ABSTRACT
Speed of Conditioning in Extraverts and Introverts If we put together these two propositions, namely, that conditioning lies at the basis of socialization, and that extraverts condition only with difficulty while introverts condition quickly and easily, it would seem to follow that if introverts and extraverts are subjected to the same degree of socialization pressure by society then introverts should become ‘over-socialized5 and extraverts ‘under-socialized5.* And if, as was argued previously, socializa-* T h e concepts o f under-socialization and over-socialization, as defined here,
tion may largely be equated with tender-mindedness, then we should expect extraverts to be tough-minded, introverts to be tender-minded. Again, it will be remembered that this is precisely what we have found to be true experimentally. Again, this is only a statistical truth in the sense that our deduction is verified on the average and that there may be individual exceptions. This is indeed inevitable, for the very simple reason that the pressure of socialization to which individuals are subjected differs from one individual to another, so that his own conditionability is not the only factor determining the outcome. It may be surmised that by combining knowledge of an individual’s ‘conditionability’ and of the amount of pressure to which he has been subjected, we should be able to obtain a considerably better predictive accuracy than has been found so far by taking either of these two factors singly.We may now enquire to what extent our data bear out this hypothesis. We have already shown the distinctly greater tendency towards aggression and dominance in Fascists and Communists, and in tough-minded people generally. This is precisely in line with the hypothesized under-socialization of these groups.Regarding the socialization of the sex impulse, there is no direct evidence from experimental data, but the reader may recall the excesses which characterized the first years of existence of the U.S.S.R., and the constant immorality which was encouraged by the Hitlerian regime in Germany. Much has been written on the existence of similar sexual laxness in the Communist and Fascist parties in this country, but, as most of the reports are by former members of these parties or in any case by people whose interest is-political rather than scientific, not too much stress can be laid on these suggestions.One item of direct evidence in favour of our hypothesis comes from a paper by Dicks. This writer interviewed large numbers of German prisoners-of-war and rated them according to the degree of ‘Fascist-mindedness’ which they showed. Comparing the more Fascist-minded with the neutral and anti-Fascist groups, he concluded that in the former ‘somatic conversions of a hysterical type predominated in the clinical picture’. In other words, the tendency for a correlation between hysteria and tough-mindedness, which we hypothesized, was found in this sample of German Nazis.There would be little point in repeating all the other bits of evidence given in earlier chapters which fall into place in terms of
this hypothesis. The reader will be able to carry out this task for himself and to form a judgment of the adequacy of the hypothesis. In essence, it seems to fulfil the main demands made of an hypothesis in the sense of accounting for the observed facts, and of suggesting new and hitherto undiscovered facts, the investigation of which could form the basis of a proof or disproof of the theory in question. It is to be hoped that further work along these lines will soon show to what extent our generalizations are supported by the facts, and to what extent they may require reformulation.
