Book Review: The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer

If I hadn't put this on my Kindle I might have given up in the introduction.  (It's really hard to skip around on a Kindle) This book starts out far less readable than Shermer's Scientific American columns, but I persevered, and the going got much easier.

He begins the book with three personal stories:  a guy who sponsors research on belief after a supernatural experience or hallucination (depending on your point of view), NIH director Francis Collins' conversion and exploration of faith and science, and Shermer's own conversion and deconversion from evangelical Christianity. He references the people and books that influenced him during that time of his life in great detail.  His own deconversion included a period of Ayn Rand fandom and evangelism for it, sad to say.  I have to wonder if he had a harder time giving up authoritarianism than he did belief in a supernatural, because it sounds like he was a true fanboy.  At this point in his life he hadn't yet become a big fan of the scientific method (or else he would have been persuaded more by evidence than by teachers and authors).

Fortunately the book does finally get to the sciency stuff I bought it for.  His main thesis is that people develop a belief first and then find reasons to support it, and he ranges over a lot of territory developing it.  The most interesting thing for me was the phenomenon of sensing the presence of another person (usually) when nobody is there.  It happened to Shermer on an ultramarathon bike ride.  It has happened to other extreme athletes, especially mountain climbers.  This may come as a surprise to some Christians, but the brain is part of the body, and when the body is under extreme stress, that includes the brain!

Pattern-seeking is another biggie, especially with the point that a false positive pattern is generally less dangerous than a false negative.  His example is a rustle in the grass on the African savannah.  Our ancestors are the survivors who assumed the rustle came from a snake or other predator.  The dead ends on the evolutionary tree are the ones who thought "m'eh it's just the wind" when it was actually a snake.  This is Pascal's Wager!

Another point that's interesting:  the ability to find connections between things (pattern-seeking) is related to creativity, which explains why so many brilliant and creative people have fallen for stupid shit like UFOs and "alternative" medicine.  The same person who might make a breakthrough in science because he saw a connection nobody else noticed isn't likely to filter out the ones that aren't really there, i.e. false positives.  Psychosis is the complete inability to filter out false patterns.

There's a section on political beliefs, which is pretty interesting.  There have been studies done on political belief and apparently (hold onto your hats!) people are very reluctant to give up their political leanings!  YES!

Sadly, he digresses into his libertarianism again, and as if to support his own thesis, he doesn't have any empirical evidence to back up his opinion.  After pages and pages of examples of studies that prove this or that aspect of belief, his own libertarianism seems to demonstrate his argument that people come to their belief first, and then validate it.  I really expected him to have at least done a little reading outside of libertarian literature.

His libertarianism doesn't really sound like Ron Paul libertarianism, though.  He believes in a flat tax, and Ron Paul wants to have no tax at all, and even abolish the IRS.  Some of Shermer's other views are really very moderate also.  He's much more nuanced than he gives himself credit for, but there's no word for "practical libertarianism."  Of course, since I kind of like the guy I may be giving him a pass in order to keep from changing my mind about him!

So... in the end his thesis that people come to their belief first and then find ways to justify it runs through the book but so do other ideas.  He lists the typical biases that a lot of us probably already know about, like confirmation bias.  These aren't dealt with in depth, though.  I wish they were and there was less about libertarianism!

The last section of the book is a long discussion of the development of astronomy as a science, and the scientific method in general.  As we should know (if we had the kind of education we ought to have had), the scientific method includes safeguards against natural biases of the scientists doing the experiments, and of the subjects, if they're human.  He states that his thesis is that people decide what to believe and then rationalize them, but I think the book makes sense as a study of why the scientific method is the best way to arrive at a true result.

The best take-aways:

• People experience mysterious "others" during periods of stress
• The human brain seeks patterns because of evolution
• The human brain seeks an agent because of evolution
• People with an ability to make more connections than others are "creative" but also prone to conspiracy theories, mental illness, and just plain mistakes
• We are prone to fallacies that protect our beliefs
• The scientific method is designed to mitigate against the human brain's faults

It's definitely worth a read for anyone who thinks they are "rational."  I do think atheists who come from religious backgrounds have made that leap of changing our minds so we've cracked a little of our human stubbornness.

What Really Happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus

Recent research may have given us an answer to the question of what really happened to Paul:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html?ref=topbar

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear. He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan. He found that the participants with more significant injury to their right parietal lobe showed an increased feeling of closeness to a higher power.

Since Paul didn't have these experiences at random moments throughout his life, it's possible he had something like an ischemic stroke, or a febrile seizure located just there.  Or perhaps it was just the D.T.s.

The Huffpo article indicates that "spiritual" experiences need not be spiritual.  They can be aesthetic.  I have had aesthetic experiences that were downright spooky, but I understood what they were.  They happened at concerts and it's only happened a few times.  The first was a cello performance when I was in high school.  The second was a jazz performance when I was in college.  The third was the Tokyo String Quartet.  The author of the study has these experiences while listening to Led Zeppelin. 


Is it any wonder that most cultures use music and sometimes dance to induce "spiritual" experiences?  The Huffpo piece mentions "meditation" which is actually less common around the world than music and dance as a tool.  Could the black church in America and other African-influenced religious practices survive without music?  Is it any accident that Rick Warren has a "praise band" and evangelicals use Christian rock to keep the young'uns in line?

Now I have only one more question:  would Jesus play a Fender or a Gibson?

Book Review: Quiet

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/dp/0307352145

I downloaded this to my kindle because it was intriguing and alsobecause the title was unflattering to *extroverts.  Extroverts get on my nerves and I have known many who just don't know how to shut up.

