minsocal

Joseph, So true. So much truer than many of us realize. I am in the middle of a very interesting book now about the effect of social connections ("Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks" by Chistakis and Fowler). We are strongly influenced in many ways -- physical health, mental health, emotions, happiness, etc. -- by those we are connected to. Interestingly, in some ways, we more influenced by friends than "inherited relationships" like family. And, the influence is not just direct, we are influenced, in declining degrees, by our friend's friends and our friend's friend's friends.

 

George

George,

I know and very much respect your keen interests. You might want to look up "Family Systems Theory." Murray Bowen in particular. Bowen Theory brought my own life into focus, but with a price. One of the most difficult courses I took in grad school.

Myron

Been spending more time with my cat the last few days. He has reached the age of about 110 in human years. He is a shoulder cat, so I put him on my shoulder and took him for a walk around the back yard. He spent nearly 20 minutes there with a purr that was deeper and louder than I have heard from him in a long time. Soothing for both of us, I think.

Excellent article Stanley. Coming from the same UCC background as Michelle and Barack Obama I can say it is well written and accurate. A very good reference for this forum.

Myron

the issue of having a gut feeling then reasoning to defend your instinct made me think of pro-life/choice - those who are pro-life see a 'harm' and reason that the unborn foetus is a person, whereas pro-choice do not consider the feotus to be a person, therefore see no harm.

This is close to what Haidt is trying to point out. Part of his research technique is to place people in morally ambiguous situations. Evolution left us with a collection of emotions and intuitions, but which do we call moral and not moral? Why?

Myron

Myron, the problem with our rationalizations are that they are often wrong. In experiments, people give reasons for their moral judgements, but the reasons are often flawed.

 

A good example was one involving incest. A hypothetical situation was posed in which siblings had sex using contraceptives. Subjects would explain that incest is wrong because of adverse genetic effects if a pregnancy results. But, when pointed out that the couple used contraceptives, the subjects would persist in their moral judgement. Similar results have been found in tests of the 'Trolley Problems' (see Moral Minds by Marc Hauser)

 

George

George,

Well, yes. But moral emotions and intuitions can be equally wrong due to the effects of condtioning.

Myron

Myron, good point. This needed clarification. Yes, Haidt uses the word with the latter meaning - to make rational.

 

George

George,

Haidt, I'm quite certain, is aware of the research done by Antonio Damasio. Is there a benefit to "make rational?" Yes, a very important one. When we make our moral emotions and intuitions rational, we can see in the mode of "as-if", that is, we can anticipate how we might react. Think of the applications and advantages this affords.

Myron

Haidt claims that reason is used to rationalize our intuitive moral instincts, not to motivate our decisions. I think this is largely correct.

 

A few years ago, I was debating capital punishment with my father (me against, him for). He was claiming that he favored it because it was a deterrent. I pointed out that the evidence did not support this. But, he persisted in his position. Then, I thought, what if the evidence did favor capital punishment as a deterrent, would I change my view? The answer, I concluded was no. We were both invoking a moral values, not rational argument. We were using reason to rationalize our (intuitive) moral values.

 

The one area, that I don't think Haidt discusses, where reason may come into play is is resolving moral conflicts. When there are two rights or two wrongs, I think reason may be invoked to decide a course of action. I would like to know what Haidt would think about this.

 

George

George,

There are different connotations involving the term "rationalize". The negative implies "making excuses" the other is "to make rational". As John Searle notes, you can put 100 people in a room and give them a problem to work out and get 100 different responses, all of which could be rational. I think Haidt is more in line with Searle. Jung also belongs in this group. As Paul Valent points out, cognitive evaluations often come in complementary sets. This is very much in line with Jung.

I have used this example before. Suppose you were in the middle of Katrina. Do you go out and rescue others, or is more rational to wait and be rescued?

Myron

Not a question that's ever come into my mind personally, Myron. How do most of these people respond? I'm presuming it's because perhaps that's how they've always understood a marriage to be a male and female and thus typically a dominat and a submissive role, subsequently two males might pose a quandry for them.

