No Sign of War Seen
Before the section on psychology, Lewis F. Richardson of Paisley arrived at the encouraging conclusion that there is no sign of war — at least no mathematical sign. For the professor reduced to beautiful differential equations general tendencies common to all nations — resentment of defiance, the suspicion that defense is concealed aggression, response to imports by exports, restraint on armaments by the difficulty of paying for them, and, last, grievances and their irrationality. The psychologists were bewildered and amused.

Mathematically, Professor Richardson treated love and hate as if they were forces that could be designated by the usual X and Y. The forces make possible two opposite kinds of drifting, one leading to suspicion, the other leading from cooperation to united organization.

The balance of power, Professor Richardson holds, is best maintained by countries of different sizes rather than by a few countries of the same size. When he concluded from his mathematical analysis that there was no chance of war at present he remarked:

"I never would have accepted this unless I proved it to myself by mathematics."

His hearers left with the feeling that Europe's feverish preparation for war is only a declaration of peace to the knife.

"The action of certain foods in influencing the formation of the features has been watched, with highly interesting results. The growth of the chin has been discovered to bear a very striking relation to the amount of starch consumed, and particularly when the starch takes certain forms or is combined with other properties....

It has been shown, and seemingly conclusively, that a flesh or greatly mixed diet promotes angularity in the face generally, while the nourishment obtained from a single article, commonly of a starchy nature, coarsens the features. Thus we have the potato lip, the oatmeal lip, the maize lip."