When Professor William James took up today’s question over 100 years ago, he began with the following witty answer, “It depends on the liver.” He then quickly explained that the quip was not intended to be the serious answer the subject certainly deserves. He went on from there to say:
“Without further explanation or apology, then, I ask you to join me in turning an attention, commonly too unwilling, to the profounder bass-note of life. Let us search the lonely depths for an hour together, and see what answers in the last folds and recesses of things our question may find.”
Today’s post leans heavily on James’s essay, which was first delivered as a lecture at Harvard’s YMCA, and later published in his book, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. It is well worth reading, all 30 pages, but blog readers typically enjoy something more compact. So, here’s my take on some of his main points.
James’s Introduction to Our Topic
The good professor first covers the fact that to most the question of whether or not life is worth living hardly ever comes up, so intent are they to live every moment that they have. Others, spend most of their lives questioning whether it would be better to enter into the peace of being consigned to the earth. And then there are those who drift back and forth. After a poetic discourse of these different types, James delves into what we might say if we meet someone who indeed is questioning whether it would be better just to end it all.
Those Who Never Raise the Question, “To Be, Or Not To Be?”
Professor James uses the poet, Walt Whitman, as example of this type of person. “The mere joy of living is so immense in Walt Whitman’s veins,” says James, “that it abolishes the possibility of any other kind of feeling.” He goes on from here to quote one of Whitman’s poems, which I shall reproduce in abbreviated form below:
“To breathe the air, how delicious! To speak, to walk, to seize something by the hand!… I sing the endless finales of things I say Nature continues–glory continues. I praise with electric voice, For I do not see one imperfection in the universe, And I do not see one cause or result lamentable at last.”
As you can plainly see, if such sentiments as this exists permanently in all of us, there would be no reason for today’s post.
Those Who Often Wonder If It Would Be Better For Them To Be Dead
Here James illustrates this attitude by quoting a poem titled, The City of Dreadful Night, by James Thomson.
James Thomson
“My wine of life is poison mixed with gall, My noonday passes in a nightmare dream, I worse than lose the years which are my all: What can console me for the loss supreme?
Speak not of comfort where no comfort is, Speak not at all: can words make foul things fair? Our life’s a cheat, our death a black abyss: Hush, and be mute, envisaging despair.”
For those who hold the sentiment of Walt Whitman, such dark and foul sentiments of James Thomson may seem hard to believe. But I recently came face to face with someone who struggled mightily with them. A very dear friend of mine was diagnosed a couple of years ago with Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), and he passed away this past week. As he steadily, physically declined, he began to communicate more and more in terms that were eerily like those of Mr. Thomson’s. I began to wonder if there were any words that I could say that could somehow lift his spirit. I did my best, drawing upon the advice that William James offered in the next part of his essay.
William James’s Advice
Professor James begins this part of his essay with the following words:
“To come immediately to the heart of my theme, then, what I propose is to imagine ourselves reasoning with a fellow-mortal who is on such terms with life that the only comfort left him is to brood on the assurance, ‘You may end it when you will.’ What reasons can we plead that may render such a brother (or sister) willing to take up the burden again?”
Professor James notes that for religious minded people, one typical answer is to point out that God alone is master of life and death and it is a blasphemous act to anticipate his absolving hand. If this proves successful, James seems kind of okay with it, but for him, personally, it somehow seems a bit shallow. As he puts it, “But can we find nothing richer or more positive than this, no reflections to urge whereby the suicide may actually see, and in all sad seriousness feel, that in spite of adverse appearances even for him life is still worth living?”
At this point, Professor James hastens to confess that nothing he has to say will be able to prevent all suicides. If we make an effort to help and despite this, the person ends his or her life, “cases like these belong to the ultimate mystery of evil, concerning which I can only offer considerations tending toward religious patience at the end of this hour.”
That said, his appeal consists in the sweeping away of certain views that often keep the springs of life compressed, and holding up to the light of day certain considerations calculated to let loose these springs in a natural way. Today’s cognitive behavior therapist and humanistic psychologists use a somewhat similar approach, but James’s essay focused more then they typically do on a particular set of religious themes.
He tells us that certain people who have grown up with a religious background, find that as they get older what they were taught and came to sincerely believe is not meshing well with their personal experiences. They observe that their own actions don’t accord with every teaching of the scriptures, and guilt begins to mount. And they begin to learn in science based teachings that the world was not created a few thousand years ago in six days, the animal kingdom evolved in a manner very differently than their religious stories, and when some of this science stuff seems to make sense to them, they feel they are engaging in blasphemy. They feel confused and fearful. Thus, Professor James tells us,
“Too much questioning and too little active responsibility lead, almost as often as too much sensualism does, to the edge of the slope, at the bottom of which lie pessimism and the nightmare or suicide view of life.”
Fortunately, for many, “there are two stages of recovery…two different levels upon which one may emerge from the midnight view to the daylight view of things.”
Stage One
The first stage involves an act of rebellion against early religious teachings. To those thinking of suicide, we can encourage them to exult in their emancipation from belief in the authoritarian God that would have us cowering and trembling at our every mistake and every setback. Here, James quotes the philosopher, Thomas Carlyle:
Thomas Carlyle
“‘Hast not a heart; canst thou not suffer whatsoever it be; and as a Child of Freedom, though outcast, trample Tophet itself under thy feet while it consumes you? Let it come then; I will meet it and defy it!’ And as I so thought, there rushed like a stream of fire over my whole soul; and I shook base Fear away from me forever…”
From here, some people, once emancipated, find a humaner God than their earlier authoritarian one that pressed their springs down so tightly they could hardly breathe freely. Others become converts from all theology, and report that having become free of the impossible idol they experienced a tremendous happiness within their soul. As Professor James describes this stage of mere emancipation:
“With evil simply taken as such, men can make short work, for their relations with it then are only practical. It looms up no longer so spectrally, it looses its haunting and perplexing significance, as soon as the mind attacks the instances singly, and ceases to worry about their derivation from the ‘one and only Power.'”
Once the springs of vitality are let loose in this way, without the burden of infinite responsibility, many experience an immense relief. Meanwhile, whatever is causing the suffering “can be tolerated for another twenty-four hours longer, if only to see what tomorrow’s newspaper will contain, or what the next postman will bring.”
Stage Two
Professor James believed that for some suicidal folks, once they have reached the first stage, it may be possible to incite a fighting spirit within. Identify one or more perceived evil from their perspective, and make appeals to help to overthrow it. Professor James explains,
It is, indeed, a remarkable fact that sufferings and hardships do not, as a rule, abate the love of life; they seem, on the contrary, usually to give it a keener zest…. Need and struggle are what excite and inspire us; our hour of triumph is what brings the void.
From these words, James encourages us to use inspiring narratives of those who, through acts of courage, made a real and wonderful difference. In the essay, Professor James’s examples are very dated. Therefore, readers may prefer to turn to my coming of age trilogy for this purpose because modern readers will find it far easier to make personal connections with the characters.
In closing today’s post, permit me to say that I well understand that there is so much more that can be said on this most serious subject. I present these ideas of Professor James, not as dogmatic approaches, or the only reasonable approaches, but rather, as an effort to explore some options one highly respected individual believed worthwhile.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Millions of people experience one or more episodes of depression during their lifetime. At such times, many fear that if news of this were to get out it would diminish the level of respect people have for them. Attempting to avoid the stigma of being viewed as having a mental illness, they shy away from revealing what they are experiencing.