Paul,

You are correct when you note the factor of dominant and submissive gender roles. The American Psychological Association defines gender role and sexual orientation differently. Sexual orientation, by APA definition, is matter of romantic attraction. The poet Robert Bly talks about "the young mans gaze turning" as he enters the world of sexual maturation. His words on the subject are quite moving, and that is what these students are expected to learn. Gay and straight couples exhibit significant variation in how they take on responsibilty for the day to day family functioning. There are cultual differences many are not aware of, etc. Placing these students in the quandry is deliberate. To their credit, they usually get the point rather quickly. As therapists, they cannot afford to let biases influence their work with clients. The APA etthical guidelines are very, very clear on this.

Some of the discussions concerning dominant-submissive roles do get very interesting. In the end, students learn that the issue is between the two parties involved, and if there is no conflict involved they do not bring up the subject.

Myron

As Jung pointed out, our moral emotions and intuitions are part of what we call "experience". They are the matrix out of which reason and feeling emerge. Kant, at times, supports this same view when he talks about "bottom up" processing. We experience what evolution gives us and form cognitive appraisals concerning that experience. In other words, cognition "fills in the form" with words. John Searle says much the same thing. Paul Valent has spend a lifetime collecting the typical appraisals we form by interviewing hundreds of trauma victims.

For those who have not read the book, Haidt has a webpage dedicated to the subject.

http://righteousmind.com/

What I like about this work is the entering statement ... "Why good people are divided by Religion and Politics."

Myron

In my journey as a gay male, I have experienced the tensions of principles. I often speak to psychotherapists in training about my long term relationship. The most frequent question I am asked is "who plays the wife and who plays the father." My response is always "why do you ask that question?.

There are several concepts at work here. One is of "enabling" and the other is of "constraints". We are not perfect. As Jung noted, the pursuit of perfection (a male principle) can be fatal. Love enables, yet it constrains. The same can be said for compassion. Both love and compassion, without periods of renewal, can leave us "overloaded".

With my lack of adult church experience, I can only speak to a small part of this topic.

It really bothers me when people react to any scripture reference as if it automatically indicated a conservative or right wing view.

As I understand it, the bible is alternative wisdom that transcends national and social boundaries. While it doesn't prescribe specific public policies, according to every PC author I've read, the bible is associated with, if anything, a liberal stance on most or all social issues.

I think many sacred sources attempt to transcend external and internal boundaries (limitations). We need to consider both? There are many paths to wisdom, perhaps.

George,

In recent years I've attended services in a number of conservative churches. What I heard on this issue astounded me. In one case a Pastor implied that there was no need to "feed the poor" in the literal sense. The task was to "save their souls for the afterlife". I think there is merit to the question of beliefs and the research I have seen seems to support the notion.

I agree that rationalization is powerful. In one of my visits to a conservative church I heard a man say "thank God for my cancer, I'll be with Jesus soon."

Myron

Views vary within the categories of religion. Some groups are life-affirming and others life-negating. Several years ago I monitored an addiction recovery program held by a local church. At each meeting they recited passages from the Bible including a quote that says "This life is not worth living". I think it is from Proverbs. When I expressed concern that this might not be a good thing to tell recovering addicts, it was strongly suggested that I leave and not return.

Encountering death is an existential concern. As Dutch noted, a NDE can transform a person and that transformation is sometimes life-affirming.

Myron

Hi Dennis,

Dennis is my middle name.

I have some of the same concerns about what we mean by "spiiritualty" .

Welcome.

Myron

Interresting. I'll look for it on Kindle. Thanks for the reference.

Wolfgang Pauli was awarded with the Noble Prize for his work in physics. He was a long time associate and friend of C. G. Jung. When facing his own death he said (to paraphrase) ... I spent a long time examining my life as it was, but my great mistake was that I never examined the reality of my own death. Something to think about.

Within the human brain there is a structure called the amygdala. A large portion of this stucture is dedicated to reading cues from the facial expressions of others, particularly the eyes. These cues are relayed to the emotional processing center of the brain. I have seen videos of new born infants. When they are handed to their mothers they instantly turn their gaze to the mothers face and eyes. It is quite touching to watch. When an infant is handed to the father, it will not seek facial contact but reach for the fathers hand and grasp the little finger.

