Tools 
5.3 
54 
o 
6.7 
20 
Hats 
5.4 
39 
Trees 
6.8 
76 
Pentagons .... 
5.5 
18 
Mugs ...... 
6.8 
53 
Inscribed circles 
575 
1 26 
Hands 
6.8 
82 
Steps 
60 
Scrolls 
6.9 
13 
Cubes 
57 
Bottles 
6.9 
23 
Suns 
22 
Moons 
7. 
11 
Flags 
41 
Boots 
7. 
49 
Squares with crosses . 
5.6 
44 
Spirals 
7.1 
21 
Hearts 
5.7 
32 
Arrows 
7.1 
16 
Octagons .... 
5.7 
63 
Right angles . '. 
7.6 
31 
Hour-glasses 'V'' 
5.7 
29 
Cats 
7.8 
56 
Eyes 
| 
I have now presented the data, which have been derived from 
the diagrams. 1 have next to lay before you the psychological 
deductions which appear to me warranted by those data, and finally to 
point out the bearing of those deductions on certain psychical ex- 
periments. 
It is evident that the essential question is, what are the factors 
which lead to certain figures or classes of figures appearing so often, 
and the factors which produce the variety of figures which occur 
only a few times or once. We have a problem of visualization, the 
mind is called upon to supply an optical image, and naturally offers 312 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
first that which is most accessible ; sometimes that which is first 
offered is accepted at once, or again the decision hesitates, several 
images are offered, then a choice is made and one selected. There 
are two causes which undoubtedly lead a minority of persons to have 
special visual images stand prominently first, —to press to the fore 
on every occasion. The first cause alluded to is a mental trick.—the 
habitual occupation with some special figure, which accidentally and 
unconsciously is adopted by the mind. Such personal diagrams 
belong to certain individuals,—one might almost say the individual 
belongs to the diagram, so domineering is it in its incessant recur- 
rence. A perfect example of this is afforded by one of our corre- 
spondents. Miss N. writes, u she has observed for years that the first 
form (,-Z)) curiously possesses her, without her having the slightest 
explanation of the cause. Her papers are covered with it. The way 
she makes it is not as she writes CL. Then the circular stroke is always 
up ; in the former case it is always down, and the interior straight 
line is always added after the curve.” Later she adds, “My nephew 
has a special feeling about the letter D. My nephew attributes his 
(and my) feeling to the fact that <l> is the only letter whose curve in 
writing is made upwards and, so to speak, backwards, which gave him 
a great deal of trouble as a child, and he thinks it probably did me! ” 
And again she adds, “ I found yesterday that another nephew of 
mine has always been in the habit of making JP’s uniformly with the 
double stroke. He adds, as I feel, ‘lt looks so much better.’ But it 
is sad to see the curve shrinking with the descending generations.” 
Such tricks are very likely to be acquired, as we so often remark in 
the conversation of others, if not of ourselves, the “ Well’s” and 
“ Ah’s,” “ Don’t you know’s,” and other stop-gap interjections. So, 
too, it is probable that the diagram-trick is much more common than 
we are aware of, and that it accounts fora minority of the first figures 
drawn on the cards. 
The second cause above alluded to is the sustained attention of the 
mind to certain objects constantly encountered in a person’s regular 
daily occupation. A painter recalls his palette; a naturalist his 
butterfly ; a physician his skull ; a college student his bicycle ; a 
member of this society his book ; and so on, seriously and indefinitely. 
When the profession involves incessant consideration of special forms, 
then the images may always be lurking in the mind, on the watch, as 
it were, to come forward, and if there is the least demand for a 
visual image they press into notice. Pre-occupation so intense is 
rare ; but among the five hundred cards, there are three on which 
every diagram indicates extreme and persistent attention to profes- 
sional images, Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
A considerable number of the diagrams were, we may safely 
assume, suggested by the objects around the persons when they 
Avere making the diagrams, or some association of ideas, or by the 
recollection of objects or figures with which they had been specially 
or even only casually occupied shortly before. Data bearing on 
this point are given in Table IV. The image in these cases came 
to the mind from the outside; but the great majority of the 
diagrams are of such a character that we need not hesitate to 
designate them as thrown out from the mind, or as ejective. The 
ejective class of images claims our special attention. 
The large majority of the cards exhibit very little or no real 
individuality. They are, of course, every one different from every 
other ; but there is general uniformity, which is brought out with start- 
ling emphasis by Table VI. There we learn that 40% of the per- 
sons have drawn circles ; 34% squares; 31% equilateral triangles ; 
25% crosses; 16% diamonds; etc. In fact, there are scarcely any 
cards AATith figures contained on no other card ;by far the majority 
of the cards have several figures which are found more or less 
frequently on other cards. 
