Are kids who lie smarter or sociopathic?

Living with Children: Are kids who lie smarter or sociopaths in the making?

Parents of children who habitually lie can breathe a huge sigh of relief — The New York Times says that budding Pinocchios are more intelligent than kids who tell the truth (“Is Your Child Lying to You? That’s Good,” Alex Stone, January 5, 2018). The announcement is based on studies done in the 1980s in which young children who disobeyed an instruction and then denied having disobeyed were discovered to have higher IQs than those who admitted disobedience. A subsequent study found that most adults cannot tell when children are lying, a finding that seems to confirm the previous study.

The question, of course, becomes: Does perfecting the art of lying make a child smarter or does being smart lend itself to lying? I will not attempt to unravel that puzzle. I will, however, mention that people who habitually lie are known as sociopaths. As adults, a fair number of them spend time in prison.

So, whereas the NYT sees it as good news that some children become inveterate liars at an early age, teaching a child to lie in the hopes he or she will become smarter is not recommended. Unfortunately, today’s parenting culture seems to put a higher premium on a high IQ than it does morality. The guilty parties would never admit it, of course. If asked, “Would you rather that

your child make straight A’s or always tell the truth and strive to never hurt another person’s feelings?” they will lie. Which may explain why some straight-A kids are incorrigible liars, or vice versa.

The NYT piece also mentions research finding that punishment does not deter, much less rehabilitate, most childhood liars. The thrill of getting away with a lie seems to greatly outweigh any possibility of negative consequences. The same researchers recommend emphasizing the benefits of honesty rather than threatening punishment. That certainly won’t hurt, but I’m skeptical of its longterm value.

Not surprisingly, money “talks” to the aspiring sociopath, says the NYT. When compensated sufficiently, young liars will tell the truth. That fails to justify the immorality of paying for morality. Furthermore, the researchers failed to say that paying for honesty brought about permanent transformation; therefore, it is safe to say it did not.

What does? Well, here’s an interesting story: Two parents once told me they successfully fought fire with fire. They began lying about everything — what was for dinner, what movie they were going to, that they were going to raise his allowance — to their nine-year-old aspiring sociopath. No morality lectures, simply lie after lie after lie. This went on for several weeks before he “got it” and begged them to stop. They did, promising more of the same if he relapsed. He’s been lie-free for three years now.

Your great-grandparents called it “reverse psychology.” They were right about most things parenting. The NYT, however, is not.