That makes me wonder just how humans may evolve further. Maybe that's why in sci-fi movies aliens have little bodies & big eyes - they've been sitting all day in front of the computer

That is funny.The big eyes are not an accident though. For some stange reason humans find large eyes very compelling. Not just large, but in a specific ratio to facial dimenions. Ancient artifacts often display humans with eyes larger than normal, again in a specific and repeated ratio to facial dimensions. Thats how sci-fi goes back and forth between aliens in the past and alien in the future. I stumbled across all this while reading Julian Jaynes' theories on the evolution of consciousness. The precision of eye-to-facial ratios across artifacts from different cultures is yet a mystery.

There's also sites like Meetup.com where you can use it to start groups to meet up with like minded people over a common interest. Another issue is that it seems like churches in general don't really have very good programs for college aged students. Like most churches generally have a very good youth group that does a really good job of keeping kids actively involved in the church through various social activities and community events but then it's like you get to college and the church forgets about your class. Churches will have lots of activities for high school students and adults but they just don't do anything for college kids.

I interact with a few people on the internet. It has taken me a long time to really know them. I have to ask a lot of questions because I cannot see their faces or observe their body language. Darwin wrote about this. We need visual contact to confirm communications. A large part of the human brain is dedicated to this task.

A gay friend and mentor once told be that a monagamous relationship was all he could handle, but the rewards were worth it. Later in life I heard the same message from straight couples. Not too long ago I met an man who had been in a monagamous relationship for more than 50 years. He was a member of my church. Many times he would turn to me with a look of absolute marvel in his eyes as he looked at his wife and say "I've known her for more 50 years and I still don't understand her." It was the look in his eyes. A love formed over many years. I'll never forget it.

In my first career I worked for a company at the edge of computer technolgy. It was kind of giddy. The head of the company offered a sobering observation. He said yes this is changing the world, but later we might just find ourselves asking "my God, what have we done?"

I have no doubt - I fully agree. 'Showy' wasn't the best word (as I mentioned) but I was just trying to point out that a lack of religous affiliation doesn't neccessarily lead to a loss of spirituality, so I don't neccessarily see there being a 'gap' per se (at least not in my culture in Australia).

 

Whilst there is a decrease in religous affiliation, this doesn't neccessarily coincide with "an urge toward the spiritual" decreasing, at least from what I see and read.

 

As Neon points out, many of these people 'connect' through means not available 20 years ago.

Paul,

To be clear, Searle is a nativist. When he talks about "an urge towards the spritual" he means "innate urge". Searle is also honest when he says he does not understnd this in the least. Jung said much the same thing, but had an inling as to why. Whenever G-d is extruded from life, something else of equal standing will take over. In other words, the "gap" will always be filled, but with what? Sometimes the "gap" is filled with rather unsavory ideologies. The reason I read Darwin, Jung, Searle, Haidt and Valent is that they look at the larger picture and are willing to accept what they see. But, that is not enough for them. Each, in their own way, are concerned with "doing justice". Darwin knew that his theory of evolution would shake the theistic world. At the same time he said that if we discovered that the remaining institutions were the cause of human misery it would be "our greatest sin".

Myron

I certainly agree with Valent that spirituality is a dimension of human existence that can lead to resilience, but I think Collins & Clark in their above comments compliment Valent's view. Maybe Valent speaks further to 'community' arising from spirituality, but based on the above his and Collins/Clark go hand in hand, in that we're not talking about Australian's losing spirituality because less identify with a particular religion. To the contrary, I think Collins/Clark's comments make the point that Australian spirituality is simply less 'showy' (for lack of a better word) in that it is not explicitly religous and is ultimately characterized by a serious quiet reverence, a deliberate silence.

 

It's not that such spirituality isn't passed on to younger generations, but rather people just aren't identifying with organised religion as much.

Paul,

I certainly can agree with the less 'showy' perspective. It is representative of how I was raised here in the U S. in a progressive environment. "Walk humbly with your God". Do justice and love mercy. I can tell you that his is close to the heart of the people who sponser this website.

Myron