The “You and I” Faculty: Why Some Men Are Different When You Get Them Alone

Understanding 1920s “Conjugality” and the Science of Selective Love

“He’s not much in a crowd, But when you get him alone You’d be surprised.”

If you browsed the sheet music displays at Woolworth’s Five and Dime stores during the mid-1920s, this song was impossible to miss. The catchy tune captured something many women recognized but couldn’t quite explain: that certain type of man who seemed unremarkable—even dull—at social gatherings, yet transformed into an attentive, passionate companion the moment you were alone together.

But according to the December 1924 issue of Character Reading Magazine, this behavioral pattern wasn’t mere shyness or social awkwardness. It was the result of a specific brain faculty called Conjugality, a concept rooted in the popular pseudoscience of phrenology that captivated American and European audiences throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Golden Age of Character Reading and Phrenology

The 1920s represented a fascinating crossroads in American psychology and self-improvement culture. While Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis was gaining traction among intellectuals and medical professionals, the general public remained deeply invested in phrenology—the belief that personality traits, abilities, and emotional tendencies could be determined by examining the shape and contours of the skull.

Phrenology had emerged in the late 18th century through the work of German physician Franz Joseph Gall, who theorized that the brain consisted of distinct “organs” responsible for different mental faculties. By the 1920s, although the scientific community had largely discredited these ideas, phrenology maintained a powerful grip on popular imagination. Character reading magazines, self-help books, and traveling phrenologists offered Americans a seemingly scientific framework for understanding themselves and others.

In an era before widespread psychological counseling, these character analysis systems provided people with tools to navigate romance, marriage, business relationships, and personal development. The language might sound strange to modern ears, but the underlying concerns—compatibility, emotional intimacy, understanding one’s partner—remain timeless.

The Science of “Selectiveness”: Understanding Conjugality

According to author Virginia Fenelon, who contributed regularly to character reading publications of the era, Conjugality represented what she termed the “You and I” faculty. This brain center was supposedly located at the back of the head, behind the ears, in the lateral region of the skull.

When highly developed, this faculty made an individual intensely selective about romantic attachments. These weren’t the social butterflies or natural flirts of the Jazz Age party scene. Instead, they were individuals who:

• Preferred deep, exclusive connections over superficial socializing
• Showed little interest in playing the field or entertaining multiple suitors
• Concentrated their romantic energy entirely on one chosen person
• Appeared reserved or even boring in group settings
• Revealed their true warmth and passion only in intimate circumstances

The article provides a vivid description: “A man with wide bows to his lips does not flirt in a crowd. If he goes to a dance he finds a girl he likes and remains with her… treating the others with almost formal courtesy.”

This selectiveness wasn’t considered a deficiency in 1924 character reading—quite the opposite. High Conjugality indicated fidelity, depth of feeling, and the capacity for profound marital happiness. In an era when divorce was still scandalous and marriage was expected to last “until death do us part,” identifying a partner with strong Conjugality could seem crucial to a woman’s future happiness.

Physical Signs: Reading Conjugality in Faces and Skulls

Character readers of the 1920s claimed they could identify Conjugality levels through specific physical markers:

Cranial indicators:

• A head notably wide behind the center of the ears (lateral back-head width)
• Pronounced development in the posterior base of the skull

Facial features:

• Wide bows to the lips (the curved portions where the upper lip meets the corners)
• Eyes described as “full, somewhat oval, calm, confiding, and trusting“
• A generally sincere, trustworthy demeanor

Vocal qualities:

• A voice that became “poetic, pleasing, low, and not harsh” when engaged
• Pleading tones when speaking to a romantic interest

The article held up screen star Percy Marmont as an ideal example of high Conjugality. Marmont was a British stage and silent film actor who enjoyed tremendous popularity during the 1920s. He starred in numerous romantic dramas where his screen persona—refined, gentlemanly, deeply devoted—perfectly embodied the Conjugal ideal. His roles in films like “If Winter Comes” (1923) and “Lord Jim” (1925) showcased exactly the kind of selective, devoted lover that Conjugality theory described.

Love for Your Partner vs. Love for Your Children: A Controversial Distinction

One of the most intriguing—and by modern standards, somewhat startling—aspects of Conjugality theory was its distinction between romantic love and parental love. The 1920s character readers believed these represented two entirely separate brain faculties, located in different “rooms” of the skull.

