J.— PSYCHOLOGY. 177 



years) from the time one of my infants correctly used the number two to 

 the time when he could apprehend three as a group, and in another case the 

 interval was eighteen months — so far is the truth from the supposed 

 idea of a sudden development of a ' faculty of number.' 



A third value of the study of infant psychology is that it counteracts 

 the tendency to interpret later childhood too much on the lines of adult 

 experience, just as the study of childhood is a valuable check on over- 

 rationalising our interpretation of adult behaviour. 



Three recent developments have emphasised the importance of the 

 study of the earliest years of life. The first is the assertion by the psycho- 

 analytic school that the first four or five years of life are the most important 

 in the fixing of character. Freud holds that ' the little human being is 

 frequently a finished product in his fourth or fifth year.'- Adler goes so 

 far as to say that ' one can determine how a child stands in relation to 

 life a few months after his birth.'* 



It is not my wish to underestimate the importance of the first few 

 years of life, but rather to stress it. It seems, however, impossible to state, 

 on the evidence we have before us, that the first four to five years of life 

 are more important than, say, the years of adolescence. What exactly is 

 meant by the assertion if it is made ? It is rather like saying that the 

 safety of a house-roof depends more upon the foundations than it does 

 on the stability of the walls of the first or second stories. 



The Freudians have certainly shown that in many cases the experiences 

 of the earliest years may continue to exert a profound influence on the 

 life and character of the child when he grows up, though he may have 

 forgotten those experiences. It may also be admitted that if bad social 

 relationships — say with parents — are set up in the first few years, that 

 relationship may be fixated so that the parents' efforts later to change 

 them may be futile. 



What is not proved, as it seems to me, is that if a child suffers from an 

 injurious social environment, or erratic and foolish discipline till, say, five 

 or six, but enjoys a favourable environment thereafter, he is necessarily 

 more handicapped than a child who has a satisfactory environment till 

 that age, and then comes under wrong discipline or vicious influences 

 continuing through the unstable and suggestible period of adolescence. 



In any case it seems unnecessary to make extreme statements about 

 the absolute fixation of character by the age of five or six. It is enough 

 for our purposes if we admit that this early period is probably far more 

 important for future development than was at one time thought. 



The second recent development in psychological thought which has 

 emphasised this view is that of the Behaviourist school. Take, for 

 example. Dr. J. B. Watson's assertion that there are few genuine innate 

 tendencies in man and the suggestion that any infant, if taken in hand 

 early enough, can be ' conditioned ' into almost any type of character. 

 This assertion as to- absence of instincts can undoubtedly, as I hope to 

 show later, be combated by evidence from early childhood. Yet the 

 readiness with which special treatment can rouse specific fears in an infant 



2 Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, 1921, p. 298. 



•'' Understanding Human Nature (translated by W. B. Wolfed, p. 42. 



1930 N 



