ON LIARS AND THE SCIENCE OF LYING.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLI, Issue 10, 2 September 1908, Page 33

ON LIARS AND THE SCIENCE OF LYING.

The reader must not suppose from the above heading that this article will deal with our parliamentary institutions, for this is not the ease. At the same time most well-informed publicists maintain that the object aimed at in all deliberative assemblies is to enable one man first of all to say “You’re a liar” to another, and in the next place to give him a chance to prove it. As a rule the accuser is content with merely making the statement, regarding any attempt at proof as a work of supererogation. We all know that Simon began our Parliament in its present more or less representative and reprehensible form, and many thoughtful people have wondered why he did it. Well, I think I can explain the mystery. It is recorded in the pages of history that the King in those days denounced Simon as traitor, and Simon retorted brightly that the King was a liar. Here we have the germ of debate, and it no doubt occurred to Simon that it would be well to found an institution with a terrace, smokingrooms, many drinking bars, and so forth in which 670 gentlemen could come together and YELL “TRAITOR” AND “LIAR” at each other for the good of the State. These phases are still in general use, and ino publie meeting is successful without them. It is true that the more experienced parliamentarians do not use the phrase, “You’re a liar,” in all its bald and brutal bluntness, but they get there just the same. Leaning on the table one will say to the other, “The right honorable geneleman’s remarks leave something to be desired from the point of view of strict accuracy of statement.” That is what he says, but we all know what he means. And the other right honorable gentleman retorts, “I am within the recollection of the House when I say that the right honorable gentleman’s tedious and prolix observations are not entirely in keeping with the facts of the case”—that being his way of saying, “YOU'RE ANOTHER. I am pleased to be able to inform all those whom it may concern that Dr. Pieron of Paris (may his name be blessed) has discovered that men cannot help “telling them” of some sort, from the harmless tarradiddle to the astounding whopper. He says it is a disease. It is like paresis—overwhelming one at any time without a moment’s notice. It creates an irresponsible condition, and that, of course, means that the liar cannot help it. Thus he should not be blamed. He does not lie because he must. After this members of Parliament will assume a prouder bearing. His other teaching* is excellent. For instance, he lays it down that up to the fiftieth year in average men—- “ The brain may develop a malformation which will have the effect of destroying the ratiocinative or reasoning faculty.” So far, so good. The remark I have quoted may appear at first glance to mean merely that any man up to fifty years old may suddenly become AN UNREASONING FOOL, NOT TO SAY A BLITHERING IDIOT. That is an axiomatic or self-evident truth. Nay, there is no time limit, and so long as there is life there is hope in this respcet. The oldest need not despair. Then advancing a stage the doctor tells us that when the ratiocinative faculty is destroyed the man not only ceases to reason, but begins to lie like a gas meter. This is how the little trouble is explained in professional language: — “The natural and spontaneous liar lies because he is physically or mentally still an infant, and can neither exercise any power of criticism subjectively nor objectively He lies spontaneously or simply, the result being incalculable as far as he is concerned.”

This is a pleasing picture. The liar is a child in these things; there is nothing calculating or cunning about him. The man who tells the truth has very likely some ulterior purpose to serve. The natural or spontaneous liar speaks out, careless of and indifferent to results. A further proof of the fact that THE AVERAGE LIAR SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED is to be found in another fact submitted by this charming Parisian medical man. He says: — “Liars are unfortunately amenable to the influence of stronger wills, and can under quasi-hypnotie power be made to assert almost anything, the truth or untruth, of their declarations being to them not only an entirely absent consideration. but without the scope of their mental or moral purview.” This is a very interesting and valuable teaching, and exonerates many worthy gentlemen occupying back benches in Parliament. When they are detected in saying the thing which is not, let us not yell “liar!” with the unthinking outsider. Let us remember that they are amenable to the influence of stronger wills. Years ago I heard it said of a gentleman, “He is a very good man with a great gift in prayer, but he is a terrible liar.” At the time I thought there was some element of contradiction in such a statement, but that was in my unenlightened days. I know better now, for Dr. Pieron teaches that people may evince the disposition to lie and yet possess a religious and conscientious spirit at the same time. I observe, too, that THE HARMLESS LIAR, according to Dr. Pieron, differs only in a slight degree from the brutal liar. The brutal liar will be pleased to hear this. The fact is that the physical malformation is almost identical in both cases, the difference being only a more diseased condition of the nerve cells which produces the state of hysteria of which lying is perhaps the most pronounced symptom It is not for me to contradict a medical man, especially on the subject of lying, as to which I have no practical experience, but I have never supposed that liars are particularly hysterical. On the contrary, many of them have seemed to me to be as cool as cucumbers.—S. L. Hughes in “The Tatler.”