Facing Reality and Finding Meaning
The reader might want to refer to
this short thread and have it in mind while reading the following, excerpted from Timothy Wilson's book "Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change." Wilson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Virgina. He's also written "Strangers to Ourselves" and a textbook: "Social Psychology."
Wilson points out that the big difference between human beings and animals is that we have a large brain with which we construct elaborate theories and explanations about what is happening in the world and why. As Gurdjieff points out, when these theories are constructed using the intellect, it is much better and more likely to be accurate than when the intellect is running on emotional energy or sexual/moving center energy.
However, our ability to think about things in representational ways has a price: we can be aware of our own mortality. As far as we can tell, we are the only creatures that can be fully aware of what is in store for us in the future, i.e. ultimately death. This thought is so unnerving to us that we have created narratives - CORE narratives - that explain creation, the purpose of life, and what happens after we die. (Here, I would recommend "The 5th Option" for a wonderful systems analysis of life itself.)
Organized religions are the usual sources of our core narratives since they propose to explain how we came to be, how we ought to live, and what happens to us after death. Many studies show that religious people are happier than non-religious people. (Refer to the study linked above for insight.)
However (and here I'm diverging from Wilson a bit), Bob Altemeyer has shown in his book "Amazing Conversions" that there is something more complex about this. Some people can be born in very religious families and abandon their faith and some people can be born into totally non-religious families and grow up to convert to some religion (usually fundamentalist in type) and become fanatics - more Catholic than the Pope, so to say.
The apparent reason for this is the core narrative and how it acts on the individual in combination with the teachings of the religion. But here we find an interesting point: Monotheism came along and declared that there was one god, one truth, and it was possible to know it. So, some people who were very bright and adventurous, brought up with this idea, took it seriously and submitted the tenets of their faith, the very religion that taught this principle, to examination and found that it could not be the "one truth." On the other hand, other types of individuals - those whose were loaded with internal fear and generally not that intelligent, (the Authoritarian Follower type) either stuck with the faith trip, or bought into it (if they were not born in it).
In other words, it could be said that Monotheism was the parent of science because some really clever people, raised with this principle of "one truth that could be found" actually took it seriously to the core of their being, it became their core narrative, and they were of a fearless disposition and with less tendency to lie to the self or to avoid reality, (You could look at the parable of the talents from the Bible in this context), the end result being the birth of science itself as a cognitive style of dealing with the world, explaining creation, the purpose of life and what happens after we die.
Interestingly, there are Authoritarian types that engage in "belief in science" - taking it to extremes in literality - and have thereby completely abandoned any non-material explanations for anything that happens in our reality. Again, refer to the study linked above.
In other words, it seems to me that religions and even science itself, when taken to an extreme, are explanatory systems for average or below average intelligences, for lack of a better way to describe it. The true scientific mind of truly higher intellect is OPEN and aware that there are things that materialistic science cannot explain - at least not as it is presently formulated.
Anyway, after that aside, returning to Wilson: "Religious people are happier only if they truly believe and those beliefs are shared by their loved ones." (Refer here to
"The Third Person Effect".
It seems that, if people have fragmented beliefs that are not well integrated into their lives, or those beliefs are not supported by their loved ones, they aren't able to be very happy.
So here we come to an interesting point: what does the person do who is born with somewhat greater intellect, a somewhat more open temperament, who takes the tenets of "one god, one truth" seriously because it is inculcated into him/her, finds that the religion of the parents isn't up to snuff, and goes looking for a better explanation of things? It can lead to some serious unhappiness, and I think that many of us have experienced this because, we, too, are human and have the need to have our core narratives integrated into our lives and to have companionship and support of loved ones. (Here, I highly recommend Altemeyer's book "Amazing Conversions" because he describes the price that many people who leave their faith have to pay and their explanations for why they just can't live in a lie. Remember, they are brought up to believe that there is one truth, and they want that truth, and can't live with anything less.)
