DDK EABIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 71, Issue 219, 15 September 1928, Page 18 (Supplement)

DDK EABIES

(By Hygeia). Published under the auspices of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Health of Women and. Children (Plunket Society). “It is wiser to put up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bot“WHY MAYN’T I?—DADDY DOES” This is a little article by Miss Muriel Wrinch, which we take the liberty of reprinting from the Women’s Pictorial: Amusing Babies In babyhood the child, observing what goes on around him, noting the similarities and differences between the objects of his environment, is ma king preparation for the reasoning of later life. He begins to see the casual connection between things—if something drops it makes a noise, if you hit something hard it hurts you, and so on. Knowledge of this elementary type is the basis of the world that will make the future man rational and circumspect in his conduct. The best service we can render the child in infancy, therefore, is to give him the opportunity to acquire this knowledge. We must allow him to experiment as far as possible on his own lines, to permit him to find out the qualities of things first-hand, even if occasionally h e receives a nasty knock for his pains. So often we try to “amuse” babies, distracting their attention from, some object on which they #,re focussing to some object which we want them to look at —then we tend to ruin their powers of concentration and attention even before they arc formed. Thus it is that many a baby’s raw material for later rational thinking is irrevocably injured. Native Curiosity. The child’s native curiosity is so strong, however, that he usually arrives at “the questioning stage” that dawns at the age of three or four still brimful of the desire to know the why and the what of things. In a child who has never been allowed to concentrate his attention this will not confine itiself for long to one object, and he often does not attend long enough to listen to the answers to questions; but every small child is sure to ask them. Why does the wind blow? Why are tables hard? What is hair for? Sometimes he tries to work things out for himself without seeking the aid of a grown-up. A small child of three and a-half was sitting opposite me in the train the other day on the way to Waterloo. She chanced to look out of the window as we crossed Richmond bridge. “Water,’’ she exclaimed in great excitement. “We’re at Waterloo.’’ Reasoning of the same type is shown by the little boy who told his mother in all seriousness that butter was made from butterflies. The most obvious link of connection between

two objects is seized, and the object* made to stand in the relation between cause and effect. Lack of Knowledge. Such remarks, showing us that our child is beginning to think and to reason, should fill us with wonder and happiness. There is nothing wrong with, the child’s logic, he merely makes mistakes from lack of knowledge. Take the of the small boy who t when refused some oatmeal jelly, x.hieh was given to his mother because she was “nursing baby,” said indignantly, “I need that jelly. I’se nursing teddybear. ’’ Of course, such a remark is distinctly humorous; but we are Letter employed in helping the child to understand where his mistake lies than in laughing at him. Not only do we confuse the issues for the child by laughing at him, but if he realises his conduct causes amusement he may act up to his new role of buffoon and lose that earnest desire of knowledge which is so charmingly characteristic of small children.

Parents require great wisdom to deal with children’s questions in such a way that a correct mental attitude may be developed. But even more wisdom, and certainly more character, is required in helping them to develop moral logic. The only way to help a child to apply logic to matters of conduct is to show him that there are certain principles on which life is based, and which all, grown-ups as well as children, must obey. Too often we confuse the child by giving him precept but no example. “Daddy told me I ought never to interrupt,’’ said a little girl of four. “One day he interrupted mo. So I just looked at him—and he sent me away from the table!’’ Thia seems to me to illustrate a very common fault in dealing with children. We teach by word of mouth one code of conduct, and the child sees quite a different code in actual practice in the home. The child’s logical mind is quick to observe the discrepancy. He will not learn to be truthful, however much w e talk to him about it, if his mother is inconsistent in what she says. He will not learn punctuality, however admirable our discourses on this virtue, if the grown-up members of the family arc always late for meals. Distinguishing Characteristics Naturally in details the behaviour of grown-ups must sometimes differ from that of children. It would be ridiculous, for instance, for parents to deny themselves such wholesome fruit as strawberries on the grounds that those are not suitable food for a small child; but although details differ, principles do not. The child’s logic is quite clear and strong enough to see whether the parents’ trend of life and thought is the sort of trend they tell him they wish him to follow. It is difficult to speak and act always in such a way that our children learn to live logically and circumspectly, but any efforts in this direction are well worth while. The power to act and think logically is so well developed in the child we should do all in our power to help him to retain it.