In jail it is reported that he seems childish. He has to be locked up alone at times and then begs and teases to get out, but in ten minutes or so will repeat the bad behavior. He has stolen little things from others in custody and has attempted to dispose of his own clothes for a few cents. It is definitely reported that he has shown evidences of poor memory. From the institution where he previously had been so long, word comes that he was regarded there as not quite normal. John had been held in another city on a charge of rape, but without much evidence, for he was allowed to go. We could not find out whether he made self-accusations in that case.
In his story to us he complains bitterly about his treatment at the old institution, maintains he was head laundry man there, tells about his excessive smoking of late, denies his parentage, says the only friend he has is a certain church worker, maintains he did not have any home to go to from the industrial school, intimates he will commit suicide if there is any question of his being declared insane, says that he had earlier stolen things from home, tells of having spells when things get black in front of his eyes and can't see for a little while, says he wants to be sent to the penitentiary and wants to start right now serving his term.
All told, there was nothing so striking about this whole case as the extravagant tendencies towards prevarication. For years he has been lying to no purpose, although he has never been previously regarded as insane. Now he appears as an extreme self-accuser and as a fellow whose word can't be trusted from hour to hour. The lying, regarded as an aberrational tendency, is out of proportion to our findings of abnormality in any other sphere of mental activity, except perhaps the evidences of defective memory processes. One trouble in gauging his memory is, of course, the boy's prevarications, but one might argue that if his memory processes were as good as his other abilities he would make equal use of them.
Following our study and recommendation in the case John was found not guilty, but insane. Then being resident of another State, and, indeed, being on parole from a reformatory institution there, he was held over to the jurisdiction of that State, and placed in a hospital for the criminal insane. We have a full report from the latter place which is exceedingly illuminating. It appears that despite his first terror of being sent to an asylum he adapted himself to his new surroundings very readily. It is stated that he assisted with the ward work and spent his leisure time in reading and playing cards. He asked for work outside on the grounds and was regarded as a very courteous and genial patient. No evidence of delusional or hallucinatory trends could be obtained. He always seemed to be well oriented and conscious of everything going on about him. Emotionally he appeared somewhat subnormal inasmuch as he did not worry about his own condition, but said he was perfectly contented. (The latter, of course, to a psychiatrist would be significant.) He was a great talker and his stories were well listened to. John said that when he was indicted for robbery his lawyer advised him to feign insanity and as a result he had been sent to that hospital. (It is to be remembered that with us he made great effort to show off his mental powers at their best and evidently did somewhat better work than when later in the hospital.) He gave them a history of being somewhat of a cocainist and morphinist, of being a slick ``pickpocket,'' and of associating with prominent criminals, particularly ``auto'' bandits. He was boastful of his experiences, but sometimes admitted that he prevaricated. It is most interesting to note that he told a story of having concealed in Chicago some plunder—jewels, money, and so on—and was really taken to Chicago by one of theBoard of Visitors of the hospital to find the booty. It is hardly necessary to say it was not located. The last of the hospital report states, ``Inasmuch as we were unable to prove that he had any form of insanity he was discharged.''
It is of no small importance for discussion of the relation between insanity and criminalism to know that there are such cases as this where the individual is unquestionably aberrational and yet does not conform in mental symptoms to any one of the definitive ``forms of insanity.'' They may be lacking in normal social control and in ability to reason, impulsively inclined to anti-social deeds and therefore social menaces, but, notwithstanding this, may not be classified under the head of any of the ordinary text-book types of mental diseases.
It is clear that for the protection of society a different notion of what constitutes mental aberration or insanity should prevail, so that these unusually dangerous types might be permanently segregated. It would really seem that just the findings which the hospital statement enumerates would convince one of this individual's marked abnormality from a social point of view and that his being at large was a grave undesirability.
The latest information concerning this young man is that he was being held in a Western city for burglary.
We should hesitate to make out a card of causative factors in this case. It is clear that the major cause in his delinquency was his aberrational mentality. What there was by way of causation back of this, our history, although obtained from an apparently conscientious parent, is too meagre for explanation.
Summary: Boy of 16 had for 6 years caused a great amount of trouble by his general unreliability and excessive lying. He had been tried away from his own people in private homes and in institutions without success. His lying was excessive and often showed no purpose and no foresight. His peculiar delinquencies demonstrated weakness of will. Although in good general physical condition he simulated illnesses. Mental and physical characteristics rendered certain the diagnosis of constitutional inferiority.
We saw William S. first when he was over 16 years of age, after he had been arrested for stealing. He had already been in three institutions for delinquents. From his father and others we gained a long story of the case.
William was in fairly good physical condition. No sensory defect. Weight 125 lbs.; height 5 ft. 3 in. Although well enough developed in other ways he was a marked case of delayed puberty; as yet no pubescence. Strength only fair; for his age, muscles decidedly flabby. A high, broad forehead. Large nose. Peculiar curl of the upper lip. Small, weak chin. These features give him a peculiar appearance—readily interpretable as showing weakness of character. Cranium notably large. With small amount of hair measurements were: circumference 57.8; length 19.6; breadth 15.5 cm. (Head same size as father's.) Expression downcast. Voice high pitched. ``Under dog'' attitude. Slouchy. No analgesia or other signs of hysteria.
The performance on tests was peculiarly irregular. In this monograph we have omitted discussion of the results of separate tests, but the citation of the summary as dictated when the case was first studied will prove instructive: The work done on our tests was very irregular, peculiarly so. Perceptions good and most phases of the memory processes fair, but in reasoning ability and especially in tests which require the application of some foresight the results are poor indeed. The failure is remarkable in proportion to what he could do in school work and to his abilities in some other ways. He reads fluently, writes a very good hand, and in arithmetic is able to do long division, but showed no grasp of good method. When at his best he sticks at a job well enough, but does it with no intelligence and does not save himself in the least by thoughtful procedures. We were interested to note that in a game which he said he had played a great deal, namely checkers, he made the most foolish and shortsighted moves. It is only fair to say that this boy varied in his performance from time to time; his emotional condition largely controlled his performance.
On the ``Aussage'' or Testimony Test he gave a functional account upon free recital, with 15 details. On questioning he gave 13 more items. Out of the entire number only 3 minor errors. Of 5 suggestions proffered none was accepted.