Wilson again: "Research shows that people who believe in the devil and hell are less happy than people who do not. Apparently, worrying that we might end up at Satan's side in everlasting flames confers less happiness than believing that - no worries! - we are guaranteed a spot in the eternal Eden."
So, there is a strong tendency for human beings to want to avoid thinking about anything unpleasant, to want to believe that "all is well in the world and God is in his heaven, benevolently overseeing everything." Obviously, this belief in hell and the devil acts particularly strongly on the people Altemeyer describes as Authoritarian because their internal make-up - whether genetic temperament or whatnot - is fear oriented, lack oriented, and the ego cannot stand that sort of thing and so selection and substitution of premises, to cite Lobaczewski, begins.
Wilson: Core narratives don't have to be religious in nature. 'Whatver gets you through the night,' as John Lennon sang, can reduce existential teror, as long as it is a coherent set of beliefs that explains life's mysteries.
Here we have a possible explanation for why some people who are very bright (but still fear based inside) convert to the religion of science with such fanatical zeal. It eliminates "evil" to some extent.
Wilson:
"To a large extent, we acquire core narratives from our culture and parents and religions. We are provided with a ready-made belief system about the major questions in life, and for many of us, this is perfectly fine. ... Other people, however, question their core narratives at some point in their lives, coming to believe that the religion they were brought up with does not provide all the answers or that the prevailing cultural view about 'the good life' is not for them. If they are lucky, they are able to find a new set of core beliefs that answer life's most basic questions. ...
"What about those of us who struggle with our basic beliefs? Some of us have lost faith in the core beliefs of our childhoods and haven't found a compelling new narrative. ... we can't wave a magic wand and suddenly believe in Christianity or Judaism... Most of us have at least some core beliefs... whether they are our political views our desire for social change... In order to develop and validate those beliefs, one thing we can do is to hang out with like-minded individuals. I say that with some reluctance, because seeking out only people who share our beliefs, and avoiding those who do not, is not a good way to stretch on's mind and is likely to contribute to the polarization of viewpoints that is so endemic today.
But the fact is that interacting with people who share our core beliefs is a way to strengthen and validate those beliefs.
"Further, other people are a source of comfort when our most basic core beliefs are challenged, such as when we are reminded of our own mortality.
"It is thus critical to have core narratives about the basic questions of life. But let's say that we have that covered - we have a coherent narrative that keeps existential terror at bay and loved ones who share those views. That's great, but we are still going to experience the spills and tumbles, hassles and setbacks that plague everyone from time to time.
The better we can understand and explain negative events such as relationship break-ups, business failures, or medical problems, the faster we will recover from them.
"Obviously, some kinds of explanations make us feel better than others... optimists put more of a positive spin on negative outcomes than do pessimists, enabling them to cope better and bounce back more quickly.
But achieving some understanding of a negative event is preferable to having no understanding at all.
"Suppose, for example, that you are in your twenties and that one of your parents died of
Huntington's disease... The disease is genetically transmitted, and if one of your parents had it, you have a 50% chance of getting it yourself. ...A genetic test has been developed that can, in most cases, identify whether you have inherited the gene that will trigger the disease. You can take the test and find out the good news - you didn't inherit the gene - or the really bad news - you have the gene and, because there is no cure for Huntington's, you will die of the disease in middle age.
Would you take the test? Maybe it would be best to leave well enough alone and let nature take its course.
"
According to at least one study, that would be the wrong decision. Researchers followed a sample of young adults who had a 50% chance of getting Huntington's disease and who agreed to take the genetic test. The participants completed measures of depression and psychological well-being before they knew the results of the genetic test, right after they got the results, six months later, and one year later.
"Those who got the bad news were, of course, initially devastated, reporting considerably more distress and depression than did those who got the good news. At the sic-monht and on-year points, however, the two groups were indistinguishable - those who knew that they would die at a relatively young age were no more depressed, and expressed just as much well-being as did those who knew that they were disease-free. The particpants who learned they had the gene received the worst news on can get, and yet within six months they were as happy as anyone else.
