The Elephant in the Brain & The Folly of Fools

 Two more books to recommend:  

The Folly of Fools (2011) by Robert Trivers and The Elephant in the Brain (2018) by Kevin Simler & Robin Hanson are both about the human tendency to engage in deception: not only the deliberate deception of others but the deception of self.  

Trivers approaches this issue from the point of view of genetics (he was the first to characterize the evolutionary biology of reciprocal altruism).  The capacity to deceive can be beneficial to survival, as we see in many species of animals, and in many human examples.   But such deception can only work up to a certain point, an equilibrium point in terms of frequency, otherwise the strategy fails.  If deception was too frequent, the evolved strategies to counter deception would render the deceptive strategy ineffective.  Similarly, cheating can be an evolved strategy, but if cheating occurs too frequently in a population, it would no longer be effective due to widespread awareness and countermeasures in the population.    

Trivers goes on to argue that self-deception is a type of advanced deceptive strategy.  The capacity to effectively deceive others is enhanced if we can deceive ourselves.  If you REALLY believe you can win a fight (despite poor objective evidence), you are more likely to convince your opponent that you can win, and therefore are more likely to actually win, even if you utterly lack fighting skills. 

Unfortunately, self-deception leads to many serious problems in society.  Trivers goes through many examples, showing that horrible accidents, wars, biased research, and religious phenomena, are often driven by self-deceptive factors which end up causing disastrous results.  

His chapter called "religion and self-deception" is particularly recommended.  

While I consider this book important and highly recommended, I did find it often to be quite informal in reasoning, punctuated by forays into humour, but this could be a bit problematic when he is wandering into areas (for example about politics, wars, and religion) that many people could be quite sensitive or easily offended about.  There are bound to be sections in this book which could cause people some offense.  

The Elephant in the Brain is quite a remarkable review of ideas from social psychology and behavioural economics.  There is influence from Kahneman, Trivers (The Folly of Fools is referenced), Haidt, and many other leaders in the research of this area over the past decades.  I think it's astounding that these two authors, who are not specialists in these areas, produced such a comprehensive and compelling summary of this research.  

The thesis of this book is that humans have a powerful motive to signal membership in groups.  The tendency to form ingroups is a powerful human trait, evolved over millions of years.  Group membership allows us to trust and collaborate with our group members, for safety, defence, maintaining a food supply, dealing with illness, finding a mate, and raising children.  But unfortunately, this tendency to form ingroups can become such a powerful motivation, often without our awareness, that it overwhelms reason, fosters needless and often terrible conflict with outgroup members, and can become very destructive or at least inefficient.    And the phenomenon tends to perpetuate itself, since members of ingroups (be it political or religious or cultural) tend to socialize, mate, and have children with fellow ingroup members.  

They refer to Bryan Caplan's argument about education, showing that a great deal of education leads to only an indirect signal of skill or competence.  Most people do not use subject matter they learned in university very often if at all in the work they do afterwards.  Instead, the degree and grades serve mainly as a competitive signal to employers about capacity to achieve work, conform stably to demands, etc.  I have reviewed Caplan's book elsewhere (I do have some disagreements about this).  

The authors show that political and religious membership have powerful ingroup effects.  The tendency to form strong beliefs about elements of religious doctrine can be understood as a badge of group membership; if one can engage in successful self-deception about these doctrinal elements, it is all the more effective as a group membership badge.    The beliefs become shibboleths which can allow some feeling of trust with co-believers, and a sense of distrust or frank dislike of outsiders.  Such belief systems can develop independently of rational moral reasoning.  While all religious systems contain positive insights about morality (e.g. "love your neighbour as yourself", "blessed are the meek", "blessed are the peacemakers," "judge not lest ye be judged", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," etc.), the moral prominence of these beautiful insights is often lost in a cloud of doctrine that becomes more about maintaining an emblem of group involvement, an "us" vs. "them" mentality.  This mentality is a manifestation of an evolved trait pushing all humans towards group involvement, formation of local communities in which we can feel trust and belonging, but with the unfortunate consequence of having outgroups which we would not trust, and which we would treat with less positivity, warmth, and generosity.  