Some promote the idea that depression is a disease with genetic factors playing an important role in its development. This line of thinking is theorized to reduce stigma because it reduces any blame for the person who is having the experience. But others say that promoting the idea that this group of people have faulty genes will actually increase stigma even if it does reduce blame.
With this as background, let’s take a look at the research regarding the genetic influence on depression. Then I’ll chime in on how I think we can better help to reduce stigma for people who become depressed.
A couple of weeks later, Peter Simons, writing for the excellent website, Mad in America, summarized the research article, making it far more accessible to the average reader. It can be retrieved from the internet for free HERE. I heartily recommend it.
Photo credit: Pixabay
Very briefly, Peter Simons explains that after many failed attempts by researchers to find a genetic basis for depressed mood, a 2003 study claimed to have discovered a link between depression and a genotype known as 5-HTTLPR.
“The 2003 study has earned a celebrity status in the literature on genetics and psychiatry, having been cited over 4000 times. However, it has also been the subject of controversy. Researchers have noted that studies finding such powerful genetic effects often turn out to be false positives. Indeed, the conclusions of the 2003 study have been questioned by numerous researchers who failed to replicate their initial result.”
The current study attempted to replicate the initial findings with a large sample of over 38,000 people of European ancestry, using methods that are viewed as “rigorous best practices.” The team of researchers involved in the study found that the presence of the 5-HTTLPR genotype did not increase a risk of depression, even in those who experienced significant life stressors and traumatic events. However, as expected, stress and trauma by themselves were strongly associated with the development of depression.
Peter Simons adds that the researchers also wanted to determine if a particular subgroup of people might be at increased risk of depression when they had the 5-HTTLPR genotype, even though they found no such effect for the general population.
“They conducted further analyses and found that there were no subgroups for whom this genetic basis of depression was significant. That is, the researchers were unable to find a single group for whom this genetic component plays a role. Instead, their data confirmed yet again the most consistent finding in depression literature–stress and trauma are strongly linked with depressive symptoms, and genetics are not.”
If We Can’t Blame It On Genetics, How Else Can We Seek to Reduce Stigma?
As we have seen above, the argument that depression is a genetic disease currently has little scientific support. Nevertheless, there are people who will continue to insist that it is due to genetics because some research indicates that if you have family members who experience depression, you are at an increased risk of also having this type of experience.
One of the difficulties in interpreting this line of research has to do with the plain fact that we all experience a good deal of suffering in our lives. Where are we to draw the line between those who are experiencing the usual amount of suffering given their life circumstances and those who are experiencing more than the usual amount?
As someone who is familiar with how this line is drawn in practice, I can say with confidence that it is pretty blurry. Moreover, just because some human characteristic runs in families does not mean that those with that characteristic have a disease or illness. I have seen research that creativity, musical talent, athleticism, shyness, risk taking, political affiliation, and many other characteristics as well, run in families. Are all such characteristics to be viewed as diseases?
Some view people who are prone to have depression experiences as having an artistic temperament. Many learn to appreciate these visits of melancholy as something of extraordinary value. Thus, in an earlier post titled William James’s Personal Bout With a “Mental Disorder,” we looked at how the brilliant psychologist and philosopher came to view his “bass notes of experience.” On this subject, he wrote that many so called “healthy-minded” individuals believe that those who worry are “morbid-minded” and “diseased,” but it may very well be true that “the world’s meaning most comes home to us when we lay them most to heart.”
Some argue that what makes depression a disease is that it is a risk factor for reduced productivity and suicide. There are many examples of people who, when they become depressed, take to their beds for a period of time. And indeed, some people who become depressed, though not most, will violently end their lives.
To get some community and government support for people as they go through these wrenching experiences of depression, currently we have to, for bureaucratic reasons, treat depression as if it is an illness. I am not seeking to eliminate this support, though I bemoan the fact that for many the only support that is offered is a prescription for drugs which I believe in the long run leads to far more harm then good.
In principle, there really is no necessity to provide support only for people who are deemed ill. Communities and governmental agencies have long provided support for people who have suffered from floods, drought, fire damage, and poverty. I believe it would be more helpful to offer support to people who become bed-ridden or suicidal without pathologizing.
To counter stigmatizing these individuals, it is far better than pathologizing their experience if we focus on pointing to the numerous examples of people, such as Abraham Lincoln, who suffered deeply from depression experiences, and yet made enormous contributions to our society. Equally important is to explain that simply being at an increased risk for something doesn’t mean someone has a disease. Risk takers, such as the Wright brothers, are well known to be at an increased risk of an early death, but that characteristic allows some folks to bravely enter into a tiny capsule to explore the moon.
We need a variety of people to do great things, and indeed some of these varieties are riskier than others. Nevertheless, it is misleading to place them in the disease category. It is high time that we diminished respect for converting more and more basic human characteristics into terms denoting diseases, and instead develop a deeper respect for the grand sweep of humanity.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Currently, in many countries a wide variety of children are being classified as having ADHD and placed on a regimen of consuming psychiatric drugs. Supporters of this trend often cast a disrespectful eye toward their critics while arguing that scientific research supports their position. Meanwhile, equally scientific minded individuals who have looked at the same research come up with a completely different set of conclusions. So, about once a year I take a look at the most current research to see if I can throw some light on this topic.
Last year, for example (see HERE), I reported on a study that suggested that:
Children and adolescents who take medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show decreased bone density, according to a large cross-sectional study that appeared in theJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics.
I also reported last year on another study that provided the latest replication of other studies indicating that drug treatment provides no lasting benefits for students classified as having ADHD.
Factors looked at were academic achievement and social functioning. Although the medicated ADHD students didn’t do any better or worse on these measures then the unmedicated ADHD students, they did endure many uncomfortable side effects while they were on the ADHD drugs, such as sleep problems, headaches, stomach aches, and feelings of depression each evening when the drug wore off. Thousands of dollars per child were consumed on purchasing the medications that achieved some modest short term gains but had no lasting positive effects.
How about this year? Are there any new studies that throw light on the ADHD controversy?
The Latest Study
The April 2017 issue of Lancet Psychiatry contains a write-up of a studythat looked at the largest data set to date to see if people who have been labelled as having ADHD had some difference in certain regions of their brains than people who were not labelled (the control group). The sample comprised 1713 participants labelled as having ADHD and 1529 controls from 23 sites with a median age of 14 years (range 4–63 years).
Of the 8 areas of the brain that they looked at using MRI scans, 6 were statistically smaller for the group of ADHD labelled people when compared to the control group, but this statistical difference was only found for the group of children younger than 15. When the study looked at these regions of the brains of adults, there were no statistically significant differences.
The authors claimed that their analysis supports the theory that ADHD is due to a delay in the brain maturing. Finally, they concluded that their study contained important messages for clinicians: “The data from our highly powered analysis confirm that patients with ADHD do have altered brains and therefore that ADHD is a disorder of the brain. This message is clear for clinicians to convey to parents and patients, which can help to reduce the stigma that ADHD is just a label for difficult children and caused by incompetent parenting. We hope this work will contribute to a better understanding of ADHD in the general public” (p. 7).
Media Coverage of the Latest Study
Even before the study was published in the April 2017 issue, media outlets rushed to cover the story. Here is a sampling of headlines:
Critical Analysis
Dr. CorriganRobert Whitaker
Shortly after the publication of this study, two people with impressive scientific credentials, Michael W. Corrigan, Ed.D. and Robert Whitaker, thoroughly analyzed it, and concluded that the study is very misleading and they are calling for it to be retracted. Their entire analysis, which I highly recommend, is available for free HERE. For my readers, I will summarize a few of its key points.