There was a great deal more to be said about this boy's mental peculiarities than what was evidenced by the giving of tests. Our observations of him made at intervals over a period of several months corroborated entirely the statements of several others, including members of his own family. The boy was remarkably unstable in his ideas and purposes. What he apparently sincerely wanted to do and be at one time was entirely different at another. His changeableness was shown in many ways. When he had been found apparently suitable employment or a new home he often would stay only a few days. The father's first statement that the boy was a craven was borne out by all that we saw. He was too cowardly to be ``tough,'' but he was a persistent runaway and vagrant. He sometimes used an assumed name. In general demeanor he was good natured, but always restless. Not the least of his peculiarities was his ready weeping. It was amazing to see so large a fellow draw down his chin and sob like a young child. He was easily frightened at night. Under observation he had peculiar episodes of behavior. Once in a school-room, without any known provocation, he suddenly began to cry and scream, picked up a chair and soon had the entire room cleared out. A moment afterwards he was found sobbing and bewailing his lot because he ``never had a fair chance.'' On another occasion his legs strangely gave out and he had to be carried to bed by his fellows. The next morning a physician found him with his legs drawn up and apparently very sensitive over his back and other parts of his body, but with a little encouragement all his symptoms soon disappeared. He gave a history of having had convulsions, but this was found to be untrue. He was a ``bluffer'' among boys; when met valiantly showed always great cowardice.
We felt much inclined at first to denominate him a case of abulia, but his stubbornness in recalcitrancy led us to change our opinion. From the above physical signs and mental phenomena he was clearly a constitutional inferior.
Some facts we obtained on the family history were most significant. The mother of William suffered from attacks which were undoubtedly epileptic. Her mother, in turn, had convulsions at least during one pregnancy. We did not learn whether or not she had them at other times. No other points of significance in that family are known. The father himself was brought up, as he says, strictly, but he was inclined to be wild, and he has indulged for many years altogether too much in tobacco and alcohol. He is distinctly a weak type and the poorest specimen of his family. William is the only child. There was nothing peculiar in developmental history until he was 2 1/2 years old when he suffered from ``brain fever and spinal meningitis.'' This was said to have left him with a stiff right arm and to account for his being left handed. (We could discover no difference in the reflexes.) Then at another period he was sick in bed for 6 months with some unknown, but not very serious illness. The mother has been dead for years and so we were unable to get accurate details about this. At a very early age William sought the pleasures of tobacco, even when a child of 6 or 7 he used his pennies for that purpose. He was brought up in an environment defective on account of his father being a poor earner and weak in discipline. But still his parent took for years a great deal of interest in him and it was not until the boy had proven himself most difficult that his father proclaimed himself unable to manage his son.
At about 10 years of age William began running away from home and manufacturing untrue stories. One of his favorite statements was that his father had been killed in an accident. It is notable that all these years he has been attempting to gain sympathy for this or that assumed condition, whether it be his own alleged physical ailments, or fictitious family difficulties. As a matter of fact, during this time he has been in some good homes, failing each time to comport himself so that he could be retained there. It was typical that he reiterated, ``I have no friends; there is no one to stick up for me.'' Besides being in three institutions before he was 16 years old, William had been in homes which he had found when he had run away, or in which he had been placed by his father or by social agencies, the services of which had been evoked. His stealing was often done with an extraordinary lack of foresight. For instance, in one good position that had been found for him he took a box of cigars, when, of course, as the newcomer he would have been suspected, and even after his employers made it clear to him that they knew of the theft he took another box the next day. His lying under all occasions was nothing short of astonishing. To even his best friends he offered all sorts of fabulous tales which one iota of forethought would have made him realize would redound to his disadvantage. Almost his only show of common sense in this was when he gave an assumed name while getting a new position, and even this performance could hardly be considered deeply rational. It is hardly necessary to give lengthy specimens of his falsifications; they always pervaded his stories about himself, but strangely enough he acknowledged many of his delinquencies. A good example of the latter was when he collected a little money for a new employer and on the way back, looking in a shop window, saw an electrical toy and immediately bought it. He then went home, not even returning to the office to get the wages which were due him. An example of his lying is his responses to questions about his schooling. He maintained that he only reached the third grade. (In reality he could do sixth grade work at least.) He said, ``I know long division by about 13 and about 5 figures. I don't know it by any other numbers.'' William maintained these same characteristics over the 6 years during which we have good data about him. We know he continued the same kind of a career for a year or so afterwards.
Three years later we have direct information from his family concerning William. His habits of prevarication have been kept up steadily, so it is stated. He has been in and out of institutions and at present is serving a sentence for larceny. He all along has been unwilling to face realities and has lied against his own interests continually. For instance, we are told that if he lost a place, instead of obtaining the help his family would have been willing to give him in gaining another, he would steadily pretend to be holding the former position. He is still considered utterly unreliable and a thoroughly weak character with a tendency to meet a situation as readily by a lie as another person would tend to react by speaking the truth. People who have known him of late speak of him as being at 21 ``just the same fellow,'' which probably indicates that he is thoroughly a victim of habit formation as well as of innate tendencies.
———————————————————————————————- Mentality. (Typical constitutional inferior.) Case 26. Boy, age 16 years. Heredity: Mother epileptic. Maternal grandmother had convulsions. Father alcoholic and tobacco in excess—weak type. Developmental conditions: Early disease of the central nervous system. Delinquencies: Mentality: Running away. Abilities irregular, Stealing. psychic episodes. Lying. ———————————————————————————————-
Summary: Case of a boy, age 16 years, who told the most extraordinary stories of his vagrant life and the character of his family to officers of several organizations who tried to help him. He understood well that evidences of his unreliability would count against him. His stories, although often repeated, were not credited, and later, after a home had been found for him, he began a new series of lies that seemed almost delusional and somewhat paranoidal. After months during which much had been done for him it was suddenly discovered that he was an epileptic.
John F. appealed to an agency for assistance. He told a story of having wandered with his brother since he was a young boy. ``My father was insane from what my uncle did to my mother. He drowned her. The house caught on fire and he blamed her for it. She said she didn't. She was too sick to get up and he took her out of the house and his big son pumped water on her. She was pretty near dead anyhow. We was too little to do anything. I seen it. I remember that all right. I can see that yet Brother and sister died about 3 years ago. Brother took sick from sleeping out. We slept around in barns for 2 years. Father was in an insane hospital in Kansas. I think my uncle was hanged at N. Junction. We did not stay there. I remember yet when they went to put my mother in the grave. I jumped in with her. We put right out and after awhile folks wrote that father was dead.''
