It must be acknowledged, however, that the problem of the best work is not quite such a clear one as that of the best man.  From various standpoints a different answer may be given to the question which kind of work is the best.  A capitalistic, profit-seeking egotism may consider the quickest performance, or, if differences of quality are involved, the most skillful performance, the only desirable end.  The social reformers, on the other hand, may consider the best work that which combines the greatest and best possible output with the highest possible saving of the organism and the fullest development of the personality.  We have emphasized from the start that the practical psychologist as such has not the right to give a decision upon problems of social civilization.  He has to accept the economic tasks from the community for which he is working and his impartial service commences only when the goals have been determined.  It is not his share to select the ends, but simply to determine the means after the valuable ends have been chosen.  As a psychological scientist he has not the right to enter into the arena of different social party fights.  Yet we find after all a broad region which seems rather untouched by any conflict of reasonable opinions.  A reckless capitalism on the one side and a feeble sentimentality on the other side may try to widen or to narrow the boundaries of this region, but taken all together, a vigorous healthy nation which is eagerly devoted to its work is on the whole in agreement as to the essential economic demands for efficient labor.

Experience, to be sure, shows that great changes in the conditions of work can never enter into the history of civilization without certain disturbances, and that opposition must therefore necessarily arise in certain groups even against such changes as are undoubtedly improvements and advances from the point of view of the whole nation.  Such dissatisfaction arose when the factory system was introduced, and it is only natural that some irritation should accompany the introduction of psychological improvements in the methods of work, inasmuch as not a few wage-earners may at first have to lose their places because a small number of men will under the improved conditions be sufficient for the performance of tasks which needed many before.  But the history of economics has clearly shown that from the point of view of the whole community such an apparent disturbance has always been only temporary.  If the psychologists succeed in fundamentally improving the conditions of labor, the increased efficiency of the individual will promote such an enriched and vivified economic life that ultimately an increase in the number of laborers needed will result.  The inquiry into the possible psychological contributions to the question of reinforced achievement must not be deterred by the superficial objection that in one or another industrial concern a dismissal of wage-earners might at first result.  Psychotechnics does not stand in the service of a party, but exclusively in the service of civilization.