The same phenomena occur in political beliefs.  While there could be core rational beliefs about positions on a political spectrum, with regard to preferred economic strategy, international affairs, management of public works, etc., a great deal of political involvement involves doctrinaire beliefs that are badges of group membership, and which have nothing to do with any understanding of policy.  Most people don't even know what the policy positions are, exactly, of the candidates they vote for.   Many others support their ingroup's politicians even though the associated policies would be harmful to themselves economically or socially.    We have tragically seen this happen during the pandemic.  Extreme beliefs about vaccines, masks, etc. became emblems of political group membership; many people made decisions about these issues not because of rational evidence (which strongly supported vaccine and mask use, for the protection of everyone's health, including the anti-vaxxers' own health and well-being), but because of the beliefs of fellow ingroup members in political or religious factions.  Masks and vaccines have almost nothing whatsoever to do with religion or politics -- they are simply common-sensical public health measures -- but once these issues became badges of group involvement, the issue spiralled into disaster, to the detriment of everyone.  This is an extreme example of the phenomenon shown in the famous children's study, where kids randomly given shirts of a different colour end up forming hostile ingroups, opposed to each other.  In the case of the pandemic, a great deal of anti-vax belief was simply driven by factors akin to having a different shirt colour, just to show difference from an opposing outgroup.  

In both books, reference is made to psychiatric theory as an example of self-deception.  Psychoanalytic theory is basically a set of ideas akin to religious doctrine, with a strong ingroup community of "believers" who couch discussion of psychiatric issues through the lens of a theoretical system which is mostly fictional.  As with religions, there are core beliefs in psychoanalysis which reflect deep insight and wisdom.   For example, the idea of psychological defenses came from psychoanalysis, and is ironically an insight into the tendency for humans to engage in self-deception, with the implication that we should try to become aware of our defences, and to be able to set them aside.   Similar insights warning about self-deception can be found in religious texts.  But most of psychoanalytic theory is arbitrary, based on bizarre inferences made from case reports, coloured by the already biased opinions of the therapists.   But as with religious practices, much of the therapeutic value in psychoanalysis has nothing to do with the literal belief system, it has to do with the practice itself.   Visiting a trusted minister or priest, who would most likely be kind, gentle, understanding, supportive, and wise, could be a wonderfully healthy practice, as could a meditative practice of daily prayer, or visiting a congregation of loving friends.   These healthy and possibly healing effects would occur regardless of the belief system held by the group.  Similarly, the practice of psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic therapy more generally) requires frequent visits with a wise, compassionate, gentle, kind therapist who probably has some useful feedback about life problems, and there would be a healing effect of simply having a stable therapeutic relationship over a long period of time, irrespective of the fictional theoretical belief system held, such as strict Freudianism.  

While we can empathize and even endorse the benefits of ingroup membership phenomena, I believe it behooves us to strive for improved rationality, to guide our knowledge and decisions so as to benefit ourselves, our neighbours, and the world in the most effective way.  Societies across the world have improved in this way over the centuries, as Steven Pinker has shown us (see Enlightenment Now), but we have a lot of work to do to continue progress in building a just, peaceful, prosperous society.  

In both books, we are wisely cautioned to look to ourselves for our own self-deceptions.  It is another human tendency to see self-deception or folly in others, while not noticing our own.  In my case, I recognize this will be a work in progress.   I surely have beliefs or practices that are products of my ingroup or other biases; I hope that I will be able to keep working on better awareness of these issues over time, in service to my patients and to myself.   

Religion

Well, of course, here's another subject that most of us have strong feelings about, one way or another. I realize it's a dicey issue for me to wade into this one as a psychiatrist.

Here are my frank opinions:

There are many varieties of religious belief and practice. Many religions hold views that are quite opposite or contradictory to what other religions hold. Even subgroups of the same religious group can have vigorous differences in belief.

As far as the literal beliefs themselves go, I as a scientist would be closest in my view to Richard Dawkins, who boldly pronounces a belief in God to be a "delusion."

Yet I think there is a lot of wisdom, beauty, and truth that Dawkins misses with his pronouncement (accurate though it may be on one level) of delusiveness. Here, I think someone like Joseph Campbell is a wiser figure, in that his analysis of religious belief is anthropological, where religious stories are understood as metaphors, often with pearls of wisdom or insights about the human condition. His view is that most every religion or mythological system shares similar stories and insights.

This is my own view -- religious stories contain metaphorical insights and truths, which can teach, guide, warn, or comfort us. In a sense these insights and truths could be understood as part of what "God" is (literally). Interesting phrases such as "the Word made flesh" found in the Bible (John 1:14) exemplify the concept that the application or vivification of ideas or metaphors can be understood as the core of what "God" is.

Mind you, many religious stories may be very much coloured by the impressions or cultural values of the human authors of the stories--and perhaps of the subsequent editors over the years or centuries. Some of these values may in some cases be quite idiosyncratic or highly influenced by the conservatism or liberalism of the individuals in their time, and not very reflective of deep truths about humanity or life.