So much attention would not have been paid to this gruesome tale had it not been repeated to various people during the course of several months. The boy wrote letters reiterating these incidents. His stories always went on to include the most surprising amount of abuse. It seemed that everywhere he had been illtreated. Farmers had whipped him, or clothed him badly, or defrauded him of his wages.
Physically, we found John to be in good general condition. A strong active country boy. No serious defect of any kind was discovered.
On mental tests he did better than we expected. To be sure he was very backward in arithmetic, but then his story was that he had hardly ever been to school at all. He certainly did well in many of our tests with concrete material, but the results as a whole were curiously irregular, even if we allowed for his deficient schooling. At that time we were disinclined to pass ultimate judgment on his mentality without knowing more about his antecedents.
On the ``Aussage'' Test he gave only 11 bare items on free recital. On questioning 19 more details were added. Of the entire number only 3 were incorrect, and these were not serious mistakes. Of 6 suggestions offered he accepted 3.
The history of this boy and his family has never been forthcoming. The authorities in his alleged home State have not been able to trace his family, which they could have done had his stories been true. Their report made it clear that the boy's reiterated family history was a fabrication—the raison d'etre of which is still in doubt. In spite of his lying the boy was found a desirable home in the country at the work for which he was suited. After staying for a few weeks he returned to the city and got lodgings for himself. We next heard of him because he was induced by a ``hold-up'' man to secrete a revolver on his person while the police were in the neighborhood. Upon looking up his landlady, it was found that while with her he had suffered from epileptic attacks. These had not been observed during the several months we had previously known him, and he had strongly denied them to us. In our court work we constantly inquire for evidences of epilepsy; in this case we received nothing but negation. After he served his sentence this young man was lost sight of. Even in the institution to which he had been sent he continued his fanciful and often hideous stories, still largely centered about the idea that he had suffered unjustly wherever he had been.
No complete summary of causative factors is possible in this case. The major cause for his lying as well as other delinquencies, particularly his vagrancy, is, of course, the mental traits peculiar to epilepsy.
Our 19 mentally normal cases (18 females, 1 male) showed:
Good general condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Fair general condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Poor general condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Poor development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Poor development, undersized for age. . . . . . .2Defective vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Headaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Mild nervous symptoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Tonsils and adenoids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Fainting attacks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Gynecological ailments. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Abdominal tumor, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Hutchinsonian teeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2``Stigmata of degeneracy''. . . . . . . . . . . .3Premature sex development . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Comparing the above with the findings by previous writers we see little chance to draw safe deductions. So many of the foreign cases have been insane; they can be more nearly compared with our 7 border-line types where all sorts of physical conditions may be found. It is notable that a large percentage of our mentally normal cases are in good general condition. Defective vision in 6 cases may be only a coincidence, but perhaps resulting nervous irritation was sometimes a factor in producing misconduct. Headaches, which Stemmermann makes so much of, appear as an incident in only a small number of our cases; her emphasis on periodicity also we cannot corroborate, there are hints of it in only one or two instances, but then her cases for the most part are not comparable to ours. That 6 out of 18 females should have had severe gynecological ailments is not to be wondered at, considering the trend of their lives, but, in turn, there can be little doubt that, as in Cases 16, 18, and 21, the local irritation tended to bring about moral disabilities.
Considering first the question of mental capabilities we can classify our 19 normal cases as follows:
Supernormal in ability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Precocious; later, still considered bright. . . . . . . . 1Good ability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Fair ability, perhaps not quite up to the former classes. 6Poor ability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Poor ability, hysterical type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Poor in general, but with artistic and literary ability . 1Dull from physical causes, but later normal . . . . . . . 1
Over and beyond the above enumeration there were some intensely interesting facts which came out during the intimate study of these cases. We are at once forced to agree with previous writers that an unusual number of the pathological liar group show great aptitude for language. This is shown by their general conversational ability and by the fact that many of them have found out themselves that they had capacity, for instance, for writing compositions. Taking our group of pathological liars in the strict sense, as given in Chapter III, we find that no less than 7 of these 12 have been given to writing compositions and stories. Three of them had definitely commenced long stories or novels. It is most unusual among other offenders to find evidence of any such tendencies. A considerable number of our group were characterized as great talkers, and several as romantic, dramatic, fantastic, etc., even by ordinary observers. All this goes to show clearly that the native traits making for verbal fluency are strongly correlated with pathological lying. When it comes to consideration of such an instance as Case 11 we have the point more strongly brought out. Here the individual is fairly swung down his life's course as the irregularity of his capacities direct. His language ability carries him along as nothing else will. In corroboration of this interesting point the conclusions of other authors should be noted.
The aberrational types which show pathological lying are, several of them, depicted in our Chapter VI. But little in summary of them needs to be said. The general mental and moral weakness of the constitutional inferior very naturally leads him to become a pathological liar; he follows, by virtue of his make-up, the path of immediate least resistance—lying. The episodic lying or aimless false accusations of the choreic psychosis needs no comment—the confusional mental state sometimes accompanying that disease readily predisposes toward fantastic treatment of realities. The relationship of constitutional excitement to pathological lying is less well recognized, but fully explicable when we recollect the rate at which ideas present themselves in the mental content of such individuals, who have little time, as it were, to discriminate the true from the false. The mental conditions leading to purposeless prevarication which supervene in the real hysterical mental states, or during the course of traumatic psychoneurosis are well known. The individual is to be surely regarded, at least temporarily, as suffering from a psychosis in many of these instances, and falsification, while it may be difficult to distinguish between delusion and lying, is a well recognized phenomenon. The very deliberate lying of psychopathic individuals, such as Case 25, who, though so strongly aberrational, do not fit under the head of any of the classic insanities, is a matter for earnest consideration by all who have to deal with delinquents. There is altogether too little general knowledge of this type of fact. The correlation of the various epileptic mental states with pathological lying is well recognized. In many of the cases cited by foreign writers it has turned out that the individual was subject to epileptic seizures. It is another illustration of the great variety of epileptic phenomena. Something of a point has been made in the literature heretofore that abnormalities of sexual life are unduly correlated with the inclination to pathological lying, and the conclusion is sometimes drawn, as by Stemmermann (loc. cit. p. 90), that the two prove a degenerative tendency. Our material would not tend to show this nearly as much as it would prove that the psychical peculiarities follow on a profound upset caused by unfortunate sex experiences.