The book draws on scholarly research but instead of being a dry presentation of those results, the author describes events and interviews with a variety of researchers, extroverts, introverts, and introverted pseudo-extroverts. 

There's a huge bias against the extroverts, but of course it made me go *yeah* or *snigger* rather than want to diss the book in this review.

Speaking of this review, why am I writing it?

Well, throughout the book there are hints at the reason why introverted people might be more drawn to atheism, or rather, put off by religion.  First, religion generally involves gathering with other people at least once a week.  That right there is a turn-off.  Then consider that introverts live more inside their own heads than take in stimulation from outside.  Listening to a pastor or even a rousing gospel choir isn't anywhere near as much fun for us as being lost in our own thoughts going in our own direction.  Then follow this torture with "coffee hour," during which we are forced to make cocktail party style small talk without the benefit of a cocktail.

Cain took one for the team by going to Rick Warren's Palace of Emotional Torture, a.k.a. Saddleback Church.  Huge, loud, obnoxious..... I shudder thinking of being there.  Her description was vivid and I felt every twitch of discomfort with her.  Of course there are churches where introverts won't feel overwhelmed, but her description got me thinking about a connection between introversion & atheism.  Ever since seeing the Myers-Briggs skewing of atheists online into the INT- camps, I've wondered if that was a reflection of atheism or of computer geekiness.  After reading this book I'm leaning toward the introversion theory.

We introverts apparently share a lot of qualities other than just recharging our batteries alone rather than at parties.  We can be more sensitive inwardly but also more sensitive to the social cues around us.  We "read" the social enviornment more keenly than extroverts, who basically just get high when they're in their element.  Could this mean we are attuned to the "tells" of the adults around us as children?  Were we the first to suspect that Santa Claus wasn't real, and could we tell that the priest/pastor/rabbi/imam didn't really believe every word they said?  Could our in-touchness put us more in the real world than our in-headness would suggest?  Or do we doubt more because we're just immune to religious group think because we're immune to all kinds of group think?

Wall Street bankers demonstrated the difference between extroverts and introverts quite dramatically:  the extroverts made stupid decisions when they saw the market starting to implode while introverts made more cautious, wiser decisions.  It wasn't so much that introverts are averse to risk (or else why would they be investment bankers in the first place?) but that extroverts get high on adventure, which isn't always a good thing.  Of course, it's not always a good thing not to go for adventure.

I really only skimmed through the chapter on child-rearing, since I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher.  What I remember of it was "yep, yep, yep."  Especially:  group assignments YECH!!!!  And when a kid is passionate about something, they will speak up so points for "class participation" are really just uhhhh talking points.  This chapter was a good complement to the view of the Asian culture of introversion, which coincidentally encourages scholarship, thought, and listening and discourages empty blather.

Perhaps predictably, she includes a yin-yang kind of story: FDR & his wife, quiet Eleanor.  He was an extrovert (as most politicians are) and Eleanor was an introvert.  Their marriage didn't work but as a political couple they complemented each other.  She was the sensitive soul that saw and felt the needs of the poor.  He was the astute and bold politician who could make things happen after she'd raised his awareness.  And she could "come out of her shell" for a cause that ignited her passion.  (The book also talks about how to survive a mixed marriage but I'll spare you that)

So... as an atheist introvert, I could see myself in most of this book, even the parts about introverts who learn to behave like extroverts.  I can bring my work-self to work but I need to get away for breaks to recharge my batteries.  I also related to the part about Asian culture.  I investigated Taoism & Buddhism on my way to skeptical-atheism (a-supernaturalism is too much of a mouthful).  Meditation is more my style than any type of church.  My only fond memories of being a Christian are listening to or performing classical music with the backing of a beautiful old organ.  And even that was a little much for me.

Interestingly, many of us can learn to "fake" being extroverted.  I think I learned how to be extroverted-seeming from my experiences with black people in workplaces where I was the only non-black.  One of my coworkers who didn't have much experience with white people accused me of being snobby... after she felt comfortable with me and vice versa.  I was shocked.  After that I made more of a point of trying to make a good impression, which usually meant acting extroverted, or at least being more open.  Once I got comfortable with the cultures in the various places I've been, I didn't feel like I was being untrue to my real self.  I still kept to myself in my head even though I was cutting up and being outgoing on the outside, if that makes sense.   When we all had to go to Myers-Briggs "training," everyone was surprised that I was an introvert.  Even today, in mostly-white Indiana, I make a point of being more forward with black people, like saying  "Hi don't fear me I'm not a bigot or a snob, m'kay?"  The people I meet here probably have lots of experience with white people but it's second nature for me to be extra friendly toward black people now.   Of course the downside is that white people think I'm sometimes too forward and brash - not midwestern at all.  (I tell them that's my "New York" showing when that happens)

... but I did meet lots of introverted black people in these all-black-but-me workplaces.  My first impression was probably that they didn't like me because I'm white, just as some extroverted people may have thought I was a bigot for being more reserved.  In both cases, after we got to know each other better in our own time everything was cool. See how thought-provoking this book is?  I never gave that a thought before.  The chapter on Asian-American relationships really helped me to see those experienes in a new light.

So... the book has a lot of food for thought and a lot of cheerleading for those of us who have been made to feel there was something wrong with us.  I recommend it for introverts & extroverts alike.

And I want to delve into psychological journals now to see if there really is a relationship between introversion and atheism.  Stay tuned!

*the author intentionally used the common "extrovert" spelling rather than the "correct" spelling, "extravert" so I did the same.