How to Analyze People on Sight

by Elsie Lincoln Benedict, Ralph Paine Benedict

What Newspapers Have Said About Elsie Benedict and Her Work "Over fifty thousand people heard Elsie Lincoln Benedict at the City Auditorium during her six weeks lecture engagement in Milwaukee."-Milwaukee Leader, April 2, 1921. "Elsie Lincoln Benedict has a brilliant record. She is like a fresh breath of Colorado ozone. Her ideas are as stimulating as the health-giving breezes of the Rockies."-New York Evening Mail, April 16, 1914. "Several hundred people were turned away from the Masonic Temple last night where Elsie Lincoln Benedict, famous human analyst, spoke on 'How to Analyze People on Sight.' Asked how she could draw and hold a crowd of 3,000 for a lecture, she 'Because I talk on the one subject on earth in which every individual is most interested-himself.'"-Seattle Times, June 2, 1920. "Elsie Lincoln Benedict is a woman who has studied deeply under genuine scientists and is demonstrating to thousands at the Auditorium each evening that she knows the connection between an individual's external characteristics and his inner traits."-Minneapolis News, November 7, 1920. "Elsie Lincoln Benedict is known nationally, having conducted lecture courses in many of the large Eastern cities. Her work is based upon the practical methods of modern science as worked out in the world's leading laboratories where exhaustive tests are applied to determine individual types, talents, vocational bents and possibilities."-San Francisco Bulletin, January 25, 1919.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Self Help, Audiobook, Classics, Philosophy, Unfinished

135 pages, Paperback

First published November 30, 1921

About the author

Elsie Lincoln Benedict was considered the world's most famous lecturer during the 1920s, speaking to over 3 million people in her lifetime and writing on what Napoleon Hill and Dale Carnegie and a long list of men would do later. She was an American suffragist leader representing the State of Colorado for the Women's Right to Vote. Benedict was a pioneer and well respected expert in the fields of psychoanalysis, sociology, and biology.

Reviews

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

Randomly picked up this book because it was one of the most popular Kindle e-books. I have such mixed feelings about it. I thought a lot of it was either obvious, pointless or even offensive but there was one insight which made the whole book worth reading. When choosing a partner the most important thing is that the two of you agree how to spend your leisure time. Everything else is really secondary because many differences can be worked through. But fundamentally if two people can't have fun together then they'll never be happy together. I suppose I learned this lesson the hard way, I'm just glad I learned it relatively early in life!

[M Pogoy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is interesting and the author's five types of human beings in the world is worth to think over.

I've read some reviews about this book and some people think that the book is kind of racist and the author's "five types" forever and a day remained unproved theories. Well, I think otherwise.

Ms. Benedict's "Five Human Types" are, in my opinion, true. I believe that these five human types which are the alimentives (fat men), the thoracics (thrillers), the musculars (workers),the osseus (stayers) and the cerebrals (thinkers) are the most basic human types ever and maybe other readers have hard time "analyzing" people according to the author's guielines but you see, you have to know how to mix and match.

(to be continued)

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only real purpose I can see for this book is historical, as a look into the thoughts and attitudes of people in the 1920's. Did people really believe this was real science when this came out? I've seen recent reviews from people on Amazon who gave this book a high rating and thought the methods described would be helpful for analyzing people. Kind of scary. The theories, to me, seem to be complete nonsense, made up of outdated (by a century) stereotypes.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is really hard to review. I mean, on the one hand, it is wrong. Just wrong. But on the other hand it is delightful. It claims that 99% of people are failures, which is incredibly reassuring. Plus people are cars and sometimes sage brushes, which is a fabulous use of metaphor and now I can just picture my personality driving me around, a rusted out old two door Honda that can't get above third. It also claims to have surveyed ice cream vendors and fruit sellers about fat people, which just seems fabulously politically correct and a valid empirical study.

[Monique Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's funny but if you look at it closely but People who complain about this book are the ones who cannot accept and do not like the type they are after they have learned which one they are. If you look at their comments carefully they don't state to why exactly it is a bad book and just goes off saying its racist or inaccurate without really having a strong standpoint. Also I would suggest comment readers to use what they have read into use and observer the people who are complaining and what type they are. Surely, a cerebral or two will have a good smirk out of what I just said.

[Kat · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book no one has ever heard of! Can you really determine a person's whole character by the shape of his or her hands, or face? Elsie says you can and I believe her, because the measurements she gives for deciding each person have been so scarily accurate, I almost don't believe it. I found this book on gutenberg.org and downloaded it to Plucker, there is also a text version with drawings. A really interesting find!

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Utter garbage. I can't really mark this as 'read' because in no way did I finish it. It's terrible fluff, padded with needless "examples" of the (supposed) true types of people. Don't bother.

[Dna · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the most idiotic pile of garbage I have EVER, EVER, EVER...EVER READ.