A characteristic of pathological liars is undoubtedly a deep-set egocentrism, as Risch states. If one goes over our cases it may be seen that there is exhibited frequently in the individual an undue amount of self-assertion. There is very little sympathy for the concern of others, and, indeed, remarkably little apperception of the opinions of others. How frequently the imagery of the heroic role of the self recurs, and how frequently it occupies a central stronghold is seen by the fact that nearly all of our cases indubitably demonstrate the phenomenon.
Most of our cases have been studied by the application of a wide range of tests. Indeed many of the individuals have been studied over and over. It is beyond our point at present to go over the separate findings because there is no evidence of a strong correlation of any type of peculiarity, except the ones mentioned here, with the pathological lying. Memory processes, for instance, as ordinarily tested seem to be normally acute.
We have naturally been much interested in the result of the ``Aussage'' or Testimony Test work with this present group, on account of the possibility of demonstrating correlations between laboratory work and the individual's reactions in social intercourse, particularly when there has been falsification upon the witness stand. In general we may say that while we have seen normal individuals who are not falsifiers do just as badly as a number of these individuals, yet for the group the findings are exceedingly bad. Perhaps the better way of stating it would be to say that not one case shows the sturdily honest type of response which is frequently met with during the course of testing other delinquents, even as young as the youngest of the cases cited here. Our findings stand in great contrast, we note, to the results on other test work. When looking at the table given above we see that a large share of our 19 normal cases are up to the average in general ability, and yet as a group they fall far below the average on this Testimony Test. Take Cases 8 and 9, for instance— both of them bright girls with, indeed, considerable ability in many directions, and yet both of them give a large number of extremely incorrect items in reporting what they saw in the ``Aussage'' picture, and also both accept a very large proportion of the suggestions offered. It seems as if frequently in these cases there is no real attempt to discriminate what was actually seen in the picture from what might have been in a butcher shop. In most cases the fictitious items were given upon questioning, but without the offering of suggestions. When the individual was allowed to give merely free recital the result was better. This, however, follows the general rule.
A general survey of work on other tests has not shown anything immediately significant in correlations, and this makes the result upon the ``Aussage'' much more notable. Perhaps it may be urged that if these individuals had been told to key themselves up to do this test well, being forewarned that otherwise it would reveal their weaknesses, they could have done better. Some hint of this may be seen in our story of the results of tests in Case 3. But of course the same might be argued about the other test work where no such tendency to poor results was discernible.
The following table, with a word of explanation, will serve to bring out results on this test clearly to even the reader unfamiliar with the specific details of this subject. A general description of the test is found in our introduction.
————————————————————————————————ITEMS REPORTED ITEMS INCORRECT SUGGESTIONSCASE Denominator=number offeredFree On Number PercentRecital Questioning Numerator = number accepted
16 16<2> 12<1> 3 10% 2/7 15 10 14<3> 3 12% 2/5 4 12 28<6> 6 15% 3/4 19 15<2> 8<2> 4 17% 4/6 3 17<2> 20<5> 7 19% 0/6 7 11<2> 17<4> 6 21% 2/5 6 17<1> 12<6> 7 24% 1/7 13 8 21<7> 7 24% 4/4 8 16 28<12> 12 27% 5/7 9 12 32<12> 12 27% 6/7 14 7 21<8> 8 28% 4/7 2 10 12<7> 7 32% 1/5 20 6 9<8> 8 53% 2/5 ————————————————————————————————
Only 13 of our 19 mentally normal cases were found to have had the ``Aussage'' Test done so uniformly that results could be fairly compared, as in the above table. The reader will find it easy to refer back to the case for noting other correlations with behavior. In the first double column the items which were given in free recital come first, and in the second part the number of positive responses to questions by the examiner. The coefficients attached to these represent the number of egregious errors or entirely fictitious items given. It should be clearly understood that slight deviations from facts, for instance in color, are not counted as errors for our present purposes. In a later study on this whole topic of the psychology of testimony there will be much more complete itemizing. The errors in which we are particularly interested can perhaps best be called pure inventions. In the next double column is given, first, the total number of incorrect items and, then, the percentage of these to the total number of items reported. In the last column suggestibility is dealt with. We have been accustomed to offer 7 suggestions, asking the individual whether such and such things which might well be in a butcher shop really appeared in the picture. For several reasons not all of the 7 suggestions were asked in every case, therefore the result is best viewed as a statement in fractions— the numerator being the number of suggestions accepted and the denominator the number of suggestions offered.
As a last statement on this question which we put to ourselves, namely, whether pathological liars show the same traits in the laboratory as they do on the witness stand or in general social life, we can answer in the affirmative. We may repeat that others have made as bad records as some of this group, but taking the group as a whole, it is unlike any random 13 cases which might be picked out from our other classes of mentally normal offenders. On the other hand, many a feebleminded testifier has done vastly better than the median of this group. The errors themselves are of the purely inventional type, such as your ordinary report from a mentally normal person does not contain. (There is perhaps one interesting exception to this; Case 3. The report given by this subject included egregious denials of some of the main objects in the picture, and so was fictitious to this extent. She did not say that she did not know whether these to-be-expected objects really were in the picture—she insisted that they were not.) So far as suggestibility is concerned, there are great differences among even normal people in all classes. For comparison with the above group, we may take 63 cases of mentally normal delinquents, all of whom had been offered the full 7 suggestions. The median error of this group was two. Lower than the fraction thus obtained was the result on only 4 of the present cases. We have been interested to see that with some of the pathological liars there is no great suggestibility. The person is willing to deal in his own inventions, but not with false ideas which others attempt to put in his mind.
The essentials for the diagnosis of pathological lying are contained in the definition at the beginning of our book. The above considerations of the physical and mental make-up of pathological liars should leave little question as to what belongs in this class. Of course here, as in the study of any mental traits, borderline cases difficult to discriminate will always be found. Sometimes one will not be able to determine whether the individual is a true pathological liar or merely a prevaricator for a normal purpose. We have already stated our inability to determine this in some cases, and yet the nucleus of the type stands out sharply and clearly, and there can be no doubt as to what is practically meant by the definition.
The differential diagnosis involves consideration of the characteristics of the insane, defective, and epileptic. We repeat that we agree that the mentally abnormal person may engage in pathological lying quite apart from any expression of delusions, and that during the course of such lying the insanity may not be recognized. This occurred in many of the cases cited in the foreign literature, and if the prior histories of many individuals now in insane hospitals were known undoubtedly such lying would be frequently noted. But once the person is recognized as insane he need not be classified as a pathological liar. This term should be reserved, as we stated previously, for normal individuals who engage in pathological lying. Of course other observers have noted such lying in people who could not be designated as being mentally abnormal, but our material is peculiarly rich in examples of this kind.