The authors refute the study’s conclusion that it found that people labelled as having ADHD have smaller brain volumes. Thus they state:
“In this study, the authors pooled together MRI brain-scan data for the 3,242 participants in the study (which had been collected and archived at the 23 sites), and then calculated, for each cohort, mean intracranial volumes and mean volumes of specific brain regions. They reported the differences for each of these comparisons and the “effect size” of the differences. This is the critical aspect of the results to consider and understand: effect sizes reveal the true strength of the findings and how much overlap there is between the individual brain volumes in both groups, and thus establish the likelihood that an individual in the ADHD group has a smaller brain volume than an individual in the control group.
The biggest effect size that was found was .19. This was for differences in the mean volume of a region known as the accumbens for ADHD labelled children under 15 years of age. An effect size of 3, which is the largest effect size one can obtain using this type of statistic, would have suggested that pretty much all of the children in the study that were labelled as having ADHD had a distinctly smaller volume in that region than controls. An effect size of 2 would have suggested a distinctly weaker relationship and that some of the children in the ADHD group did not have smaller volumes than the control group, some in the ADHD group had larger volumes than the control group, and some of the control group had smaller than average volumes in that region and yet showed no signs of ADHD. An effect size of 1 would have indicated even a weaker relationship. The effect size of .19 is less than a fifth the size of 1, that is, about a small an effect size as you can imagine. (To learn more about what an effect size is, access this article by Robert Coe: It’s the effect size, stupid.) The critique summarizes this issue as follows:
“In short, if you just flipped a coin to guess which of the two cohorts the child belonged to, your odds of being right would be nearly the same. The diagnostic value of an MRI brain scan, based on the findings in this study, would be of little more predictive value than the toss of a coin.”
Perhaps the best way to understand this is to look at the individual site data. Thus, the study’s authors reported that the “volumes of the accumbens, amygdala, caudate, hippocampus, putamen, and intracranial volume were smaller in individuals with ADHD compared with controls in the mega-analysis” (p. 1). If this is true, then smaller brain volumes should show up in the data from most, if not all, of the 21 sites that had a control group. But that was not the case.
Here are summaries of individual site results:
Mean accumbens volumes: At 4 sites, the volume for the ADHD cohort was actually larger than for the control, and at another 6 sites, the mean volumes were basically of equal size.
Mean amygdala volumes: At 5 sites, the mean volume for the ADHD cohort was larger than for the controls, and of equal size at 4 others.
Mean caudate volumes: At 5 sites, the mean volume for the ADHD cohort was larger than for the controls, and of equal size at 2 others
Mean hippocampus volumes: At 7 sites, the volume for the ADHD cohort was larger than for the controls, and of equal size at 4 others.
Mean putamen volumes: At 5 sites, the volume for the ADHD cohort was larger than for the controls, and of equal size at 1 other.
Mean intracranial volumes: At 5 sites, the volume for the ADHD cohort was larger than for the controls.
“The problem here is obvious,” says the writers of this critique. “If the authors are claiming that smaller brain regions are a defining ‘abnormality’ of ADHD, then such differences should be consistently found in mean volumes of ADHD cohorts at all sites. The fact that there was such variation in mean volume data is one more reason to see the authors’ conclusions—that smaller brain volumes are a defining characteristic of ADHD—as unsupported by the data.”
The critique goes on to mention a number of other serious problems with this study. For example, in a scientific study we look for possible sources of bias. The critique correctly points out that this study was written by an authors’ group that included many who had close ties to pharmaceutical companies that sell ADHD medications. We can also surmise that some, if not all, of the authors who do not currently have ties to these pharmaceutical companies may hope to land in the future financially rewarding speaking fees sponsored by these companies.
There are many other serious weaknesses with this study that the critique points out, but since it is readily available for free, I’ll end my summary here. My own conclusion is this. The study’s results are highly questionable. Particularly troubling is the suggestion by the study’s authors that their findings will help to reduce stigma. How in the world does telling people that ADHD people have smaller brains help to reduce stigma for that group of people? Moreover, even if we found enough evidence to conclude that there are some differences in the brains of people being labelled ADHD, this would still not lead us to conclude they have a brain disorder. A difference is not automatically a disorder. Having people with different brains can be a wonderful thing. For example, it can mean that some people will prefer to work sitting all day, while others prefer to do work requiring lots of activity. We need both types of people, and other types as well, to enrich our lives.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today’s topic, “payback.” There are a couple of definitions for payback, so to be clear, I’m referring to a tactic involving punishing someone, or a group of people, for something done in the past. Synonyms include revenge, reprisal, retaliation, retribution, and vengeance.
When discussing a topic such as this, it helps to utilize a vivid narrative that is not only illustrative, but also provides some emotionality to the topic. G. B. Trudeau, with his Doonesbury comic strip, is a master at this. Recently, he has been turning his impactful colorful art to President Donald Trump’s style of dealing with people.
For example, in this panel from a recent comic, we see a caricature of Trump insulting several news outlets. Whenever the president has been asked why he has been utilizing these types of insults, he claims that the other side started it. He’s just getting back at them, he explains, because they insulted him first.
After that caricature of Trump, Trudeau published the following:
Now, before we move on, I want to make it clear that I am not here today to claim that the above comic scenario is a factual depiction of anything currently going on in President Trump’s administration. Sure, Trudeau probably believes the scenario does capture something of the president’s style of leadership, but whether or not he is correct is not the point of today’s discussion. Let’s just utilize the narrative to help us seek out what lies deep below the surface of the “payback” tactic.
On the surface, of course, all that many people see is a simple understanding that can be stated thusly: “It is proper to do something bad to anyone who does something bad to you, for that is only fair.” But, there is considerably more to see if only we are willing to look a little deeper.
In the comic, TRFF, the guy with a mustache and cigar, views himself as an authoritarian and is just delighted that he has been appointed Deputy Director of Payback. Let’s begin our exploration below the surface with a quick discussion of what it means to be an authoritarian.
What Does It Mean to be an Authoritarian?
According to Wikipedia,
“An authoritarian leadership style is being used when a leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates. This leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group.[1] The leader has a vision in mind and must be able to effectively motivate their group to finish the task. The group is expected to complete the tasks under very close supervision, while unlimited authority is granted to the leader. Subordinate’s responses to the orders given are either punished or rewarded.”
Now we can contrast this authoritarian leadership style with one that may be referred to as an “authoritative” approach. There are several very different descriptions of an authoritative leader, so, to be clear, what I mean by this is the following:
An authoritative leader provides a vision of the group’s goals, somewhat like an authoritarian leader, but there is a distinctly more willingness to engage in verbal give and take with regards to how the common goals are to be articulated and achieved. Moreover, the leader is far more likely to be forgiving of shortcomings as the group operates, viewing them as an opportunity to problem solve how best to move forward. Authoritative leaders are less controlling as authoritarians, allowing group members to explore more freely, thus having them make their own decisions based upon their own reasoning. Authoritative leaders seek to encourage more independent and self-reliant group members.
Perhaps one of the best known leaders who embodied the authoritative style of leadership was Nelson Mandela. After serving 27 years in jail for seeking justice for the majority of South African people, he had plenty of reasons to seek payback. But in a speech delivered to the European Parliament in 1990, he stated:
“Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.”
