The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-18
WHEN A Child TELLS LIES
1t Is Generally the Result Of Imag-
inatiOn.
Here II Medical Authority 10 Prove
That the Little Ones Are often Mis-
understOod-Pnrent mt Fault for
Curbing the Youthful Quality of
Frankness I'm Their Offspring.

"a large percentage of the so-called lies
for Which children are punished BY their
parents and teachers are not lies at al"
This is the way DR.. Lightner Wilmer, OF
the University Of Pennsylvania, has ex-
pressed his opinion. as developed from a
| long study OF the Imagination of children.
Imagination, In the sense which I speak
Of 1t, should be distinguished from fancy"
said DR.. Wilmer. TT Is the bringing forth
OF after images which are in the mind,
while fancy is more nearly construction.
The study Of children's lies is most useful
in establishing this difference. The i'm
agination of a bright child between the
years of three and eight is marvellous. The
principal type Is in exaggeration, and for
this they are often branded as liars.
Let child and some older person SEE
a fight on the street, and then let them
try 10 describe it. Their versions will
be entirely different, not that those Of
two mature persons would be similar;
but the undeveloped Imagination of the
child simply runs away with 1t, and it is
positive that scores of things took place
during the fight which no one else can
remember.
Not long ago a mother told me that
her boy came home from walk with his
nurse and told her that he had seen an
elephant. The nurse declared that they
had not seen an animal OF any Kind. and
for fear of making the boy tell another
story, he was not questioned further. But
few days later the mother and the boy
walked along the same street in which he
had declared that he had seen the ele-
plant. Suddenly he cried: There's that
same elephant, and sure enough there was
the picture of an elephant on the fence
The boy had seen it, and the nurse hadn't,
and for that reason twas natural for older
people to think that he was not telling the
truth.
Instances of this kind are many and
scores CT times a child is punished be-
cause he not only imagines, but notices
more than older persons do. But / am
confident that 1T is a mistake to punish
a child for a lie that is not we'll estab-
lished as being untrue. II it knows one
thing and deliberately says the opposite
then its parents have the right to pursue
whatever course they wish in disciplining
IL. But mothers and teachers make
great mistake in frightening children into
telling untruths. For instance, they will
see that a child has done something
wrong, and will say, sharply, Did you do
that? The child Is so frightened that il
does not know what 1t answers, and often
tells a lie unconscious1y.
II do not think that strong imagina-
ton in a child is at all 4 bad thing. be-
1ieve that the future of a boy who can
describe walk along the street. with
few exaggsrations, is much brighter than
that Of a child. who, whether it be be-
cause he is absolutely truthful, or be-
cause he has no imagination, can only say
that he saw car in the same street. And
for this reason / think that too rigid care
to prevent lying in the young is likely to
destroy the natural gifts of description
and imagination which have been be-
slowed upon them.
Il do not wish it to be understood that
defend lying. / do not 1 simply defend
Imagination. as 1t is. But it seems singu-
lar that in most cases the mothers and
teachers who infiict punishment for I'M
truths are those who tutor their children
and pupils to lie. A child has no command
Of conventional language. Let az ugly
woman ask an ordinary child who has not
been taught to lie, whether or. not she is
pretty, and the chances are that the child
will say, No, you are ugly But in these
cases every effort is made to make chill
iren understand conventionaIities and to
lie when politeness demands it, but to tell
the truth rigidly on all other occasions"