Example of one of five types of human beings that have been "discovered" by science:

The Fat Man

"How the Fat Man Talks"

Never to take anything too seriously is an unconscious policy of fat people. they show it plainly in their actions and speech. The very fat man is seldom a brilliant conversationalist. He is often "jollier" and tells stories well, especially anecdotes and personal experiences.

"The Fat Man Lives to Eat"

Rich food in large quantities is enjoyed by the average fat man three times a day and three hundred and sixty-five days of the year. Between meals, he usually manages to stow away a generous supply of candy, ice cream, popcorn, and fruit. We have interviewed countless popcorn and fruit vendors on this subject and every one of them told us that fat people keep them in business.

Are. You. Kidding. Me? This is not science and guess what? Elsie was FAT!

Like the infant, he demands food first. Almost the only time a fat man loses his temper is when he has been deprived of his food. The next demand on his list is sleep, another characteristic of the immature.

This book just goes to show that "science" is mostly a bunk field filled with frauds and mealy-mouthed shit-talkers. Just like today.

*takes a bow*

[Dani · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book. I like ideas that tackle one of the most important things in life, out how to deal with others. Stereotypes based on physical characteristics are probably as accurate as astrology or birth order, so take with a pound of salt, but there is some truth to this book. Look at characters in books and film and one will see that physical characteristics are as much a part of the character as their costumes are. Stereotypes exist for reasons, the chief one being that most people we encounter in life we must make judgements on quickly and with as little information as a single glance. It isn't wrong to do so, however refusing any additional input to the initial impressions means that we will only operate in the world with our pre- judgements and no hope for getting to the unique individual inside.

[P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite funny actually. Especially the bit about 'fat people' - how they make a 'beeline' for the widest chair and how the 'fat man' is predominantly seen in the Jewish faith (!!!). One gripe though: Ms. Elsie Benedict seemed to have overlooked MY type. I feel very left out! lol.

That aside, I think it's quite extraordinary that people flocked to universities to hear this lady talk about how your body shape determines your personality. Thoroughly amusing, if not slightly racist with comments that smack of ignorance. It's also a bit of an eye-opener, as we can clearly see that the entrepreneurial pseudo-socio scientist model was prevalent even back then.

I wonder what 'type' Ms. Benedict was...

[Anthony M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I listen to uneducated people talk about societal problems, the tone is similar to that of this book. Want to get ideas for characters based on stereotypes, this book is for you. Want the truth about humans and human nature, watch out. The judgments and analyses are so naive you can do danger to yourself and others if you follow the ideas presented in this silly book. I gave it 2 stars instead of 1 because the literary value is good for basing characters off for writers.

[James Cameron · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has some sort of logic but the time period puts the accuracy of this book in question. Race is mentioned as a way of reading people. The problem with the book using race, was that it uses as race if it were biological. When in fact race is socially constructed, without there being any evidence for a genetic or biological connection besides skin color. She is correct saying that a person body does to adapt to what it thinks it needs, but there is a different from a way a body looks by nature or the way it looks by nurture. Therefore this book is slightly inaccurate.

[Adam Lean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Entertaining Book from a time when speaking and writing plainly was a virtue. Surprisingly true on many levels, however there's always exceptions to the rules. To all those who doubt it's efficacy, I ask why would physical composition not govern our relationships and behaviors? I'm sure if Elsie and Ralph were around today they'd write an even more compelling version with the benefits of modern science at thier disposal.

[Kelly · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was the actual worst. Full of nonsense about being able to tell what kind of person someone is based entirely on what they look like. Are you bony? Then you must have these traits. Are you fat? You’re definitely exactly this. Nonsense. The only bit that has any merit whatsoever is a section toward the end before they tell you what kind of job you should have based on what type you are, where there is a long (unnecessarily long, but still) bit about not forcing your kids to do a job they hate. That’s why it gets 1 star rather than none. Can you tell this book made me irritated? ;)

[Jen · Rating 2 out of 5]

How to Analyze People on Sight is psuedo-psychology from the early 1920s. I read this book as a curiosity, not because I think it's possible to tell everything about a person simply by knowing their body/frame shape. As a curiosity, it's an okay read.

The most interesting part for me were the final two chapters, "Types that should not marry" and "Vocations for each type. (Again, not because I actually believe the psuedo-psychology.) The authors present an interesting picture of divorce in the early 20th century in the penultimate chapter by mentioning the prevalence of what we would now file under "no fault divorce": that people were divorcing "not on grounds dealing with the so-called fundamentals, but for differences regarding the so-called unimportant things." Those "unimportant things" being how they spend their leisure time and how they act when on their own. In the final chapter, the authors espouse that people should be allowed to choose their profession based on their natural abilities -- in this case, they see abilities as stemming from body shape, but nonetheless the author vehemently opposes parents pushing children into specific roles. More amazingly, this chapter is laced with bits of feminism. The authors repeatedly suggest that women should have more career options than just getting married.