High Conjugality individuals:

• “Marries for wedded happiness instead of for children“
• Maintains the spouse as the primary emotional focus
• Values the marital relationship above the parent-child bond
• “Such a father cares more for his wife than for the children“

Low Conjugality individuals:

• “Devotes his or her greatest interest to the children instead of to the mate“
• Views marriage primarily as a vehicle for creating family
• Shifts emotional priority to children once they arrive
• May struggle with maintaining romantic connection after parenthood

This distinction reflected genuine anxieties of the 1920s. The decade saw significant social upheaval around marriage and family life. Women had just won the vote in 1920. The “New Woman” was challenging Victorian ideals of female domesticity. Divorce rates were rising—though still relatively rare compared to today. Popular magazines frequently featured articles debating whether modern marriages lacked the romance and partnership of earlier eras, or whether previous generations had simply hidden their discontent.

The Conjugality concept offered an explanation (however scientifically dubious) for why some marriages seemed to maintain romantic spark while others devolved into mere co-parenting arrangements. It suggested that choosing a high-Conjugality partner could protect against the romantic disappointment many couples experienced.

Woolworth’s, Sheet Music, and the Soundtrack of 1920s Romance

The article’s opening reference to Woolworth’s evokes a specific cultural moment. F.W. Woolworth Company’s five-and-dime stores were ubiquitous fixtures of 1920s American life—affordable, accessible retail spaces where working and middle-class customers could browse everything from household goods to cosmetics to the latest popular music.

Sheet music counters at Woolworth’s and similar stores served as a crucial distribution point for popular songs before the widespread adoption of radio and phonograph records. Young women would browse the latest titles, often trying them out on store pianos, then purchase sheets to play at home on their family’s parlor instruments.

The song mentioned—“He’s not much in a crowd, But when you get him alone, You’d be surprised”—likely references the popular tune “You’d Be Surprised” written by Irving Berlin in 1919, though the lyrics quoted suggest it might be a variant or different song inspired by Berlin’s hit. These songs captured the playful sexual tension and gender dynamics of the Jazz Age, when young people were claiming unprecedented freedoms in courtship and romance.

The Psychology Behind Conjugality: What They Got Right (and Wrong)

While phrenology has been thoroughly debunked, the behavioral observations underlying Conjugality theory actually align with modern personality psychology in some interesting ways:

What they observed correctly:

• Individual differences in sociability: Some people genuinely are more reserved in groups and warm up in one-on-one settings (modern psychology recognizes this as introversion)
• Variation in attachment styles: People differ in how they form romantic bonds and express intimacy
• The distinction between romantic and parental love: Modern neuroscience confirms these involve different (though overlapping) neural circuits and hormonal systems

Where they went wrong:

• Phrenological determinism: Skull shape has no relationship to personality or behavior
• Fixed traits: They underestimated how context, experience, and personal growth shape behavior
• Gender stereotypes: The article assumes male-female romantic patterns without acknowledging diversity in relationships and orientations

Conjugality in Action: Behaviors and Characteristics

The 1924 article describes how high Conjugality manifested in daily behavior:

In social settings:

• Giving complete, undivided attention when conversing with someone
• Eyes that never wander or seek to avoid the other person’s gaze
• No apparent hurry for conversations to end
• Genuine interest in others’ qualities rather than focusing on faults

In romantic relationships:

• Concentrated affection: “While the mate is true, its owner loves that one only, as the center of his affection”
• Demonstrations of love “full of tenderness, fidelity” and exclusively focused
• Viewing love and marriage as inseparable—”Love means marriage to this brain faculty”
• Suffering intensely if separated from or betrayed by a chosen partner

The article notes that some birds and animals with well-developed analogous brain regions would “perish with broken hearts if their mate dies“—an observation that actually holds some truth for species like swans, gibbons, and certain birds that form lifelong pair bonds.

The Dark Side: When Conjugality Goes Too Far

Fenelon’s article acknowledges that excessive Conjugality could prove problematic:

• Extreme selectiveness leading to social paralysis and fear of meeting new people
• Pathological jealousy and constant suspicion of a partner’s fidelity
• Possessive behavior that bordered on controlling
• In extreme cases, particularly “in an emotional artist with this faculty large,” potentially violent jealousy—the article darkly warns such a person “may murder his sweetheart if the higher faculties are not proportionately developed“

This recognition of jealousy and possessiveness as dangers reveals an awareness of relationship dynamics that transcends the pseudoscientific framework. The 1920s saw increased attention to domestic violence and crimes of passion, often sensationalized in newspapers. The warning about artists specifically reflects stereotypes about temperamental creative personalities that were common in the era.