In any case, I do think that many religious stories contain valuable insights, also their familiarity to people over many centuries or even millenia, have caused the stories to become more richly ingrained in the culture. Perhaps the passage of time, of many generations, acts as a sort of "cultural filter" through which religious texts pass, allowing the texts to acquire more universal relevance. I encourage the interested reader to look at some of Northrop Frye's work: he was an important scholar who looked at the deep impact of religious texts on literature, with the keen eye of a literary critic.

Some of the richer psychiatric theory of the past century looks deeply at the human condition, at unconscious drives & motivations; art, literature, and religious mythology are important illuminations in this psychological exploration. The creative act of participating in the arts, literature, and in religious metaphor, can be a healing act--from a psychiatric point of view, or in a broader way-- provided the experience is not simply part of a neurotic defense (e.g. projection, suppression, distraction, rationalization, denial, etc.).

There are several advantages to "organized religion":
1) there is a community of people who care about each other, who care about the community itself, and hopefully who care about other external communities. This is healthy, and there are not enough such communities outside of religion in our culture today. So organized religion can be a source of friendship, social warmth, an antidote to loneliness.
2) Also, most religious groups are devoted to altruistic service in some way; there is absolutely no doubt that altruistic service is psychologically healthy. It can be hard to find satisfying altruistic opportunities outside of such an organized setting
3) Many religious groups celebrate a long cultural heritage of its members; this can add to a sense of meaningfulness and a connection to the past, and to family. Unfortunately, many individuals may feel excluded by, or that they do not fit in with, the group's cultural heritage. I think it is important to find a group that suits your own personal culture, and I think there are more choices in this regard nowadays. Many religious groups are trying harder to address this need.
4) Many religious groups have particular expressions of faith using media such as music and the other creative arts. This element alone can be comforting, enjoyable, and inspiring. (an example for me would be listening to the music of Bach, or to simple a cappella choral songs in an acoustically-perfect church building).
5) Religious buildings can be soothing, comforting, calming, safe, beautiful, and meditative. A physical place which helps calm the mind.
6) Certain religious practices and symbolism can become calming, meditative habits that teach one to relax the mind, be gently and quietly, reverently present. It is a form of relaxation therapy, yet imbued with a stronger sense of meaning in most cases, and therefore can be more appealing and effective.
7) Religious involvements can help frame major life events, such as births, marriages, and deaths. The community can come together in celebration or in grief. These events then can become accepted with greater meaning, and less loneliness.

There is one main disadvantage to "organized religion", in my opinion:
Dogma. When an inspired piece of wisdom or a metaphorical truth is understood as a literal fact, it becomes dogmatic. It would be like reading a fascinating, insightful, and enjoyable novel, but then starting to believe that the events in the novel are literally true, and acting accordingly. Many religious groups are quite dogmatic. The problem here is that dogmatism is an innate psychological tendency, which leads to different groups opposing and fighting with one another. It is understandable that most religions become dogmatic, because the founding of the religion and its texts is usually based on characters who really lived and stories which really happened -- it's just that the characters become idealized and the stories become more legendary and fictionalized over time.

The focus on dogma tends to distract attention away from whatever metaphorical truths may underlie the dogma. It would be like reading a fairy tale in a concrete or literal way, without considering whether there is a "moral to the story". Religious ideas can then also become judgmental and paternalistic, phenomena which can add to the already robust burden of self-judgment and self-criticism experienced by those going through a mental illness.

One can see in the world today a lot of religious dogma, leading to a lot of fighting about religion, all the while some of the core wisdom, such as "love one another", etc. falls by the wayside. Through history, a substantial portion of large-scale and small-scale human cruelty, catastrophe, political manipulation, and war, have been driven at least in part by religious dogmatism (even if seemingly well-meaning). We don't have to look far in today's news to find ongoing examples.

Dogmatism, from a psychiatric perspective, is fed by a variety of innate human personality traits, such as "obsessive-compulsiveness" (the tendency to require very clear, strict, or rigid pronouncements about what is right and what is wrong); also many dogmas are fed by narcissism (those who proclaim dogmatic statements are often doing so arrogantly, egotistically, forcefully, unempathically, in a grandiose way, or with an intent to control). Even without these two traits at play, it can be psychologically comforting to pronounce something as an absolute truth, because it may soothe the uncertainty and fear we may have about a variety of deep issues (such as dealing with death or mortality, finding meaning in life, explaining senseless tragedy, etc.). The difficulty is that the soothing effect may occur even if the "absolute truth" is an arbitrary--and fictional-- dogmatic pronouncement.