Throughout his leadership as the president of South Africa, he advocated forgiveness toward his former oppressors, and served his country with a smile full of wisdom and kindness.
Back to the Payback Tactic
In contrast to the image that many people have of Nelson Mandela’s leadership style, take another look at the caricature in the Doonesbury comic of a authoritarian in charge of payback for the president’s administration. As a response to some guy who is disloyal to the administration, TRFF says that if it was up to him, he’d throw the guy out of a plane. TRFF is just loving the fact that he gets to demean, threaten, or fire people every day.
How effective are punishments of this type? In the short run, there are people who are willing to Kowtow to them, but there is a spirit within that slowly begins to get riled, and danger lurks below. It is not always easy to see this in the muddy complexity of large organizations, but search your own heart and you will know of its existence.
Doing scientific research to demonstrate the problems involved in using the payback approach has always been challenging. Real life is so much more complicated than the types of approaches that can be systematically studied scientifically. However, when such studies contrast punishment with a reward, the results indicate that people view those who use a reward approach as both more attractive and more likely to gain compliance.
A while back, I heard about a company that had been having a hard time getting its workers to arrive on time. The company executives had a policy of punishing those who came late by docking their pay. Not only didn’t this work well, but the workers became bitter toward the executives, and many workers, after being trained at great expense, would soon leave for employment at competing companies.
When the company executives decided to discuss these problems directly with the employees, they came up with an alternative approach to the lateness problem. No longer would the employees be punished, but instead, each month an employee came to work without being late a single time, he or she was rewarded with a monetary bonus. This dramatically decreased lateness, and increased the respect the employees had for their executives, who became more open to involving the employees on how developing goals were to be carried out. The results were spectacular. An enormous amount of money was saved because of the decrease in the downtime of productivity from lateness and a reduction in recidivism.
Recently, President Trump advocated that the current US health plan be replaced with a new health care law. He was unable to get enough votes for its passage. Will he now unleash the dogs of payback? Should he?
Please let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment in the Comment Section at the bottom of this blog post.
In closing, here’s hoping you found some food for thought in today’s post, and you soon join us again right here at From Insults to Respect.
———————————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we take up the question, can the science minded and religious minded legitimately take up an attitude of mutual respect?
There are, of course, people who fervently believe that opinions that do not rest firmly on the broad shoulders of scientific evidence are nothing more than superstition. Many of these individuals, as soon as they hear that a person is religious, give off vibes of disdain.
Meanwhile, there are religious folks who believe that science minded individuals have led to a world of atomic energy catastrophes, billowing coal chimneys, people with their noses in their devices while tending to their babies, etc. In their hearts, these religious folks angrily believe that the science minded are leading humanity down a filthy, destructive path.
Then there are people who richly agree with Albert Einstein when he wrote, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Oftentimes, these differing beliefs are embedded in hearts so bound up with barbed wire that probably nothing I can say will produce any significant change. I get that. Nevertheless, I am determined to present a view that might move a few folks from where they currently stand on this issue to where the view is distinctly more rewarding. I, myself, underwent a distinct change in attitude with regards to the respect I hold toward folks with differing attitudes on this topic, so perhaps my goal is not entirely hopeless.
We’ll begin with a quick look at the nature of science and religion from the perspective of psychologist and philosopher William James and the physicist Albert Einstein. Then, I’ll share my own views on the compatibility of the two realms of understanding. A little paragraph written by Albert Einstein will bring today’s discussion to a kind of conclusion. Of course, the real conclusion is open ended because of the discussions that will continue long after this post has been published.
The Nature of Science and Religion
William James made a distinction between two orders of inquiry concerning anything.
“First, what is the nature of it? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, What is its importance, meaning, or significance, now that it is once here? The answer to the one question is given in an existential judgment or proposition. The answer to the other is a proposition of value…. Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together.”
As Einstein put it, “It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space.” With these rules, we are able to predict the behavior of phenomenon in certain domains, sometimes with incredible precision. For example, the position of the planets within our solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a number of simple laws.
Religion, in contrast, seeks to deliberately nurture the moral sense. For Einstein, “A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value.”
Now, although science and religion are two orders of inquiry that are not deduced immediately from the other, we can choose to utilize both according to our own values. Consider a married couple, Laura and Harry, along with their greatest treasures, two beautiful children.
The Laura and Harry Parable
Laura and Harry live in Syracuse, New York. It is Christmas time, so they are wondering about the wisdom of driving the family to New York City for a visit with their parents. They are aware of information acquired according to sound scientific methods that indicate an increased risk of a deadly crash in this region during this time of year.
As Christmas day approaches, at church their minister gives a stirring presentation on the importance of honoring your mother and father. Moreover, he presents a beautiful picture of families uniting during the holidays. From Laura and Harry’s religious experience at church, family values are placed alongside the driving risks that science has provided.
Laura and Harry decide to drive to New York City, but make sure that all seat belts are properly fastened because science methodology indicates that this can reduce harm in case of an accident.
From this little parable, we see that in making the decision to go to New York City, Laura and Harry chose to consider science information while also considering values that were enriched by their religious experience.
The Compatibility of Science and Religion
Did Laura and Harry make the right decision? The question may seem easy if they had a great time and came back uninjured. But what if they had had a terrible accident? Would this require that they conclude that they had made the wrong decision? Can science answer this question?
No. Science can provide a statement like the following: 22,272 families drove over 300 miles through terrain that was similar to the terrain Laura and Harry drove during the Christmas season. Of these, there were 14 families that sustained an auto accident injury and 4 deaths. Going beyond statements of this type takes us out of the realm of science. People still have to decide what is right or wrong based on their values and whatever information they believe is most relevant to them.
If some, upon hearing that the family ended up having a terrible accident, concluded Laura and Harry made the wrong decision, they would be entitled to their opinion. And if some, upon hearing that the family had a terrible accident, refuse to second guess Laura and Harry’s decision, respecting their right to choose between complete safety and seeing their extended family during Christmas, they too would be entitled to their opinion.
Some Arguments Against and For the Compatibility of Science and Religion
Now, some science minded folks well recognize that some decisions must be made before the availability of sufficient scientific evidence. They argue that in such cases, they don’t need any religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong, they can decide that perfectly well on their own. I, for one, am on friendly terms with these people. I am not seeking to force religion on them. At the same time, I know there are people who choose to participate in a religion, valuing the stirring lessons from their clergy, the social connections, and the community support for worthy causes. They choose to use some of what they experience by being a member of their religion to make some of their decisions. I, for one, am on friendly terms with them. I don’t see the sense of automatically disdaining either the science minded or religious minded.
Some people in the science camp like to point to several religious related incidents, such as planes crashing into the World Trade buildings, in order to condemn all religion. But there were people in the science camp during the religious hating Soviet Revolution that participated in the slaughter of millions. Moreover, during the Nazi regime, Hitler found plenty of science minded people willing to aid in the carrying out of atrocities.
Yes, we can find within both groups people with whom we very much disagree. At the same time, it has been my experience that as I have gotten to know religious and science minded folks, most turned out to be decent and well worth respecting.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty science minded people have with religion is that it promotes magical thinking. I hasten to point out that not all religions do so. For example, the Transcendentalists, with Ralph Waldo Emerson as one of their most eloquent writers, embraced principles of science. The Dalai Lama, as well, presents us a religion very open to what science can teach us.