Heredity. We come now to a very interesting group of facts—showing at once complete corroboration of previous observers' statements that pathological liars are extraordinarily ``erbliche belastet.'' Taking our 19 mentally normal cases we find the following:
Insanity in the direct family (four of these being a parent). .6One or both parents severely alcoholic. . . . . . . . . . . . .6Criminal or very dissolute parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Suicide of parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Extremely neuropathic parent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Syphilitic parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Epileptic parent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Unsatisfactory data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Reliable data showing normal family stock . . . . . . . . . . .2
Thus, out of the 19 cases there are only three or four which do not come of stock showing striking defects. Now, as we go on to show later that unfortunate conditions or experiences were often causal factors, the total findings seem to show clearly that these latter influences generally bore their unfortunate fruition upon inherited instability.
The heredity in the border-line cases is, as might be expected, even worse. These facts are easily discerned in their respective case histories.
The question of inheritance of similar mental traits is, of course, important. We have found absolutely no proof of the trait of pathological lying, as such, being inherited. The reader will note with interest particularly the facts in Cases 2 and 4, where we at first thought we had to deal with inheritance, but later found there was no blood relationship between the supposed parent and child. In those instances the lying of the younger individual was much more likely to be the result of psychic contagion, and this also may be largely the explanation of Cases 6 and 8, where an older relative was well known to be a prevaricator. The bad inheritance in these cases then turns out to be, corroborating what we found in studying the general problem of criminality,[25] a matter of coming from stock that shows defects in various ways-all making, however, in the offspring for moral instability.
[25]``Inheritance as a Factor in Criminality. A Study of a Thousand Cases of Young Repeated Offenders.'' Edith R. Spaulding and William Healy. pp. 24. Bulletin of the American Academy of Medicine, Vol. XV. February 1914.
Developmental Physical Conditions. Inquiry into our 19 mentally normal cases gave the following findings: Antenatal conditions were defective in 2 cases on account of syphilis and in one case from advanced age of the mother. The accident during pregnancy to the mother in one case, the severe mental shock in another, and the effect of illegitimacy in still another we can not evaluate. In 2 cases there were operative births with, however, no bad results known. One was a twin. Early severe disease of the nervous system was experienced by one, and convulsions during infancy by two others. Another suffered from some unknown very severe early illness, and one from prolonged digestive disturbance in infancy. Three had in early childhood several severe illnesses, one had a long attack of ``chorea.'' Two suffered from general nervousness, incited in one case by the excessive use of tea and in the other by a similar use of coffee. One was an habitual masturbator from childhood. Difficult menstruation was reported in only one case. In 5 cases there was a quite normal early developmental period, according to reliable accounts. In 3 cases the early developmental histories are completely unknown, and in 3 others uncertain. The data of developmental history in the border-line types may be easily noted in the case histories.
Previous Ailments. Ailments suffered from in our 19 cases after the early developmental period amount to very little. The several gynecological troubles have been mentioned above under the head of Physical Conditions. In one other case there had been urethritis previously. Head injuries, which play such a significant part in the study of criminalistics, find no place in our mentally normal series, but should always be kept in mind in considering the border-line types. Epilepsy as a possible factor in criminalistic problem cases is to be remembered.
Habits. We have already mentioned the effect upon nervous conditions of excessive tea and coffee in two of our cases. Masturbation, including its indirect effect, particularly upon the psyche, appears to be a very important feature of these cases. We should be far from considering that we have full data on all of our cases and yet this stands out most strongly. We have had positive reports from relatives or from the individual showing this certainly to be a factor in 7 out of the 19 cases. This is a very large finding, when it is considered that the data are frequently unobtainable. Of course we are not speaking here of masturbation per se, but only of the fact of its ascertained relationship to the pathological lying. This is only part of the whole matter of sex experience which, we find upon gathering our material together, plays such an enormous role.
Age of Onset. It is very easy to see that the tendency to pathological lying begins in the early formative years. Common-sense observation of general character building would tend to make us readily believe that if an individual got through the formative years of life with a normal hold upon veracity he would never become a pathological liar. We can see definite beginnings at certain critically formative periods, as in Case 6 and perhaps in Case 3, but our material shows that most cases demonstrate more gradually insidious beginnings. (Case 21 is in this respect in a class by itself.) As we stated in our introduction, it is clear from the previous studies of older individuals that the nature of the beginnings were not learned because it was too late. Our material offers unusual opportunities in this direction and shows the fact of genesis in childhood most clearly. For specific and often most interesting details we refer the reader to our various case histories.
Sex. Our findings show only 1 male out of 19 mentally normal cases. A general observation by practical students of conduct, namely, that females tend to deviate from the truth more readily than males, is more than thoroughly borne out here. There are certainly several social and psychological reasons for this, but they need not be gone into here. If our figures seem not to be corroborated by the findings of previous students it is only because the figures are not comparable— the latter have mixed the mentally abnormal with the pathological liars proper. It will be noted that in our examples of border-line cases 5 out of the 8 are males. Cases of pathological swindling by mentally abnormal individuals, such as we have avoided, make up much of the foreign literature. We can easily see that the social opportunities for swindling are vastly greater for males than those offered to the opposite sex. Sex differences, as in many instances, must not be taken here too seriously because social environment, differing so greatly for the sexes, is largely responsible for the behavior which we superficially judge to be entirely the expression of innate characteristics.
Environment. We are far from feeling that a mere enumeration of material environmental conditions tells the story of environmental influences important for our present subject. The psyche is frequently most profoundly affected by environmental conditions which even a trained observer would not detect. But conditions in the total number of unselected cases show something, and, for whatever it is worth, we offer the following enumeration of environment in our 19 normal cases, who with much more reason might be expected to be largely influenced by surroundings than our group of border-line cases.
Reasonably good home from birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Defective home conditions through poverty . . . . . . . . . . .2Very ignorant parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Immoralities in home life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Marked defect in parental control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Very erratic home conditions-parent abnormal. . . . . . . . . .1
Early Mental Experiences. As will have been observed by the reader in going over the case histories, the early mental experiences of many of our group of mentally normal pathological liars have been shockingly bad. Full appreciation of this can only be gained through perusal of the text, but here we may call attention to the fact that no less than 8 of the 19 have had very early untoward sex experiences, that 5 were markedly under the influence of bad companions, including even the influence in one or two cases of vicious grown people. The sex experiences we have just enumerated were received through others—we are not here speaking of masturbation, which is discussed above.