Ironically, some of the poignant themes in major religions such as Christianity, or Buddhism (others too, I suspect--though I do not feel well-enough informed to list them), encourage humility, gentleness, openness, acceptance, and encourage us to move away from obsessive-compulsiveness, narcissism, and absolutism in our thinking. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed adherents of these belief systems may not actually embrace, perceive, or live out these themes. I suppose, within any set of beliefs, individuals may "pick out" selective elements which happen to suit them, while perhaps missing a broader perception of the whole. (I recognize I'm being a bit judgmental here, and I need to continue examining my thinking on this matter, to prevent my own dogmas from entrenching themselves)

So I think religion can be quite positive, with certain provisos. Nowadays, I do find that there are opportunities to participate in something religious without having to be dogmatic.

Here is a link to a recent Canadian Journal of Psychiatry article on religion, spirituality, and mental health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19497160

While these articles are quite enthusiastic about the role of religion in mental health, I should point out several confounding variables:
1) Those who are more religious may also have more conservative beliefs, and a more conservative lifestyle. These traits are likely to be partially heritable, partially learned or chosen. This conservatism may protect individuals from various forms of life adversity. The problem is, many individuals do not fit into a conservative lifestyle paradigm, and may feel strongly excluded. Furthermore, the health of society as a whole would be strongly compromised by having such uniformity or constraint in lifestyle variables. We can look to nations with very strict moral or religious codes to observe the decrement in cultural and intellectual life that results.
2) Other lifestyle factors among the more religious may include a stronger focus on community, stable relationships, healthy diet, less substance abuse, etc. -- all these factors could mediate better mental health, rather than the religious faith per se. (From my own personal point of view about "God", though, I consider factors such as community, relationship, care for self & others, healthy lifestyle, etc. to be equivalent to "relationship with [or love for] God")
3) Those who already have better mental health may be more likely to form a stable, long-term relationship with religious (or other community or group) involvement. Thus, the relationship between mental health and religiosity may be associative, not causative.

Stepping out of this critique, though, I do genuinely believe that religious involvement is likely to benefit mental health directly in many cases, for the other reasons I've summarized above (e.g regarding community, meditation, friendship, support, having a setting to contemplate moral issues, etc.).

For some people, religion will not be "their thing", and in that case, I do think it will be important for them to find other sources of community, altruism, meditative calm, etc. Hopefully there will be more cultural development in this area in the coming generations.

As a recent addendum (today in April 2015), I have become a great fan of Richard Dawkins as a scientist and writer.  I had been hesitant to read or discuss some of his work which specifically addresses religion (such as The God Delusion) but having read this recently, I have to say that I don't find his work very controversial at all.   He summarizes a lot of reasoned discourse and insightful historical summary of quite convoluted, biased thinking that has influenced religious belief and practice for millenia.  Richard Dawkins' greatest gift, though, in my opinion, is that he is a wonderful storyteller.  In some ways I think he shares this talent in common with some thinkers about religion or mythology, such as C.S. Lewis or Joseph Campbell:  in Dawkins' case, his best stories are about the joy and wonder of the way life works, in terms of genetics, biology, and natural selection.  Dawkins is very passionate about science, and has become very passionate about challenging dogmatic belief systems which obscure the pursuit and joy of scientific understanding.   In fact, he as well as others such as Stephen Pinker, show that obscuration of knowledge through dogmatic or mystical belief systems is a major hindrance to the health and peacefulness of society, and a major unnecessary cause of strife and conflict in the world.    One element about religion, though, which Dawkins may not have attended to enough, is of the tendency for the brain to project idealizations or personifications of issues and desires, as a core element of religiosity, which then could be experienced in a psychologically healthy way, particularly if combined with a supportive community, tradition, and adornment from the creative arts.   It is a human psychological capacity to personify metaphors or ideas, and treat them as external characters.   I think it is easier to adapt existing religious cultures, to maintain positive elements of these traditions and possibly beneficial meditative practices and opportunities for ethical reflection in religious services, while moving away from a focus on dogmatic or fictional mystical beliefs.  In this way, religious practice could move away any sort of conflict with science.  Otherwise, there is very little at this point in atheistic culture which offers as much focused, organized opportunity for supportive community, meditative reflection, altruistic involvement, ethical discussions, infused by great art, music, and architecture.