Let me add as well, with regards to this magical thinking issue, that many people who view themselves as religious, well recognize the magical thinking that appears in their scriptures, but do not accept them. Instead, they view them as comforting to those who don’t have a scientific mind, then they slip by those sections of scripture to those that they more highly value. We can liken it to a guy who recognizes that his mother holds some beliefs with which he completely disagrees, but he continues to love her for all the other aspects of her life that so beautifully nourishes his existence.
Yet, another issue regularly arises when the science versus religion issue comes up. This one has to do with the wisdom of remaining skeptical until we have sound science evidence to support our position. I can see some merit in that. At the same time, in real life circumstances, a question comes up regarding just what is the point at which our opinion should be coerced by the existence of sound science? Bear in mind that there was not so very long ago a procedure known as lobotomies. This brain surgical procedure was viewed as being backed by such solid scientific evidence that powerful people were able to involuntarily subject less powerful folks to the scalpel. It didn’t turn out well, at least not for those who had part of their brains gouged out.
Then there were scientists who assured us that the Fukushima nuclear power plant was safe. In the end, it poisoned a beautiful sea side section of our planet. So, there are good people who are hesitant to accept what science folks tell us. Is it wise to treat them with disdain, or to remain on friendly terms with them while respectfully disagreeing?
In his essay titled, “The Will To Believe,” William James, despite considerably lacking himself the religious sentiment, brilliantly defends his father’s religious beliefs. James points out that in most areas of human life, science simply has not come far enough to determine with any great precision what is the most favorable road to travel. The variables that in a controlled lab seem somewhat predictable frequently become entangled in so many other variables out in the more natural world that we must make decisions as best that we can, guided by nonscientific lights. Having some faith, even without sufficient scientific evidence, may be helpful.
“Do you like me or not?—for example. Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. The previous faith on my part in your liking’s existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt […] ten to one your liking never comes. […] The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth’s existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts.”
For James, some people possess a strong religious sense, others less so, and others find a void in that section of their brain. Where is the evidence that any one of these types are somewhat less human, or less worthy of respect? Perhaps there is some value in having some diversity within the human species.
In concluding this post, I leave you with a quote from Einstein, who encouraged us to “not only tolerate differences between individuals and between groups, but we should indeed welcome them and look upon them as an enriching of our existence. That is the essence of all true tolerance; without tolerance in this widest sense there can be no question of true morality.”
——————–
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
One day I was watching Donald Trump’s first news conference since he became president. There, the remarks that I found most interesting had to do with his expressed outrage about how hateful the press has been toward him. The first time it came up, he was asked the following question by a reporter:
“I just want to get you to clarify this very important point. Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign? And on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?”
Here’s the Trump’s reply:
“Well, the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it. Because there’s nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit but the reporters, good reporters.
“It’s very important to me and especially in this position. It’s very important. I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.”
The hate issue came up a few minutes later when a reporter asked:
“And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl was asking you about. You said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake. I guess I don’t understand. It seems that there’s a disconnect there. If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake?”
Trump begins to look exasperated, and then replies:
“The reporting is fake. Look, look… You know what it is? Here’s the thing. The public isn’t — you know, they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life. But I’m involved. So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not. I just see many, many untruthful things.
“And I’ll tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.
“I watched this morning a couple of the networks. And I have to say, Fox & Friends in the morning, they’re very honorable people. They’re very — not because they’re good, because they hit me also when I do something wrong. But they have the most honest morning show. That’s all I can say. It’s the most honest.
“But the tone, Jim. If you look — the hatred. The, I mean, sometimes — sometimes somebody gets… Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network.”
Now, the reason I found these remarks from Trump so interesting is that throughout his campaign seeking the presidency, his tone, along with his very words, were filled with hatred and venom toward the press and many other individuals and groups as well. At each of his rallies, he regularly pointed to where the media had gathered and cried out things like, “There’s the press standing over there. Don’t we just hate the media, they are such liars!” Then when the crowd would start getting riled up, and throwing things at the press, he cheered them on. More recently, he has taken to calling the press the enemy of the people using a tone of voice that is pretty far from flattery.
If any of you saw the last debate between him and Secretary Clinton, you will no doubt recall how he called her evil in a tone that mustered as much venom as anyone that I’ve personally seen. At moments he has backed off some of his most hateful rhetoric, but more often he has regularly returned to it.
At the news conference I’ve been discussing, he stated, in what struck me as a hateful tone,
“We’ve been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible; just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening.”
Now, there were a great deal of people involved in negotiating these contracts and many individuals are currently working hard to do right by them, but Trump threw out this blanket statement. These types of comments are modeling for all to see, hateful rhetoric.
I could well understand why Trump would want the people and the press to treat him, rather then hatefully, respectfully. But if this is true and he therefore wants to encourage people of the press, and others to use respectful tones and language, perhaps he would be wise to start modeling what this looks like when he himself communicates.
A great model to consider as an alternative to Trump’s style is that of John F. Kennedy’s. Over the whole of his presidency, Kennedy averaged a 70.1 percent approval rating, comfortably the highest of any post-World War II president. By comparison, the average for all presidents between 1938 and 2012 is 54 percent. Trump, last I looked, was at about 40 percent.
Lyndon Johnson
In 1960, both Senator Kennedy and Senator Lyndon Johnson were seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. At the convention, with both side by side, Johnson criticized Kennedy for missing some important senate meetings because he was on the road campaigning. Kennedy replied,
“I, uh, found it extremely beneficial serving in the Senate with Senator Johnson as leader. I think if I emerge as successful in this convention it would be as a result of watching Senator Johnson proceed around the Senate for the last eight years.”
Kennedy, then turns to look directly at Johnson and said:
“I have learned the lesson well, Lyndon, and I hope it will benefit me in the next twenty-four hours.”
Kennedy then turns back to the larger audience.
“It is true that Senator Johnson made a wonderful record in answering those quorum calls, and I want to commend him for it. I, uh, was not present on all of those occasions…. So, I come to you today full of admiration for Senator Johnson, full of affection for him, strongly in support of him for majority leader, and in that position we’re all going to work together. Thank you.”
This is an amazing contrast to President Trump’s style of dealing with anyone who criticizes him.
An additional lesson that we can learn from looking at Kennedy’s style was his willingness to take responsibility for things that did not go as well as he desired during his administration.
On April 17th, 1961, Kennedy ordered what became known as the “Bay of Pigs Invasion”: 1,500 U.S.-trained Cubans landed on the island in an attempt to overthrow the country’s dictator, Fidel Castro. The plan failed within three days.
Many felt Kennedy was guilty of doing something terribly wrong, and more than a few insults were hurled at him. However, when he went before the press, he took responsibility for the failure, and pledged to take several specific steps to make sure that what happened would never happen again. Immediately afterwards his approval rating spiked, going up to 83 percent, the highest level of his presidency.
From my own experience, I have learned that using a similar type of response can be very helpful. When I find that someone has a conflict with me because of something that I have done, I have often been able to turn angry feelings into a respectful resolution by making it clear that I recognize my responsibility in what happened and I plan to take some action to improve.
Now contrast this with what happened at the Trump press conference when a reporter asked him if there were any mistakes that he made when he wrote his executive order regarding a travel ban from seven countries. Trump replied,
“Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, may be wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot.
“We had a bad decision. We’re going to keep going with that decision. We’re going to put in a new executive order next week some time. But we had a bad decision.