With the exception of a very few, the diagrams are all simple in 
character. A glance at Table I. suffices to show that this is the 
case, and it is still more forcibly demonstrated by Tables 11. and 111. 
The persons drawing have evidently drawn as a rule what was 
easiest. In this manner we must account for the prevalence of faces 
seen in profile to the left, of left-handed spirals, of cubes and houses 
with the perspective lines running to the right. If any one will try 
making the diagrams just mentioned, he will, at least if right-handed, 
find it easier to make them as described than in the reverse positions. 
We are all trained in the faith in individualism, and we are induced 
in numerous Avays and almost incessantly to assign the highest value 
to the individual, and to the cultivation of individually distinctive 
qualities. We are .also far more adept in perceiving differences 
than in recognizing resemblances; indeed, it is well known that 
ability to recognize resemblance, when it is masked, is one of the 
most distinctive traits of mental superiority and of genius itself. Two 
potent influences are confluent to make us exaggerate the differences 
betAveen man and man, and they are abetted by each person’s feel- 
ing that he is different from his neighbors. The consequence is that 
Ave too often and too easily forget our similarity, and forget that 
it stretches oArer trifling habits as Avell as over the great and little 
modes of thought. We feel, and for the most part willingly ac- 
knoAvledge, the likeness of our natures, but our sentiments and ideas 
we are over inclined to consider original. Such tests as the drawing 314 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
of the diagrams thrust home the conviction that even in trifles we 
differ but little. The images and notions which pass across the con- 
sciousness of each individual are almost all common property ; they 
are comparable to coins, every one is a separate entity, but yet the 
stamp is the same. Our thoughts are in large measure owned by the 
community ; we are in mental matters all pure communists. 
Such tests as the diagrams, on which this report is based, demon- 
strate the slightness of our real individual distinction and separa- 
tion. The similarity is so great that the same visual images arise in 
many of us with approximately the same readiness. 
We come here to a domain of psychology which has been but little 
and inadequately studied, namely, the frequency and readiness with 
which ideas recur. In a previous report in the Proceedings (ante, 
pp. 86) 1 have shown that even in so indifferent a matter as 
the ten digits, there are unconscious preferences of the mind, or, in 
other words, that the notions or images of certain digits come forward 
oftener and more readily than of others ; and I have also shown, ante, 
pp. 90-91, that the order of relative frequency is similar for different 
persons. It is probable that all ideas possess each its special degree 
of readiness of appearing in consciousness, and that the degree of 
readiness is approximately the same for a great many persons. This 
similarity probably also prevails in regard to the majority of ideas. 
This aspect of our mental processes puts the problem of thought- 
transference in a somewhat different light from that in which we 
have been asked to view it. It is evident that if two persons are 
requested to think of some one thing of a class, such as a letter of 
the alphabet, a playing-card, a baptismal name, there is by no 
means an equal chance of their selecting any one ; on the contrary, 
there is not only the probability that they will think of a special one 
first, but there is a chance of their both thinking of the same one, 
for the relative frequency or preponderance of one idea or image 
out of a set has been shown to be similar for a number of people. 
In order to prove the reality of thought-transference, it must be 
demonstrated that the observed coincidence of thoughts can not be 
explained by the law of relative (requency. 
Let us suppose by way of illustration that two persons make 
an experiment in thought-transference with diagrams. The agent 
draws a circle ; now, four persons out of ten are likely to draw a 
circle (see Table VI.), and to draw it near the beginning of a series of 
diagrams ; instead, therefore, of the chances of the percipient’s draw- 
ing a circle being almost infinitely small, they are very great. The 
trial is proceeded with; the circle having been drawn, it is probable 
that the next figure will be different, as our cards show; the agent Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
draws a square ; again the percipient’s unconscious chances are very 
great. And so on with a considerable series of diagrams. In this 
manner thought-transference might be simulated, and a proof of its 
reality obtained, which would seem overwhelming so long as the law 
of relative frequency is disregarded as an explanation. 