Psychic Contagion. Direct contagion of the tendency to lie seems more than likely to take place, at least during the more plastic periods of life. It may be that this only develops when there is some sort of predisposition to instability; our related findings on defective heredity would seem to indicate the fact. It should be noted that in 5 instances out of our 19 mentally normal (Cases 2, 4, 6, 8, 20) some other member of the household, we learned from reliable sources, was known as a chronic prevaricator.
Mental Conflicts. The fact that several of our cases started lying from the time when there occurred some experience accompanied by a deep emotional context, and that this experience and the emotion was repressed, seems to point clearly to the part which repressed mental life may play in the genesis. That as children they kept to themselves secrets of grave import and dwelled long on them, shows in a large number of our cases. Anything deeply upsetting, such as the discovery of the facts of sex life or questions about family relationships, are the incidents which cause the trouble. For students of modern psychology nothing more need be said on this point—the concrete issues are perceivable in the case histories.
Adolescence. Quite apart from the age of onset, we may consider the physical and psychical instabilities of adolescence as effective causes of pathological lying. Of course it is equally true that many other tendencies to peculiarity are accentuated at this period. It has been suggested that cases which have their origin largely in the unstable reactions of adolescence have much the better prognosis, but it seems that not enough evidence has been accumulated as yet to justify us in this conclusion, which, we acknowledge, may prove to be true.
Irritative Conditions. In the same way the various types of irritative conditions, physical and mental, may be considered as exciting moments. Individuals with a tendency to pathological lying will no doubt show aggravation of the phenomenon at periods of particular stress. We have heard it suggested in several cases by relatives that the menstrual period, for instance, brings about an access of tendency to prevarication. We would grant the point without conceding this exciting factor to be a fundamental cause. (Case 21, we may say again, illustrates a special fact.) The periodicity which Stemmermann makes much of may merely mean succumbing during a period of physiologic stress. Social stress also may be met by pathological lying, in the same way that the individual who finds himself in a tight place may attempt to get out of it by running away. We have already spoken of the likeness of social and physical stress as showing when the weak individual is brought to bay. That pathological lying does not run an even course, but shows remarkable fluctuations with powerful exacerbations, is undoubtedly to be explained by changes of inner and outer stress.
Habit Formation. The influence of habit in causing chronicity must always be definitely reckoned with. It is hardly necessary to say more than a word on this subject. Even the individual, as in Cases 8, 9, and 10, comes to strongly realize it. Particularly is this point to be estimated in considering the possibilities of a rapid cure.
Special Mental Abilities. Once more, for the sake of completeness in giving a category of causes, we should call attention to the fact acknowledged by all thorough students of this subject, namely, that, other things being equal, it is particularly the individual who has linguistic abilities, who is especially good at verbal composition, that seems to have most incentive to dally with the truth. But beyond this we would insist that a combination of verbal ability with proportionate mental defects in other fields gives a make-up which finds the paths of least resistance directly along the lines of prevarication.
The role played in society by the pathological liar is very striking. The characteristic behavior in its unreasonableness is quite beyond the ken of the ordinary observer. The fact that here is a type of conduct regularly indulged in without seeming pleasurable results, and frequently militating obviously against the direct interests of the individual, makes a situation inexplicable by the usual canons of inference. To a certain extent the tendencies of each separate case must be viewed in their environmental context to be well understood. For example, the lying and swindling which center about the assumption of a noble name and a corresponding station or affecting the life of a cloister brother, such as we find in the cases cited by Longard, show great differences from any material obtainable in our country. In interpretation of this, one has to consider the glamour thrown about the socially exalted or the life of the recluse—a glamour which obtains readily among the simple-minded people of rural Europe. Then, too, this very simple-mindedness, with the great differences which exist between peasant and noble, leads in itself to much opportunity for cheating.
With us, especially in the newer work of courts, which are rapidly becoming in their various social endeavors more and more intimately connected with many phases of life, the pathological liar becomes of main interest in the role of accuser of others, self-accuser, witness, and general social disturber.
Here again, we may call attention to the fact, which is of great social importance, namely, that the person who is seemingly normal in all other respects may be a pathological liar. It might be naturally expected that the feebleminded, who frequently have poor discernment of the relation of cause and effect, including the phenomena of conduct, would often lie without normal cause. As a matter of fact there is surprisingly little of this among them, and one can find numerous mental defectives who are faithful tellers of the truth, while even, as we have found by other studies, some are good testifiers. Exaggerated instances of the type represented by Case 12, where the individual by the virtue of language ability endeavors to maintain a place in the world which his abilities do not otherwise justify, and where the very contradiction between abilities and disabilities leads to the development of an excessive habit of lying, are known in considerable number by us. Many of these mentally defective verbalists do not even grade high enough to come in our border-line cases, and yet frequently, by virtue of their gift of language, the world in general considers them fairly normal. They are really on a constant social strain by virtue of this, and while they are not purely pathological liars they often indulge in pathological lying, a distinction we have endeavored to make clear in our introduction.
It stands out very clearly, both in previous studies of this subject and in viewing our own material, that pathological lying is very rarely the single offense of the pathological liar. The characteristics of this lying show that it arises from a tendency which might easily express itself in other forms of misrepresentation. Swindling, sometimes stealing, sometimes running away from home (assuming another character and perhaps another name) may be the results of the same general causes in the individual. The extent to which these other delinquencies are carried on by a pathological liar depends again largely upon environmental conditions—for instance, truancy is very difficult in German cities; a long career of thieving, under the better police surveillance of some European countries, is less possible than with us; while swindling, for the reason given above, seems easier there.
Running away from home and itineracy show in a wonderfully strong correlation with pathological lying, both in previous studies and in our own material. Several authors, particularly Stemmermann in her survey of the subject, comment on this. This phenomenon, not only on account of the numerical findings, but also from a logical standpoint, is easily seen to be the expression, in another form of conduct, of the essential tendencies of the pathological liar. It is part of the general character instability, the unwillingness to meet the realities of life, the inclination to escape consequences. As a matter of fact, frequently the pathological liar gets himself in a tight place by lying, and then the easiest escape is by running away from the scene. The delinquencies of our present group as given below can with profit be compared with our previous statistics[26] on a large group of offenders. We gathered the facts concerning a series of 1000 carefully studied youthful repeated offenders. Of 694 male offenders, 261 were guilty of running away to the extent that it made a more or less serious offense. Of 306 female offenders, 76 committed the same type of offense. For comparison with the present group it is to be remembered that 18 out of the 19 mentally normal pathological liars were females.