“That’s the other thing that was wrong with the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports. You had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice busses, and they were put out at various locations.
“Despite that the only problem that we had is we had a bad court. We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision. Very bad for the safety and security of our country. The rollout was perfect.”
Notice that Trump took absolutely zero responsibility for the problems that ensued. This has been his style ever since I’ve been watching him on TV. All problems are due to some other folks, never him.
So, a basic nature of respect is that you can’t get people to stop hating you if you are throwing hate their way. If there is any way to turn people from hate to respect, it is useful to model how you want to be treated by treating others as you want them to treat you. This is the basic Golden Rule. Rather than attack those who criticize you, listen respectfully, and be open to take at least some responsibility for anything with which you might have played a part.
In ending today’s post, I shall leave you with a quote from President Lincoln’s second inaugural address, a period of time when the country was arguably in its greatest conflict. Notice that Lincoln could have expressed great hatred toward those whom he felt were responsible for starting the war. That very likely is the approach our current president would have taken. Here’s Lincoln, currently viewed by many historians as our all time most respected president.
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
With some regularity, former President Trump has been accused of being mentally ill. Here at From Insults to Respect, we’re going today to takea discerning look at this. We’ll begin with some pieces that appeared in the media when he was president, and then see if we can move ahead to make our own informed personal decision.
The Washington Post Article
Bernie Sanders
In a Washington Post article titled, “Bernie Sanders Calls Trump a ‘Pathological Liar’” Ed O’Keefe wrote, “Al Franken says ‘a few’ Republicans think Trump is mentally ill.”
What are the specifics that led to this determination? According to Senator Sanders,
“When somebody goes before you and says that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally …. there is not a scintilla of evidence to believe that, what would you call that remark? It’s a lie. It’s a delusion.”
In the same article, Franken, who was a senator at the time the article was written explains his statement about what he heard from Republicans:
Al Franken
“In the way that we all have this suspicion that — you know, that he’s not — he lies a lot, he says things that aren’t true, that’s the same thing as lying, I guess.”
Having read this article, I came away thinking that there are people who are very sympathetic with what the two senators were trying to say. At the same time, it is also conceivable that the former president knows full well when he is lying but he is using it as a strategy.
Perhaps he has come to believe that many of his most ardent supporters actually believe him when he lies, and it is the media who are telling the lies. Trump may also believe that others of his supporters don’t care that he lies because they believe business folks always exaggerate as they promote their goals, and that Trump is just promoting causes that match their values. Many Americans may therefore see his behavior not as a sign of mental illness, but simply that he is a shrewd businessman.
Finally, Trump may believe that there are other supporters who don’t like it that he lies, but believe that his opponents lie as well. They therefore cancel out this negative, and rely instead on one or more hot button issues such as abortion, immigration, burdensome regulations, health care, etc., for throwing their support behind him. Trump may believe that this group, when combined with those who believe his lies, and those who accept lying as part of doing business, provides him a worthwhile calculated risk that he will have enough support to achieve his personal goals. After all, it worked well enough to get him elected.
Now, to me, some of the solutions Trump was proposing to deal with these issues seemed completely irrational. For example, when he emphatically claimed that if elected he would send back to Mexico the millions of dreamers who had come to the U.S. illegally when they were children, and he was going to get Mexico to pay for building a “beautiful” wall the entire length of our southern border, I could hardly believe my ears. And yet, I soon met quite a few Americans who said that these ideas made perfectly good sense. Does it make sense, therefore that I consider all of these people who disagree with me as having some type of mental illness? What good would that do?
Let’s move on now to take a look at three psychiatrists that object to calling Trump mentally ill.
A Fox News Article
Dr. Keith Ablow
Recently, Fox News published an article by Dr. Keith Ablow titled, “Relax, Trump is Stone Cold Sane.” This doctor is a psychiatrist and a paid member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.
According to Dr. Ablow, the fact that Trump did become elected president is one indication of his soundness of mind. But that, in itself, is not sufficient to give him a clean bill of health. As the doctor explains,
“I should note that nothing I am saying should besmirch the reputations of men like President Abraham Lincoln or Sir Winston Churchill, both of whom are said to have fought the ravages of major depression or bipolar disorder. One was instrumental in ridding America of slavery. The other was instrumental in saving the world from tyranny. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way, also reportedly suffered from depression. Psychiatric illness does not, a priori, disqualify a person from rendering extraordinary service to mankind.”
So, according to Dr. Ablow, if you can become a country’s leader you can still be mentally ill. If that is the case, why then does Dr. Ablow claim that Trump is not mentally ill? It is because, “neither Lincoln nor Churchill nor Gandhi led a nation after becoming a business sensation and television star.”
Hmmm. Well, let’s keep this thought in mind as we move on to hear what another psychiatrist has to say.
Dr. Allen Frances’s Opinion
In the February 14, 2017 edition of the New York Times, there appears a letter to the editor titled, “An Eminent Psychiatrist Demurs on Trump’s Mental State.” The author of the letter is Dr. Allen Frances. In his opinion, “It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).”
Dr. Frances goes on to say in part:
“Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.”
Wow, pretty strong words. As we reflect on this for a few minutes, let’s move on to take a look at one more psychiatric opinion on this subject before we seek to draw our own conclusions.
Dr. Richard A. Friedman’s Opinion
Dr. Richard Friedman
Dr. Friedman’s opinion piece appears in the February 17, 2017 issue of the New York Times. There he tells us that it is unethical for psychiatrists to diagnose mental illnesses in people they have not examined and whose consent they have not received. However, psychiatrists can pretty much get around this principle by describing the common characteristics of a particular mental illness and then say how they might explain Mr. Trump’s behavior. According to a Huffington Post article, several mental health professionals have used this very approach to strongly suggest Trump is mentally ill.
Dr. Friedman then tells us, that even if a doctor did diagnose Trump as mentally ill after a thorough exam, it doesn’t mean he couldn’t be fit to be president. He then concludes:
“So the nation doesn’t need a shrink to help it to decide whether President Trump is fit to serve, mentally or otherwise. Presidents should be judged on the merits of their actions, statements and, I suppose, their tweets. No experts are needed for that — just common sense.”
I fully agree with Dr. Friedman’s conclusion. But it leaves us still up in the air with regards to whether or not it makes sense to view Trump as mentally ill. Let’s see if it makes sense for us to make this judgment for ourselves.
So, Is He, Or Isn’t He?
Since those articles that I discussed above were published, Trump has now been charged with a series of serious crimes regarding taking top secret documents that he was told did not belong to him. Do such actions legitimize viewing him as having a mental illness?
Most doctors would object to untrained individuals making this type of determination, arguing that this should be left to mental health professionals and only by a thorough examination of a patient, a detailed history and all relevant clinical data. This sounds like a pretty thorough way to make a decision as important as this, but from speaking to patients over the years, I’m under the impression that they have been given a so called diagnosis simply by having a discussion with a mental health professional for less than an hour, and often in less than twenty minutes.
The latest version of the DSM, which is used by mental health professions to make this type of determination, states:
“Although no definition can capture all aspects of all disorders in the range contained in the DSM-5, the following elements are required:
“A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognitive, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental process underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expected or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
Notice how broad this definition is. It makes mention of a “disturbance” that reflects a “mental dysfunction in the individual.” The DSM definition doesn’t direct us to any reliable or valid way too assess functioning. The process described in the DSM for assessing the subjective notions of “disturbance” and “dysfunction in the individual” is left to the clinician who decides if these are “clinically significant.” Thus, it provides clinicians an opportunity to include anything that benefits their set of values.