"Even more striking were the results of a third group - those for whom the test was inconclusive or who had chosen not to take the test. At the beginning of the study, before any genetic testing had begun, this group was as happy and well-adjusted as the others. But as time went by, this group did the worst: at the one-year mark, they exhibited significantly more depression, and lower well-being, than those in the other two groups - including the ones who had found out that they had inherited the Huntington gene. In other words, people who were 100% sure that they would get the disease and die prematurely were happier and less depressed than people who were 50% sure that they were healthy and disease-free.
"This study illustrates, I think, how adept people are at making sense of even the worst news.
Those who learned that they had inherited the Huntington's gene found a way to come to terms with it, by incorporating this news into their narratives and finding some meaning in it. ...they developed a view of themselves as people whose time would be short but who would live life to the fullest. Those who remained uncertain about their health status could not undergo this restorative process of narrative change, because there was always the possibility that they didn't have the gene. In other words,
the uncertain person doesn't know what to make sense of, whereas the certain one can begin the process of meaning-making and understanding and explanation for even the bleakest of outcomes. And by so doing, that person adapts and recovers - because
once we reach an understanding of what something means and why it occurred, we dwell on it less and its impact wanes.
"This making sense of negative outcomes is the first step to recovering from them.
Which brings us back to those issues and traumas that people have not been able to make sense of and the Pennebaker writing exercises. People who wait until they have some distance from a problem (during which time they may cry, be angry, generally express a lot of emotions), and then write about it for at least fifteen minutes on each of four consecutive days.
The writing exercise works best when two conditions are met: 1) people gain some distance from the event so that thinking about it does not overwhelm them AND 2) ANALYZE WHY the event occurred.
Obviously, the explanation of WHY is going to depend on your core narratives about life, reality, etc.
People who attribute negative events to things about themselves that are hard to change (I'm just that way; I'm not college material; I'm an emotional person and I can't help saying those things when you push my buttons; I'm wounded by my parents; my teachers all hated me; I keep forgetting, something is wrong with my memory; and so on and so on), experience learned helplessness which can lead to poor health and depressions, gives them low expectations about the future, makes them likely to give up easily, etc.
People who attribute negative events to things they can control and change, (I can work harder, try again another way, get over myself, see the other person's point of view) are less likely to be depressed, less likely to have health problems, more likely to try harder when the going gets tough and to ultimately succeed against odds and obstacles.
People who have a hopeful, optimistic outlook on life are happier and healthier than people who have a hopeless pessimistic outlook. BUT, here we come to a really crucial point: this does NOT mean that you just need to think positive thoughts in order to get what you want in life. Rather,
"what really sets optimists apart is that they have better coping strategies in the face of adversity - they confront problems rather than avoid them, plan better for the future, focus on what they can control and change, and persist when they encounter obstacles instead of giving up." True optimists do NOT have their heads in the sand.
"Optimists see the world the way it really is and recognize the obstacles in their path, but also believe that they can overcome these obstacles by planning for them and redoubling their efforts when they fail. In short, optimists don't just sit back and think positive thoughts - they have an adapticve, healthy way of coping with the world.
But here's a problem: optimism vs pessimism - they both seem to be deeply rooted traits and there may be a genetic/temperament component.
However, there does seem to be some room to maneuver -
people can be trained to be more optimistic (as defined above), using writing/story editing techniques and utilizing a robust, intelligent, core narrative to explain reality.
A technique: Think about your life in the future and write for twenty minutes on four consecutive days, about
how "everything in my life has gone as well as it possibly could" and describing
how all of your dreams have come true. The important thing about this is to focus on ways of achieving those goals and thinking about what you need to do to get there, to that life in the future. That is, write for twenty minutes each day about the ways in which you can become good enough and smart enough instead of simply declaring it to be so.