NORMAL BORDER-LINERunning away . . . . . . . . . 12 6Stealing. . . . . . . . . . . 7 6Swindling . . . . . . . . . . 7 2Vagrancy. . . . . . . . . . . 0 4Attempt at suicide . . . . . . . 0 2Sex offenses . . . . . . . . . 8 1False accusations. . . . . . . . 10 4Self-accusations . . . . . . . . 3 2Abortion. . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
[26] P. 140 ff. William Healy. ``The Individual Delinquent.'' Pp. 830. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1915.
We have given figures on false accusations here, including other cases than were enumerated in our special chapter on the subject. In that chapter the center of interest was on the false accusations, but it is true that in certain other cases of pathological lying false accusations were indulged in as a somewhat minor offense. The 9 cases enumerated as swindlers showed this offense in varying degrees, as might naturally be expected by the differences in ages, which, if nothing else, makes for variations in the evolution of social and character tendencies. Perusal of the cases shows the small beginnings as well as the flagrant offenses on this order. As we previously have stated, we have avoided dealing with the older careers of notorious swindlers. The nature of the sex offenses can be learned from the case histories by those who wish to make special inquiry. Masturbation we have regarded more as a causative factor, and have spoken of it in a previous section. Truancy we have not enumerated. It goes without saying that it had been indulged in by practically all of the males and by a considerable number of the females in our cases.
The observer of delinquents cannot help being constantly impressed by the fact that the offense of lying seems to the usual offender small in proportion to the commission of other criminalistic deeds. Particularly does this come out when one observes the chronic liar growing up in a household where grave sex and other delinquencies are habitual occurrences. Should his lying be compared with these major anti-social transactions? Indeed, it might be a field for speculation as to whether, given certain qualities of mind, imaginative powers, etc., pathological lying may not play the part of a vicarious delinquency—being to the delinquent apparently less pernicious than more objective offenses. In our case histories may be seen some indications of this.
In discussing prognosis and treatment we can eliminate at once consideration of pathological lying by the insane. The outcome there depends upon what can be done for the underlying psychosis. We have avoided intimate discussion of these cases, but many suggestions of the unalterableness of the full-fledged tendencies among the insane are found in the European literature cited by us. Even discussion of the outcome of the border-line cases, such as we have given examples of, needs but short shrift. Everyone knows the extreme difficulties of dealing with constitutional inferiors; marked cases are socially fit only for proper colonization. The epileptic, in default of cure of his disease, is ever going to be prone to many peculiar mental states which may involve pathological lying. The slight mental confusion of chorea, which may lead to false accusation, as we have seen in Case 23, is one of the most curable of all abnormal mental states. With proper attention to diagnosis and treatment, favorable outcome of cases of hysteria, such as that in Case 24, is frequently seen. Another type which cannot be handled except by permanent segregation is the thoroughly aberrational and socially dangerous class represented by Case 25, however one designates the type. Much more, undoubtedly, can be done for such a border-line individual as Case 12, if there is sufficient cooperation among educational and reformatory institutions and the courts. It has seemed to us that the chief cause of failure in this interesting case has been the fact that this young man could go on ever entering new social situations and finding new worlds for exploitation because no one had the means at hand for securing facts concerning his past or for ascertaining what any good diagnostician could easily perceive to be his limitations and tendencies.
Very much more to the point is consideration of the actual and possible outcome in cases of pathological lying by normal individuals. Here, as in other matters where bodily, mental, and social issues are blended, no prognosis or outlook can be rationally offered without consideration of possible changes in the circumstances peculiar to the given case. First and foremost stands out the fact that cure of the tendency sometimes happens even after long giving way to it. In this statement we are not contradictory to some previous writers.
As Stemmermann says, out of the general literature there is not much from which one can deduce any principles of prognosis. But, again, we would insist that one of the great weaknesses has been that earlier studies have not carefully distinguished between the mentally normal and the abnormal cases of pseudologia phantastica. When, for instance, Forel speaks of pathological liars as being constitutionally abnormal individuals who are not curable, he fails to differentiate where profitable differentiation can be made. If our own work is of any practical value it is in offering safer grounds for prognosis and treatment. Stemmermann summarizes well her follow-up work done upon cases seen years previously by other observers. Some of these are still in institutions. After a period of well- doing several of these have become backsliders and reverted again to lying and swindling. Very few appear to have been cured, but yet some of the facts of betterment are most convincing. This author states that, at the most, one dares to ponder over the point as to whether there are not cases which recover, particularly when the pathological lying is a phenomenon of adolescence.
Our own material is, in part, too recently studied to form anything like a generalization concerning prognosis. Many years have to elapse before one can be sure there is not going to be a recurrence. But one is not altogether certain that prognostic generalizations are of practical worth for this group of mentally normal pathological liars. So many incidental factors of physical, mental, and social life, with all of the complicated background of the same, come in to make the total result, that experiment and trial with the individual case, while hesitating to give an exact prognosis, is perhaps the only sane procedure. What we do know definitely is the immensely favorable outcome in Cases 1, 4, 7, 19, and the promising betterment in several other instances—all in direct contradiction to what we had expected from survey of previous literature. In several of these cases the years have gone by with nothing but steady improvement. The difficulty in getting adequate treatment, either in home life or by the necessary individual attention elsewhere, makes it impossible to say that many of the others also could not have been favorably influenced. Frequently a total alteration of environmental conditions is necessary, and this, of course, is often very difficult to obtain. Also it is extremely rare that one can get the whole matter, and its sure social consequences, fairly and squarely met by anybody with influence over the individual. Until this can be done, little in the way of good results may ever be expected. The splendid attack made by relatives or others upon the situation in Cases 1, 4, 7, possibly 14, and 19 tells the story of the prime necessity for adequate handling of pathological lying.