Most clinicians have a financial interest in deciding whether or not their clients have a clinically significant condition. When they judge that their patients’ conditions are significant, they indicate this on the third party intake forms and this allows them to continue to see these clients and to get paid for additional visits. On the other hand, clinicians who work in an underfunded community government clinic that is being swamped by those seeking to access mental health services might apply a more stringent standard for what constitutes a mental disorder. Thus, we can hypothesize that this type of clinical judgment may often be based on financial self-interest or clinic treatment capacity than one based on principles of science.
Let us look a little more at the DSM’s attempt to draw distinctions between what is a mental disorder and what is not. According to the DSM, certain socially deviant behavior and conflicts are not mental disorders, although they may be. If the deviance or conflict results from a “dysfunction in the individual,” then a mental disorder exists in the individual. How does one make this type of distinction? Can it be done in some recognized precise manner? In practice, this too is left to the subjective judgment of the clinician that can be biased by financial interests and the capacity of his or her clinic. Might it also be influenced by political points of view as well?
Upon reading the DSM, we find that there is no documentation that people, whether they are clinicians or not, can reliably and objectively distinguish between those who have mental disorders from those who do not. The whole concept of mentally illness is really used to serve the business interests of the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatrists.
Yes, there are people who act in ways that make no sense to the average Joe or Jill. There are indeed people suffering and concerned about their emotions and behaviors. Labeling someone as mentally ill really fails to clarify what is going on, though it creates the illusion to many that it does.
In my view, we become much wiser when we drop the mental illness descriptors and stick to more specific descriptors of behaviors, attitudes, levels of functioning, and our personal values.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Judy becomes bitter when she finds out that her husband, Glen, lied to her. That bitterness leads to a loss of the tenderness she had for him on their glorious wedding day. Despite efforts by Glen to straighten things out, his previous loving relationship ends in divorce.
Of course, not all incidences of lying end so sadly. Nevertheless, how much respect people have for you can be significantly influenced by perceptions of your truthfulness. Thus, the topic of lying is well worth a From Insults to Respect post.
As regular visitors to this blog well know, it is my habit of utilizing, from time to time, Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour show to provide a literary spin on a topic of interest. To that end, today we’ll turn to his wonderful episode that focused on the theme, “Truth and Lies.” You can listen to the show for free by clicking HERE.
Bob’s Opening Lines
Bob begins his show on truth and lies by lying to us:
Bob Dylan
Heh heh heh…Welcome to the Underground Garage. I’m Little Steven. All right, I’m not little Steven. I’m lying to you. This is Theme Time Radio Hour and today’s show is about veracity and prevarication, and the distance between the two. We’re going to be talking about the gospel truth and dirty lies, big fat lies, little white lies, half-truths, and we’ll be discovering that the truth will set you free…. To start things off, the Chromatics, “Tell a lie.”
There’s some fine sax and great vocal harmonizing on this song, but I found myself a little taken aback with its lyrics. Here are a few of them.
If the truth will hurt someone you love, Tell a lie, tell a lie, tell a lie. If the truth will bring a tear to her eye, Tell a lie, tell a lie, tell a lie.
Yeah, tell her that you love her, If that will make her smile. Though you’re lying you will discover, You’ll mean it after a while.
If the truth will hurt someone you love, Tell a lie, tell a lie, tell a lie.
Hmmm. This song actually has the singers enthusiastically encouraging us to lie. It focuses in on lying to a woman with whom we are developing, hopefully, a loving relationship. I’m not so sure this is sound advice. Let’s see what Bob has to say about this.
If you are going to tell a lie, make it a white lie. The dictionary defines that as an often trivial, diplomatic, or well-intentioned untruth. According to a survey, 4 out of 5 people admit to telling white lies at least once a day, and I’m telling you that that other guy, he’s lying.
Maybe I’m just taking it for granted, but you all know that it is a bad thing to lie. Just so we say it emphatically one time, it is a sin to tell a lie.
Even if lying is a sin, it is only a venal sin. It becomes a mortal sin only when the intention of deceiving risks mortal consequences. And just as a reminder, here are the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust. Let me see, I’m good for about five of them.
Well, after listening to this first part of Bob’s show, I gave it a little thought. As it turns out, although I think of myself as basically an honest guy, if the truth be told, there are times when I told a white lie.
Let’s move a little further into this show to see what else Bob wants to share on this topic.
The Middle of The Show
As the show continues, Bob plays us a sad story about how a lie turned into gossip, and by the end of the day, a guy’s reputation was ruined.
From there, we hear Aretha Franklin doing a soulful version of “Don’t Play that Song.”
Aretha Franklin
Hey mister, don’t play it no more Don’t play it no more I can’t stand it Don’t play it no more (no more), no more (no more), no more, whoa-whoa (can’t stand it) I remember on our first date (ooh) He kissed me and he walked away (ooh) I was only seventeen (ooh) I’d never dream he’d be so mean (ooh)
Here, in Aretha’s heartfelt rendition of this song, we are provided with pretty much the opposite opinion of “Tell a Lie.”
“Don’t Play that Song” was a major hit not only for Aretha, but for several other musical artists. Its popularity is due, at least in part, to it so powerfully capturing the emotional pain that many experience when it becomes apparent that the person they fell in love with has lied about loving them. Such painful memories can last a lifetime.
Mark Twain
A little further along in Bob’s show he provides us a little of what Mark Twain had to say about the truth:
“Always tell the truth. That way you don’t have to remember what you said.”
Then Bob tells us that,
“You probably don’t want to hang around with liars at all. You don’t want to be spending a lot of time trying to second guess everything they say. And you certainly don’t want to have to keep saying what Fats Domino keeps saying in this song.”
The song Bob is referring to is “Don’t Lie to Me.” On this one we hear Fats playing some pretty decent piano rifts while singing the following lyrics:
Well, let’s talk it over Baby from the start I heard about the way you over do your part And don’t you lie to me
Oh don’t you lie to me Because it makes me mad And I’ll get evil as a man can be There is two kinds of people I just can’t stand
And that’s a lyin’ woman and a thievin’ man Oh don’t you lie to me Oh don’t you lie to me Because it makes me mad.
Here we get a sense of the anger and evil that can get stirred up when lying occurs. There are several other wonderful comments and songs in this part of the show, but my time is running short, so let’s move on.
The Closing Few Minutes Of Bob’s Show
The literary side of Bob loves to use some literature in his show to enrich his themes. This show is no exception. Thus, he says:
Carl Sandburg
Before we go, Carl Sandburg wrote a poem about the liars, and it goes like this:
A LIAR goes in fine clothes A liar goes in rags A liar is a liar, clothes or no clothes A liar is a liar and lives on the lies he tells and dies in a life of lies And the stonecutters earn a living—with lies—on the tombs of liars
A liar looks ’em in the eye And lies to a woman, Lies to a man, a pal, a child, a fool And he is an old liar; we know him many years back
A liar lies to nations A liar lies to the people A liar takes the blood of the people And drinks this blood with a laugh and a lie, A laugh in his neck, A lie in his mouth And this liar is an old one; we know him many years He is straight as a dog’s hind leg He is straight as a corkscrew He is white as a black cat’s foot at midnight
The tongue of a man is tied on this, On the liar who lies to nations, The liar who lies to the people. The tongue of a man is tied on this And ends: To hell with ’em all. To hell with ’em all.