Developing Your Own Conjugality: 1920s Self-Improvement Advice

Importantly, Fenelon’s article doesn’t present Conjugality as entirely fixed. She offers advice for cultivating this quality—recommendations that, stripped of their phrenological packaging, sound surprisingly like modern guidance on emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills:

Practical exercises:

• Give people your complete attention when speaking with them
• Deliberately look for their good qualities rather than focusing on faults
• Hold those virtues before you in every interaction
• Even with difficult people, find something attractive—even just “the color of hair, shirt or tie”
• Maintain these open doors between yourself and others

The article presents these as ways to develop the Conjugality brain faculty, but they’re actually exercises in mindfulness, positive psychology, and rapport-building—techniques that remain relevant today.

Fenelon argues that developing Conjugality provides business advantages as well as romantic ones: “It has great power to inspire confidence in others. It gives a very sincere expression to the individual, even though he is not strictly honest in his motives. He does not try to interest people in himself, yet they are drawn to him.”

This pragmatic fusion of character development with business success was typical of 1920s self-improvement literature, which promised that personal refinement would yield material rewards in America’s booming economy.

Cultural Context: Why Conjugality Mattered in 1924

Understanding why articles like this resonated requires appreciating the specific anxieties and opportunities of the 1920s:

Social transformation:

• Urbanization brought young people together in unprecedented numbers
• Automobiles provided privacy and mobility for courtship
• Movie theaters became venues for dating and romance
• Speakeasies (during Prohibition) offered spaces where traditional social rules relaxed

Gender dynamics:

• The “New Woman” claimed independence, education, and career ambitions
• Flappers challenged Victorian sexual morality with shorter skirts, bobbed hair, and frank attitudes
• Women’s suffrage (1920) signaled broader changes in gender roles
• Yet marriage remained the expected life path for most women

Marriage concerns:

• Rising divorce rates sparked fears about the institution’s stability
• Companionate marriage ideals emphasized emotional intimacy and sexual compatibility
• Birth control information (though often illegal) was becoming more available
• Questions about whether to marry for love, security, or family-building were genuinely fraught

In this context, character reading offered a seemingly scientific method for navigating romantic choices. Young women facing greater but still limited options wanted tools for distinguishing between suitors. Would this man remain attentive after marriage, or lose interest? Would he make his wife his priority, or sideline her for his career or children?

The Legacy of Conjugality and Character Reading

While we’ve abandoned the phrenological framework, the fundamental questions raised by Conjugality theory remain relevant:

• How do we identify compatible partners?
• What distinguishes superficial attraction from deep connection?
• How can introverted individuals be understood and appreciated?
• What’s the relationship between romantic partnership and parenthood?
• Can we develop our capacity for intimacy and connection?

Modern psychology approaches these questions through attachment theory, personality assessments (like the Big Five), neuroscience research on love and bonding, and relationship studies—but the underlying human concerns haven’t changed since our great-great-grandparents browsed sheet music at Woolworth’s.

The 1924 article, with its quaint language about “brain faculties” and its confidence in reading personality from skull shape, offers a window into how our ancestors grappled with timeless relationship challenges using the conceptual tools available to them. While the pseudoscience is fascinating primarily as historical artifact, the behavioral observations and relationship advice contain kernels of wisdom that transcend their dubious scientific packaging. intensely selective. They don’t want to be the life of the party. They don’t want to flirt with everyone in the room. They want one person, and they want them all to themselves.

The article explains:

“A man with wide bows to his lips does not flirt in a crowd. If he goes to a dance he finds a girl he likes and remains with her… treating the others with almost formal courtesy.” .

Marrying for Love vs. Marrying for Children

One of the most fascinating distinctions this article makes is between Conjugality (love of the mate) and Parental Love (love of children).

In 1924, they argued that these were two different “rooms” in the brain.

• High Conjugality: “Marries for wedded happiness instead of for children… Such a father cares more for his wife than for the children.” .
• Low Conjugality: “Devotes his or her greatest interest to the children instead of to the mate.”.

It suggests that if you want a partner who is obsessed with you (rather than just being a co-parent), you should look for the physical signs of Conjugality: a head that is wide behind the ears, and eyes that are “calm, confiding, and trusting”.

The article uses screen star Percy Marmont as the ideal example. With his “Conjugality” bump well-developed, he is described as the type who is “happiest when alone with the woman he loves” .

Are you a “Conjugal” type? Or do you prefer the crowd? Read the full 1924 analysis below.