In the first report of the English Society for Psychical Research 
(Yol. 1, Part I.) there occur several expressions which show that the 
existence of the law of relative frequency of ideas was not known 
to the committee reporting. For example, p. 23, they say, “The 
chances against success in the case of any one card are, of course, 
51 to 1,” the Italics are ours. On the contrary, the chances vary 
according to the card ; and if the card is not drawn at random from a 
full pack, but selected by some person thinking of it, the chances in 
favor of success are very much greater than 1 to 51. A similar 
criticism is applicable to the remark on p. 26,1, c.: “In the case of 
letters of the alphabet, of cards, and of numbers of two figures, the 
chances against success on a first trial would naturally be 25 to 1, 
51 to 1, and 89 to 1, respectively.” In the third report on thought- 
transference, I. c., Part 111., especially p. 173, similar statements are 
repeated, and it is added concerning the reproduction of drawings by 
Mr. Smith, when Mr. Blackburn acted as agent, “ Here obviously 
an incalculable number of trials might be made, at any rate in the 
case of the more random and eccentric figures, before pure guess- 
work would hit upon a resemblance as near as that obtained in almost 
every case by Mr. G. A. Smith.” We have to remember that '"'•pure 
guess-work ” is precisely what we are not dealing with. In Mr. 
Schmoll’s article in the same Proceedings, Part XI., on the repro- 
duction of diagrams by thought-transference, occurs the following 
sentence, p. 336 : “We have, therefore, been able to convince our- 
selves that the agents, concentrating their looks on the given object, 
projected on the mental eye of the percipient a picture more or less 
resembling it, and we take it as incontrovertible that the above results 
could not have been achieved by conscious or unconscious guessing.” 
If we examine the drawings given in the various articles above 
referred to, we notice at once that with the exception of a single 
series, those with Mr. G. A. Smith as percipient, the figures drawn by 
both the agents and percipients are in greater part just such as our 
diagram tests have shown to be the ones likely to be drawn. The 
authors of the articles in question having fundamentally miscon- 
ceived the nature of the chances, of course fail to offer the necessary 
proof that the proportion of coincidences was greater than chance 
would account for. Until this is done it appears premature to accept 
these experiments as valid proofs of thought-transference. 316 
Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
There still are left the experiments with Mr. Smith and Mr. Black- 
burn. If we examine the diagrams reproduced in the Proceedings of 
the English Society, Part 11., pp. 83-97, and Part 111., pp. 175-215, 
we observe among them also a considerable proportion of the figures 
which are most likely to be drawn, so that, even under the assump- 
tion that everything was perfectly fair, the evidence is much less 
strong than the English committee have represented it. There re- 
mains to be considered the possibility of a code arranged between 
Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Smith. The English committee in their third 
report express themselves (Proceedings S. P. R., Part 111., pp. 164, 
165) very decidedly in regard to the possibility of a code. They have 
written: “Let our readers who may be familiar with the Morse or 
any other code of signals try in some such way to convey a descrip- 
tion of some of our drawings to a friend who is blind-folded and has 
not seen the original; we venture to assert that, even if audible signs 
were allowed, several minutes at least would be required to convey 
the notion of the figures correctly. It is probably no exaggeration to 
say that several scores, if not hundreds, of precise signs would be re- 
quired to convey an idea as exact as that implied in many of Mr. 
Smith’s representations.” In the light of our present information 
this opinion must be renounced, and we must say instead that two or 
three signs, which might be variously combined, as in the Morse alpha- 
bet, would suffice to convey in a short time the precise ideas required ; 
and it must be added that very ample opportunity for such signalling 
was afforded in nearly all the Smith-Blackburn experiments. If the 
conditions as described in the third report of the English Society are 
considered, it will be evident at once that in at least a portion of the 
experiments sensory impressions could have been received by Mr. 
Smith from Mr. Blackburn, and of course any sort of impression 
could be utilized in a signalling code. If Messrs. Blackburn and 
Smith had observed that there are, say fifty diagrams which people 
are likely to draw, a code could have been easily arranged for the 
former to signal to the latter which one or two of the diagrams had 
been drawn. If, further, the code include signals for straight lines, 
for semicircular curves, for right, left, up and down, or below and 
above, it would not be very difficult nor require long for a couple of 
expert collusionists to accomplish the thought-transference of almost 
any of the diagrams in the series given in the pages cited. Ido not 
bring any accusation against the two gentlemen who achieved the 
remarkable successes reported by the English committee ; 1 merely 
point out that the hypothesis of fraud still remains tenable, and that 
unless it is met adequately, persons of cautious judgment must 
consider that the explanation of the success of Mr. Smith in the SECOND REPORT ON EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY. Second Report on Experimental Psychology. 
reproduction of drawings is more probably fraud than supersensnous 
thought-transference. 
If this view is adopted, the general conclusion is unavoidable that 
none of the experiments heretofore published afford conclusive evi- 
dence of thought-transference. 
The accompanying plate gives reproductions of the principal types 
of diagrams. The figures are all fac-similes of actual drawings on 
the cards. 
CHARLES SEDGWICK MINOT.