Specific treatment of physical conditions should always be undertaken when necessary. It should go without saying that any individual who is open to the temptations of inner stress should be strengthened at all points possible and relieved from all sources of irritation. But, lest anyone should become too much persuaded of the efficacy of surgical or other treatment, it should be remembered that the psychical reactions, even where there is physical irritation, involve the definite wearing of neural paths, with habit formations, which bodily treatment can only slightly alter. An enticing problem to the gynecologist is always the relationship of pelvic, particularly sexual irritations, to conduct. We cannot confirm the idea of a prime causal connection in this particular, although we have evidence that betterment of the physical ailment may lead to less inclination towards the unfortunate behavior. In Case 1 the lying came long before pelvic disease was acquired, but very likely the irritation of the latter led to an accentuation of the psychical phenomena. In Case 6 the typical conduct was persisted in after remedy of the pelvic disorder; so also in Case 3 after relief of abdominal conditions, and in Case 21 after cessation of pregnancy. Other points bearing upon this may be read in our case histories. On the general problem of the possibility of physical treatment it will be noted that a considerable share of all our cases were in good general condition.
In discussing treatment great emphasis should be placed upon the primary necessity for directly meeting the pathological liar upon the level of the moral failures and making it plain that these are known and understood. It is very certain that frequently this type of prevaricator has very little conception of the social antagonism which his habit arouses. There is faulty apperception of how others feel towards the lying, and to what depths the practice of this habit leads. Appreciation of these facts may be the first step towards betterment. In several of the improved cases we have mentioned that it was largely the acquirement of social foresight which made the first step in a moral advance which finally won the day. In this whole matter the first ethical instruction may well be based upon the idea of self-preservation—after all the backbone of much of our morals. When it comes to specific details of treatment these must be educational, alterative, and constructive. In Cases 1 and 3 under treatment we know that when the lying was discovered or suspected the individual was at once checked up and made to go over the ground and state the real facts. The pathological liar ordinarily reacts to the accusation of lying by prevaricating again in self-defense, but when with the therapeutist there has been the understanding that the tendency to lying is a habit which it is necessary to break, the barricade of self- defense may not be thrown up. An alterative measure of great value, then, is directly to meet the specific lie on the spot, as it were, when it is told.
Next, accuracy of report may well be practiced as a special discipline. In these normal cases we have seen that there could be little doubt about the individual having self-control enough to stick to the truth, if the will was properly directed. Indeed, many of our cases were exceptionally bright individuals with many good powers of observation and memory. Had one the opportunity, there can be little doubt but that training in the power to do well on such a test as that afforded by the ``Aussage'' picture would have yielded good results. Indeed, there is some suggestion of this in our table of findings on this test, where we note that pathological liars, when left merely to themselves and their first often comparatively meagre report on the picture, give few incorrect details. The difference in their report as compared with other observers of the picture was found when they answered questions. Since this is the case, there can be little question that training in the power to respond accurately might be gained.
It may be of value in considering therapeutics of pathological lying to enumerate the general run of treatment which was carried out in those instances where we know that betterment took place. Nearly always only a part of what we advised could be carried out, but, even so, a brief statement of the conditions under which betterment was accomplished seems worth much.
Case 1 was treated first in an institution for delinquents where every effort was made to cure her disease and where she was taught to employ herself in constructive work. It was found she had ability to design, and this was used to the utmost. Then her lying tendencies were checked by social disapprobation as much as possible. A special effort was made toward this. The girl was undoubtedly made more serious-minded by the after-effects of her experience and perhaps by her disease. She was later successfully handled at home by her sensible mother. Leaving the years of adolescent instability behind her was also undoubtedly a factor in betterment.
Case 4 was taken in hand by a sterling character who restrained very carefully the tendency to lying, and by firm methods showed her the social advantages of self-control in this respect. At the same time she was given a vastly better environment, particularly in the matter of her friends. However, there is little doubt that nothing would have been accomplished in this case without first a deep understanding of the girl's troubles and of her mental conflicts.
Case 7 was treated for her sex difficulties under the constant care of a vigorous mother, who first, naturally, had to gain an understanding of the case. With her bettered physical and mental conditions, the girl was able steadily to hold a position for which earlier she had no capacity.
Betterment in Case 14 came about mainly as the result of an understanding of the child's mental conflicts and somewhat through partially bettered environmental conditions. We learned lately that the severe visual defect had been neglected.
In Case 15 the false accusations were made upon the basis of mental conflict. Investigation of the case, followed by the personal services of a probation officer and by the legal proceedings, served to clear up conditions, including those of the family in general, so that the girl was given a greater chance for success.
Case 19 seems to have been largely cured through the girl herself being able to work out her mental conflicts. Adolescence was a factor and she was tided over this period in a good environment and with friends who understood her type of case and who were willing to put up with her aberrancies for this time. Although we would not minimize the efforts of stalwart friends, we may say that there were more evidences of cure by self-help in this case than in any other we have seen.
Lest we should seem to be placing too much emphasis upon adolescence, with the idea that the mere passing of that period will lead to change in behavior, we cite Cases 3, 5, and 6, where the addition of years has brought no betterment. In neither of these was the essential nature of the difficulty explored during earlier troublous periods.
An interesting consideration for treatment is embodied in the rational idea of utilizing the special powers, so that there may be ample gratification in self-expression, and in use of the imagination. Through this new satisfaction there may be a mental swerving from the previous paths strewn with pitfalls. The inclination to verbal composition, already spoken of as existing in so many cases, may be utilized, and imagination be given full sway in harmless directions. It seems likely that just this deliberate practice may serve to more clearly demarcate truth from falsehood in the individual's mind. Unfortunately we have had too little actual proof of the value of this method, some cases being worked on now are too recent for report, but there is plenty of indication of the possibilities. Had we been able to control environment better, much more of this type of work would have been carried out.
A favorable outcome through this constructive treatment based upon utilizing the characteristic linguistic powers of the pathological liar, is witnessed to by Stemmermann in her story of Delbruck's G. N. In the history of this case a delightful note of comedy is struck. G. N. was found to be a man of considerable literary ability. He had been observed over the period of 13 years. After he was first studied he twice managed to go 3 years without succumbing to his falsifying tendencies, and then found his chance for leading a blameless life by becoming a newspaper man. In fact, he reached an honored place as an editor. Stemmermann suggests, naively, that perhaps this calling is especially calculated to give the talents correlated with pseudologia phantastica space for free play, so that the individual's special abilities may not come in conflict with the law, or with social customs, and, on the other hand, may be utilized in fruitful pursuits.
All together, one would certainly advise every effort being made towards specifically stabilizing the pathological liar in the matter of truth-telling—by checking the springs of misconduct, and by diverting energies and talents into their most suitable channels. The problem must ever be one for individual therapy. Failures of treatment there may be, but from our study we are much inclined to believe that well-calculated, constructive efforts will achieve goodly success among those who are mentally normal.