Want to explore more 1920s wisdom? Download the complete Character Reading Magazine (December 1924 – January 1925) in high resolution—read the full issue, use the vintage graphics in your projects, or reprint articles for your own research. Get your digital copy here and dive deeper into the fascinating world of Jazz Age psychology and character analysis. All content is yours to enjoy and use freely!

Original Text: But When You Get Him Alone—

(Transcribed from the December 1924 Issue of Character Reading)

But When You Get Him Alone—

You’d Be Surprised

By Virginia Fenelon

[Photo of Percy Marmont]

Percy Marmont, the famous lead in many successful screen roles, has a good representation in his head and face of the faculty of Conjugality or Selectiveness. He is happiest when alone with the woman he loves. He shows to better advantage in his own selected crowd or selected companionship.

WE used to hear it at Woolworth’s—the old song, “He’s not much in a crowd, But when you get him alone You’d be surprised.”

But most of us did not know why he was not so much in a crowd, and why he showed his plumage with us alone.

If we could only see the boy this song was written about we would find that the bows of his lips were wide, that his eye was full, somewhat oval, calm, confiding, and trusting, and that his head in back of the center of the ear, laterally, was wide.

He had an abundance of the faculty called “Conjugality.” This is the brain center in us which makes us very selective in our love affairs. When we have it well developed we pick and choose slowly, but after doing that choosing we concentrate fully on the one we love, and see no others at the time.

A man with wide bows to his lips does not flirt in a crowd. If he goes to a dance he finds a girl he likes and remains with her, if possible, the entire evening, treating the others with almost formal courtesy, but not with personal interest.

A man or woman with narrower bows to the lips and a narrow head in the lateral backhead may smile at many, not necessarily in a flirting manner, but in a more universal spirit of impartiality.

But when we get the man or girl with a great deal of Conjugality alone, the love nature and its demonstrations are full of tenderness, fidelity and are fully concentrated on one love.

While Conjugality very well developed in a man or woman does not mean that it is impossible to love more than once, nevertheless it does mean that while the mate is true, its owner loves that one only, as the center of his affection.

Birds and animals with this part of the brain well developed perish with broken hearts if their mate dies.

Many mysteries of wedded life are cleared up when we understand the faculty of Conjugality. Love means marriage to this brain faculty, and if marriage cannot be, the interest seeks for its answer elsewhere. It is the “You and I” faculty. Its owner marries for wedded happiness instead of for children. Such a father cares more for his wife than for the children, and such a mother more for the husband than the offspring, though the devotion to the children is very great.

A man or woman without Conjugality devotes his or her greatest interest to the children instead of to the mate, provided, of course, that there is the normal amount of parental love also.

Conjugality in its normal amount is a most desirable quality to develop, for it has great power to inspire confidence in others. It gives a very sincere expression to the individual, even though he is not strictly honest in his motives. He does not try to interest people in himself, yet they are drawn to him.

When Conjugality is active the voice is poetic, pleasing, low, and not harsh. It may even have pleading tones. When its owner speaks to us he gives us his undivided attention, is never seemingly in a hurry for us to stop speaking, and his eyes do not wander about the room or seek to avoid ours for one instant.

Every faculty in the human head has its constructive and destructive expressions. Conjugality in its normal amount makes us magnetic to others mentally, gives them confidence in us, and hence in business it is an excellent brain center to develop. In its normal development it brings refinement, exclusiveness and dignity. But if it is too strong it brings such a desire to select—to eliminate—and to hesitate that its owner fears positively to go out to meet people at all. Excessive Conjugality makes for extreme jealousy and watchfulness that its mate loves no one else. An emotional artist with this faculty large may murder his sweetheart if the higher faculties are not proportionately developed.

We can all develop Conjugality, or mental magnetism by giving people we speak to our whole attention—by trying to like their good qualities—by deliberately seeking to find them instead of their faults, and by holding those virtues before us in everyone we speak to. We may meet many with whom this is a hard task, but if we put Conjugality to work to deliberately find something that is attractive to us even if it is only the color of hair, shirt or tie, we hold the door open for mental harmony between that person and ourselves.

And it is these open doors between ourselves and others that brings success in business as well as personal life.

Want to explore more 1920s wisdom? Download the complete Character Reading Magazine (December 1924 – January 1925) in high resolution—read the full issue, use the vintage graphics in your projects, or reprint articles for your own research. Get your digital copy here and dive deeper into the fascinating world of Jazz Age psychology and character analysis. All content is yours to enjoy and use freely!