Other reviews of this book mention racism, sexism, and other isms. It's true; parts of this book are problematic in those areas. However, this is a book from 1921 and it needs to be read in that context.

[Shaikha Almusallam · Rating 1 out of 5]

there is a saying in the Arab that says " a book can be read from its cover" which means u can judge something based on the way it looks.

Basically this is what this book all about, judging people based on the way they look,Personally I don't believe in this and the book couldn't convince me otherwise .

[Derek · Rating 1 out of 5]

Astoundingly difficult to read due to the book's format and the author's choice to deliver unrelated or repetitive "micro chunks" of information. This book is also highly unscientific, racist, and, among other things, unusually shallow. Should only be read as an object of studying quack science or for fun, not as a serious endeavour.

[Faiq Zaini · Rating 4 out of 5]

a step to understand people around in a better way..

[Lujain · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5 stars.
Really, I tried going into this book with an open mind. I'd like to believe that I did so for the most part. I did not feel like I've learned much, if I'm quite honest. It was also very basic, repetitive and had no specific structure. However, it wasn't that horrible and I even enjoyed it at the last part.
Do I recommend this book?
The answer is no. It felt like a waste of time, but it was so easy to read.
Do I consider the information in this book is important?
Not really.
I'd like to believe, though, that this at least added some valid information here and there.

[Samuel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Apparently people were way easier to judge back in the day. A fat man only thinks about food, how not to upset him, don't interrupt him when he's eating and avoid any activity that involves exercise and he will like you. Haha. Surprised I finished it.

[M · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yeh not great hey. Judge people! Using skills from the early 1900's! Some of this may be true and handy... but there are some huge assumptions applied and it is a whole lot of "Look at this person without knowing them and judge judge judge!" Glad I received a discount when purchasing this book.

[Tyler Guptill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very thought provoking and a book everyone should read!

[Laila Al-Sharnaqi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmm! Wasn’t quite as expected!

[catherine ♡ · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is just fatphobia with a tinge of "bony people have no fashion sense"

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main driving force behind listening to this audiobook was some of the reviews left previously. The pretentiousness of some people made me raise an eyebrow and want to see what was worth being haughty about.

So, I put it on while working in the chem lab and giggled.

This is written very much from the 1920s viewpoint, including their delusions and biases. It's an amazing study in how people thought of and described each other back then. I was floored at some of the descriptions. If someone were to describe people like that now, there would be a lot of outrage. But back then they happily admitted to being what they were without any delicate sensibilities being turned.

The science is outdated, but I've noticed that there are many threads of similarities with other influence books. For example, in this book they talk about how a "fat person likes comforts," then go on to describe a personality type of a happy, non-confrontational person. While now we realise we can't judge a person on their body, many of the ways that they describe the personality traits are still very similar to what I've read in other influence books.

So, all in all, it's a good book for a historical study. If you're using it as a way to read people, body language, and other sorts of things, you'll be led astray in parts. Though... you'll probably raise an eyebrow from time to time and gasp at how they describe people.

[Billy]

The theories and concepts in this book are interesting and have some merit but thats about where it ends. For those getting wound up and upset over the book being offensive, get a grip. It was written in a time where society and attitudes were vastly different to now. And its hardly offensive in any event. If you find it offesnive I suggest you take a look at yourself and ask when you became such a whinger and an annoyance to others. I found myself thinking when I read the book that quite literally I fit not any of the 5 types but rather there are components of all types in me. so much so that it was impossible to distinguish which type could be classified as my dominant type. With that said I can identify which type I can be least closely linked with, 'the fat man' although even some of those traits I can relate to ie liking comfort sometimes, etc but the other 4 I'm almost equal proportions of. That's why the theories in this book fall over. because if some types are opposite to others then how can I be all of them without being a living contradiction in all do? There is some basis or validity in these theories, something to it but not much more than that. People and their characters are as diverse and limitless as bodies in the universe. 5 types? I dont think so.

[Shubham Agnihotri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though this book claims that the rules can be applied anywhere in the world but I am not agreed with this.
But it somewhat gives basic facts and conceptions about human behavior and habits of each types.
It is written after a long study of American people and Local Climate determines the Nature of an individual is an impregnable fact, and the climate does highly vary all over the world.
So if you want to analyse people around you then better to study the local culture and social milieu. Then you get it Man.

[Jeremy Stephens · Rating 1 out of 5]

Have you ever read a book that was full of hot air and gave very little information or advice? That's what this book seemed like to me. Overall, this seemed to be nothing more than a lot of short choppy musings that didn't seem to go any where. Reading this was a waste of time.

[Peggy Scripter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was written in 1921. As a result, it is quirky and outdated. Still, it is interesting to read about different body types having different qualities to their personalities, especially when you realize you have come to yourself. I quit reading a little more than halfway through.

[Ammon · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's interesting material, but scientifically ridiculous. Even if she had sources to back up what she says, there's absolutely no way I'd believe them after reading this book. Most of it is just logical assumptions.