Phrenology and Common Sense

The picture above shows three different sized milk bottles.

The bottle on the far left holds one quart of milk. The middle bottle hold one pint of milk. The bottle on right holds one half of one pint.

Each of the milk bottles above is obviously a different size. We all know from common experience, that there is more milk in the larger quart bottle, than there is in the smaller one half of one pint bottle.

The human head is no different. A large human head would have more brains inside of it than a small human head, beause a large human head has a larger volume than the small human head. Since the brain is where thinking is performed and where the personality is stored, it is common sense that the size of the brain must have some type of influence on the thinking and the personality of a human being.

Scientists claiming that the size of the head has no influence on the thinking ability or personality of a human being, is like saying that the size of a milk bottle has no influence on how much milk it holds. That statement is so obviously proven false by the picture of the milk bottles above, that a person has to wonder if scientists are stupid, or if they are liars.

The next picture compares some different sized human heads

Using your own common sense, do you believe that the two heads on the top, are the same as the two heads on the bottom ? The two heads on the top are large and round. The two heads on the bottom are narrow and angular.

To make it completely obvious how different the heads are, the picture below superimposes the older man with the narrow head, on both of the example large headed people.

The narrow angular head is smaller than both large round heads. No one can deny that the sides of both large round heads extend out past either side of the narrow head. The narrow head example is undeniably smaller than the round head examples.

It seems completely obvious that the larger heads would have more brains in them, while the smaller heads would have less brains in them. It seems completely obvious that since the brain is involved with thinking ability and personality, the size of the brain will affect the thinking ability and the personality.


How can it be proven that the size or the shape of the head affects the personality?

The answer is so obvious that it boggles the mind that a scientist needs to have someone tell them. Here are the pictures of the example heads again.

The proof that the size and shape of the head affect the personality, is the life experience of any human being on earth.

The life experience of most people allows them to make fairly accurate judgements about most other people. Most people would say that the head of the young man belonged to someone whose personality might be very different. Most people would say that the head of the woman. would make them think of person with a kind and friendly personality.

Why is it necessary to prove life experience to a scientist? How do you prove life experience to a scientist? How can scientists insist that phrenology, the claim that the size and shape of the human head affect the thinking ability and the personality, is not true, when any reader of this page can look at the pictures of heads above, and make some kind of guess as to the thinking ability of the person, and what their personality might be like?


According to Happeh Theory, it is only a matter of time and scientific studies before modern science admits that the basic claims of phrenology are correct. Modern science will eventually verify that the size and shape of the head does affect the mental ability and the personality of a human being throughout it’s lifespan.


  1. The key factor is brain size is not volume, but surface area. Female skulls are on average much smaller than male skulls, but they have shown that the female brain is on average the same size as the male brain once dissected; it is just that the female brain has more infoldings, is more convuluted 🙂 than the male brain in order to fit into a smaller space. This is not to defame phrenology, which I also believe contains at least a nugget of truth which is why it entered and remained, to a degree, in our culture. But what we can read from the skull, from the growth and fusion of the bones of the skull, i believe, is a condensed form of what we can read in the spine. As cranial-sacral therapy in osteopathy has shown, the bones of the skull reflect the tensions acting upon them from the skeletal muscles, which in turn reflect the health of the vertebral column and compression upon the neural rami leaving the spine that innervates these skeletal muscles.

    BTW I am an Alexander Technique practitioner who has spent most of his life trying to unlock the secrets of the body. I have learned a lot reading your articles on Happeh Theory, which I wish to thank you for. There is a lot of information to be gleaned from these theories to one who has an open mind. To the scientific dogmatist, Happeh Theory would be a spark for violence, and indeed everyone I have talked to about these theories adopts the energy of punching me in the face. That makes me happy, because when something makes everyone (especially dogmatists) so disproportionately angry, there must be deep and painful truths being revealed that the ego cannot handle. I find great pleasure in overcoming outrage to find truth. I hope the intolerant comments your theories elicit make you smile.


  2. The problem with this type of thinking is not that “size and shape has influence” it is that “each person is unique”. That is, is it really right to simply judge people based on how they compare to other people we have met? That reduces people to mere mechanical objects. It doesn’t take into consideration their uniqueness or what they have to offer as a different perspective. We can’t narrow a unique person to a logical theoretical equation. They would be trying to match the reality to the theory instead of letting things be what they are. That is why people are sickened by this type of mentally ill thinking. What it does is it tries to push a nebulous theory on an incomprehensibly complex, dynamic reality.

  3. It’s clear the author of this article is extremely scientifically illiterate. The entire reasoning here is literally nothing but logical fallacies. There are no sources, this guy just said “look at these milk containers, the human brain must work the same way.“ are you 5 years old? Completely unquantifiable metrics like personality are somehow to be linked to skull size? How? This guy said “the life experience of most people allows them to make fairly accurate judgements about most other people.” so basically you build your reality off of anecdotal and personal experience, and then make assumptions about the world by bouncing information off of your own presuppositions which you obviously never question. This would be genuinely hilarious for it’s pure hubris if it weren’t actually so sad. There’s no evidence for your claims. If there is please cite them. *pulls up 160 year old debunked phrenology paper lol* your evidence consists of, ”look at this, this must be the way it is because this is sorta the way some other things usually work.” Honestly pathetic levels of analysis. People only get to this point when they mean to justify with the tool that has brought humanity to enlightenment, their primitive racism, because they feel it will give their bumbling illogic some legitimate credibility. But it only ends up being funny because they absolutely do not understand the scientific method, so when they try to use it it only reveals their shameful ignorance, and hateful intentions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *