Cultivate Your Garden....by Michael Shermer

Cultivate Your Garden
How a lack of control leads to superstition and what can be done about it
(published February 2010 in Scientific American)


Imagine a time in your life when you felt out of control—anything from getting lost to losing a job. Now look at the Figure 1 on this page. What do you see? Such a scenario was presented to subjects in a 2008 experiment by Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas at Austin and her colleague Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University . Their study, entitled “Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception,” was published in Science.

Defining “illusory pattern perception” (what I call “patternicity”) as “the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli … (such as the tendency to perceive false correlations, see imaginary figures, form superstitious rituals, and embrace conspiracy beliefs, among others),” the researchers’ thesis was that “when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually.”

As Whitson explained the psychology to me, “Feelings of control are essential for our well-being—we think clearer and make better decisions when we feel we are in control. Lacking control is highly aversive, so we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control—even if those patterns are illusory.”

Whitson and Galinsky sat subjects before a computer screen, telling them that they would be presented with a series of images for which they were to determine the underlying concept. For example, they might see a capital A and a lowercase a, one or both of which could be colored, underlined, or surrounded by a circle or square.

Subjects would then generate an underlying concept, such as that all capital As are red or surrounded by a circle. There was no actual underlying concept—the computer randomly combined characteristics and was programmed to tell the subjects that they were frequently either “correct” or “incorrect.” Consequently, the ones hearing that they were often wrong developed a sense of lacking control.

In the second part of the experiment subjects were shown 24 “snowy” photographs, half of which contained hidden images such as a hand, horses, a chair or the planet Saturn [see Figure 2], whereas the other half just consisted of grainy random dots. Although nearly everyone saw the hidden figures, subjects in the lack-of-control group saw more figures in the photographs that had no embedded images.

In another experiment Whitson and Galinsky had subjects vividly recall an experience in which they either had full control or lacked control over a situation. The subjects then read scenarios in which the characters’ success or failure was preceded by unconnected and superstitious behaviors, such as foot stomping before a meeting where the character wanted to have ideas approved. The subjects were then asked whether they thought the characters’ behavior was related to the outcome.

Those who had recalled an experience in which they lacked control were significantly more likely to perceive a greater connection between the two unrelated events than were those who recalled a controlling situation. Interestingly, the low control subjects who read a story about an employee who failed to receive a promotion tended to believe that a behind-the-scenes conspiracy was the cause.

In their final experiment Whitson and Galinsky gave one group of subjects a sense of control by asking them to contemplate and affirm their most important values in life—a proven technique for reducing learned helplessness. The researchers then presented those same snowy pictures, finding that a comparison group of subjects in a lack-of-control condition with no opportunity for self-affirmation saw more nonexistent patterns than did those in the self-affirmation condition.

In 1976 Harvard psychologist Ellen J. Langer and Judith Rodin, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a study in a New England nursing home in which the residents were given plants, but only some had the opportunity to water them. Those residents who were in charge of watering the plants lived longer and healthier lives than the others, even those given plants watered by the staff. The sense of control had the apparent effect on physical health and well-being.

Perhaps this is what Voltaire meant at the end of Candide, in the title character’s rejoinder to Dr. Pangloss’s proclamation that “all events are linked up in this best of all possible worlds”: “’Tis well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our gardens.”

Learning more about Easter....

Active NOSHA member, Robert Carver, got his letter published in the Houma newspaper and it has caused a stir IF you are NOSHA Google Group member. Decide for yourself!

Easter practices based in paganism

I read the stories in the paper about Good Friday with interest especially the one about the reenactment in Dulac. The faithful in these reenactments are fascinating since they are commemorating a mythical event as if it were a historical fact. Easter was celebrated long before Christianity co-opted the holiday. Many modern Christians are ignorant of the Pagan origins of their faith. They act as if the story of Jesus becoming the resurrected Christ was unique in history which leads them to conclude this myth must be the literal historical truth. Their belief is misguided as even a cursory examination of history clearly shows how the early Church created and evolved this myth.


The word Easter itself is likely derived from Eostre, the Saxon mother goddess, whose name in turn was adapted from Eastre, an ancient word for spring. The Norse equivalent of Eostre was the goddess Ostara, whose symbols were an egg and a hare, both denoting fertility. Festivals honoring these goddesses were celebrated on or around the vernal equinox, and even today, when Easter has supposedly been Christianized, the date of the holiday falls according to rather pagan reckonings, i.e. on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox.


Throughout recorded history the focus of spring religious festivals was a god whose own death and rebirth symbolized the death and rebirth of life during this time of the year. Many pagan religions had gods who were depicted as dying and being reborn. In some legends this god even descends into the underworld to challenge the forces there. Attis, consort of the Phrygian fertility goddess Cybele, was more popular than most.


Attis was simply the latest manifestation of earlier resurrection myths, like those of Osiris, Orpheus, Tammuz and Dionysus, who were likewise said to have been born of virgins and resurrected three days after their deaths. In areas where Christian beliefs later took hold, these already existing tales were grafted onto the story of Christ, and continue to be retold to this day as evidenced by those who “recreate” this myth this Easter in our region. They have every right to practice their faith thanks to the Separation Between Church and State enshrined in the Bill of Rights even if said faith has no basis in reality.


Robert Carver
Jefferson

The Great Divide

There seems to be a real schism in the ranks of atheist activists these days. As usual, we seem to be missing the "ingroup loyalty" thing about one for all and all for one. Ingroup loyalty is touted as one of the hallmarks of the religious movement, as is extreme passion and dedication (epitomized by the Tea Party movement that has sprung up so viciously this week), so it seems we have much to learn.

Why do we keep eating our own? Pretty boy physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson bad mouthed Richard Dawkins as "obnoxious" and "completely ineffective" in the September/October 2009 issue of The Humanist Magazine. Dawkins brings something to the table that makes Tyson's work easier as a frontman for science, so what is gained by this pissing contest?

In the book, "Good Without God" by Greg Epstein suggests that atheists too often reject the ceremony and emotional community that many seek out when they join groups.

From the book:

“Atheism alone, as the rejection of gods and the supernatural, cannot meet our deepest human needs for connection and inspiration.”

Most of us do want a connection to others in some form. Maybe that comes in the form of a poetry reading at a secular meeting or hosting social events that are designed for fellowship as much as debate. We have enjoyed this kind of interaction since we lived in caves and it brings some of our humanity to our otherwise mundane lives.

Maybe if we allow the more aggressive ideas to gain a little speed, we will see secularism being a stronger force in the community? I'd like to think that the guy who challenges religious people makes my life a little easier. Let’s stop this “us or them” mentality and realize that we are on the same side and it takes all kinds of philosphies to propel secularism in our society.

Robertson should be hospitalized!

Why does this man get any media coverage at all?

His latest pronouncement that the Haitians brought this devastating earthquake on themselves because of some purported agreement with Satan in the 18th century is beyond insanity. It's certifiably nuts!

And yet, there he is in the Times-Picayune getting valuable news space complete with explanations and public respect, if that's what it's called. What kind of modern person can spout this crap and not be carted away by the white coats? Oh, that's right. A religious person. But not only a religious person, but a leader who makes his living lying to the public and getting paid handsomely to do it.

Any average person would be stared at and shunned (we hope). But no, not Pat Robertson! He is given a voice in our public media to say whatever he feels no matter how ridiculous and harmful. And we allow it by letting the media get away with treating this as being "fair and balanced" to religious views.

Learn the five moral foundations

There is a very enlightened theory circulating that morality has several central themes that cross all cultures and explain the differences worldwide in how liberal and conservative thinking individuals interpret morals in society. But what is extremely interesting is that understanding conservative interpretations of morality will help you identify the reason why a person believes the way they do which is a very powerful thing to know.

Does that then make their belief acceptable? Not at all, but it will make more sense in the context of the moral foundation why someone takes a particular stance.

Five Moral Foundations

Moral Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations, too. The foundations are:

1)Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Liberal and conservatives usually support number 1 and 2 alike, and that is where liberals tend to focus their attentions in modern society. Conservatives go on to incorporate numbers 3-5 in their regular belief systems and. it could be argued, that they do so to the detriment of logic, science and basic reason.

Liberal thinkers can utilize 3-5 also, but chances are they consider proof to the contrary before blindly following along...which is what trips up conservative thinkers. Perhaps having a religious mindset means that you can't go against the ingrained priniciples of "group think" that is necessary to these tenets.

And then there's sex! Number 5 seems to be a huge issue for many religions and uptight pious people. In fact, some of them seem to abandon 1 and 2 altogether as long as they are controlling the sexual behaviors of society. But that's another blog for another day.

But think about it and see if this theory helps you to better understand why a conservative thinker you know has a certain opinion. It just might make you better able to argue to their concern and point out contradictions in terms they can grasp. At least it's worth a shot.

Happy Human Light, Winter Solstice and Holidays!

Health care...do you feel lucky?

Okay, here's something that I think we need to talk about in our country:

We're all going to die someday.

What? Should I say it again? Did you think you heard me wrong?

We're all going to die someday.

I wish I had better news, but it's a fact of life. Some Americans pretend it only happens to other people AND the unluckier ones at that. But if luck does have anything to do with it, you and everyone you know and love will die in their sleep peacefully at a very old age after a very rewarding and interesting life. Not of a terrble illness or in terrible pain.

But I have news for most of the people who seem to rally against basic health care in this country. That scenario doesn't usually happen. Along the way some of us will have accidents, illnesses and especially not after we've retired. Because that's how life is.

Car crashes, freak illnesses, falling off ladders, you name it....that's part of the human condition. Statistically speaking, it's a crap shoot that any of us avoid these things (knock on wood, right?) And yet the people who rail against a "public option" seem to to think that basic health care by itself is something that we can't improve upon or even treat as an element of a decent life. No one should go bankrupt because they couldn't avoid the accident or illness. It could be anyone of us, including these tea party idiots and their families.

But there's one thing no one wants to talk about and it's that IF we muddle through and come up with something better for our nation's health care system, someone, namely millionaire physicians and insurance executives, will have to make a little less money.

Will they have to sell their homes and country club memberships? No. (Okay, maybe the third home in the Caribbean.)

Will their kids have to do without private educations or go hungry? Probably not.

But they will have to settle for a little less. And that less still looks pretty damn wonderful compared to the average American's income and expectations. But it will take some sacrifice and alter the obscene excesses some Americans have been fortunate enough to think that what is the norm for them is the same for the rest of us. Uncovering that falsehood scares the hell out of them. (And their real estate agents and decorators, too, of course.)

So when your neighbor or cubicle mate says we just can't help the average people simply because they were unlucky enough to be in a car accident or to get sick, remind them that what is good enough for the unlucky among us is good enough for them.

Therapy group forming for secular humanists...

Taking the idea from New York City Atheists, addressing the question as to counseling help for nonbelievers, NOSHA is proposing the formation of a therapy group for its members with psychological, emotional or other personal problems.

New York calls its group “Living Without Religion,” led by a psychotherapist. Their group “will meet once a month, with the goal of helping each other resolve our personal problems through reason, scientific knowledge, empathy, logic and understanding. There will be no charge for this cutting-edge support group, but you must be a member to participate.”

NOSHA member Lisa Suarez, a Humanist and a Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist, has agreed to help to put together a group of our members "who would like to grow their values and strengthen personal positions in life." Like the NYC group, there will be no charge for participation.

Anyone interested in becoming a part of this program should contact Harry Greenberger at (504) 282-5459 or hpgreenx@yahoo.com