Conclusion
Wow, that Sandburg poem packs quite a punch. Utilizing such poetry, along with other items, such as the Bob Dylan show, etc., helps to enrich the part of our brain that deals with lying. I come to that belief from my own experience.
When I was very young, I lied without any forethought. For example, I remember when I was in second grade, one day in the lunchroom a boy at my table announced that he just got a toy Tommy gun for his birthday. Seeing the enthusiastic reaction of some of the guys at my table, I announced that I got one also for my birthday, despite the fact that I hadn’t, and I didn’t even know what a Tommy gun was. The lie just shot right out of my mouth.
Well, immediately after I made this announcement, some of the guys started asking me questions about what a Tommy gun was. I tried to make up some answers, but the guy who actually had the toy, made it pretty clear I didn’t know what I was talking about. Then, a couple of other guys said they wanted to come to my house after school to see my gun. At this point, my red, sweaty face made one more desperate attempt at saving face, and then I hurried away, totally embarrassed.
With experiences like this, along with hearing stories about the trouble other people got into as a result of their lying, I began to catch myself beforehand whenever I was tempted to lie. One of the biggest influences on my ability to have some forethought when it came to lying was meeting a couple of people in high school that displayed a degree of humbleness. I came to admire this. Both appeared comfortable about their shortcomings, and although both had some impressive skills in a few areas, rather than bragging about them, they let their performance speak for themselves. I soon found myself modeling their style, and each time I was tempted to exaggerate something about myself, I found I could catch myself beforehand, and pretty often I chose a more truthful path.
So, there you have it, my From Insults to Respect post for this week. Have a great week, and please join us again real soon.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Empathy, as we have been lately discussing (see HERE and HERE), is crucial for being respected by your friends, coworkers, and community. And fostering empathy in our kids is crucial if we desire that they will grow up with integrity and honor.
Several suggestions have been made in my earlier posts on how best to foster this set of skills, including the value of reading literature. But in a recent post in another blog, Engaging Peace, the messageofthe literature approachwasdelivered in such a powerful manner, that I decided to devote a whole post on my own blog just on this topic.
The Engaging Peace Post
In the Engaging Peace post, the author, Kathleen Malley-Morrison, writes:
“What feeds the roots of empathy? One answer is: literature, specifically literature demonstrating the ways that pain, fear, love, joy, and a remarkable range of human reactions unite all of humanity, regardless of the divisive little categories like age, sex, religion, and ethnicity that we shove people into.”
To give us a sense of the power of literature to promote empathy, Kathleen tells us about her own experience reading All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. The novel is based on Remarque’s experiences as a German soldier in World War I.
The quote from the book that particularly touched Kathleen’s heart occurs during a scene in which Remarque’s character, Paul Bäumer, has just witnessed the death of a French soldier whom he has stabbed:
“But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late. Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony–Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?”
Wow! I was originally deeply affected by those lines many years ago. Returning to the depths of those feelings now provided me a vivid sense of the awesome power of literature.
Harvard Psychologist Takes On This Topic
The Better Angels of Our Nature is a brilliant book by Harvard University professor of psychology, Steven Pinker. There, we learn that human violence has not only dramatically declined, empathy for a wide range of people has surged.
One of the conditions that fosters such psychological development, the good professor explains, is the availability of stories that reveal the humanity of people that lie outside of our immediate circle of family and friends. Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. To discover that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
Research On This Topic
David C. Kidd and Emanuel Castano recently published an impressive article in the journal Science. It not only summarizes the research supporting the value of empathy, but also describes five studies that they carried out demonstrating the value of reading literature for enhancing empathy.
Of particular importance here is that their studies indicate that reading just any book is not likely to significantly improve empathy skills. Neither nonfiction or popular fiction did the trick. Only what they referred to as “literature” clearly enhanced empathy skills even though there was some indication that most folks liked the popular fiction best.
Why might literature be so effective? In my view, nonfiction books tend to deal with things–rock formations, how to do quilting, etc. If you choose to read one of these books it is because you share a common interest with the author. No time is spent on getting to intimately know people who have opinions and views that are much different than yours.
With popular literature, the author typically presents an exciting plot, with clear views about the good guys and bad guys. Consider as an exemplar, the movie Star Wars, a phenomenally successful form of popular fiction. Within minutes, we come to know who the bad and good guys are. And the bad guys are pretty much completely evil, and the good guys, ever so swell. Moreover, the plot is rather simple–the good guys have to kill as many bad guys as they can, with the ultimate goal of destroying their headquarters known as the Death Star.
In contrast, with literature there is often room left between the words that allow the reader to give some thought to filling in for themselves what may be felt or done. Literature invites us to consider others not like ourselves, and whether those opposed to the main characters are really completely bad. And even the good guys might have more to their characters than mere goodness. Why did that character do this? We get some hints, but we have some creative work to do in order to reach some tentative ideas. All of this extra thought processing leads to a more developed sense of empathy.
Selecting Literature that Promotes the Development of Empathy Skills
If you hand your five-year old son a copy of Henry James’s classic literary work, Wings of a Dove, chances are that before finishing the first half of a page, he will end up crying out that it is way too boring for him. Young children require a different level of challenge when reading literature than teenagers and adults in order to be sufficiently engaging to them. Here are some suggestions for making your selections based on the age of the reader.
For children within the age range of 4 to 8, I recommend the free guide titled “Developing Empathy Though Children’s Literature.” It has been published by the US government, and you can retrieve it on line at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427316.pdf. The authors have done yeomen’s work in selecting a variety of excellent books that tend to be available at local libraries.
It is enormously important to read these books with your kids, and to pause now and then to ask them questions about what is occurring. “How do you think Sally is feeling right now?” is one worthwhile question. “Why do you think she is feeling that way?” is another. So too is, “If you were Sally’s friend, is there something you might do to help her?”
Now, for kids a little older than 8, I have found that good selections are harder to come by. The books for this age range tend to be the simple popular fiction type. I, therefore, wrote a trilogy of coming of age novels to fill in this gap.
The first in the trilogy is titled A Hero Grows In Brooklyn, and although you can buy an inexpensive paperback copy of it, I have made it available to be downloaded for free (For your free download, click HERE). Part of the plot involves a boy named Steve who, at age thirteen, has to move in the middle of the school year because his family has been thrown into poverty.On the first day in his new school, he has to use his dreaded free lunch pass that is provided to students who can’t afford to pay for their lunch. Here’s a little section from that work:
Steve gets in his lunch line. The aroma of chicken soup, peanut butter sandwiches, and fried fish cakes drifts into his nostrils. He picks out a peanut butter sandwich, a container of milk, and some ice cream. Then he shows the cashier his free lunch pass.
Ron DeFelipo, standing right behind Steve, starts to laugh and says to Mysterious Jane, “Look at this! This guy can’t afford to buy himself lunch! What a joke!”
When Steve hears this, it feels like a knife has been stuck in his gut. His face becomes hot, he pleads with himself not to have tears well up in his eyes, and he looks down avoiding everyone’s eyes.
Mysterious Jane looks at Steve, then turns to Ron, shoves him, and says, “You have no brains.”
When Steve gets back to his table, his appetite is gone. He picks at his food for a while, thinking he’s not going to be eating again until past six. With sourness spreading in the pit of his stomach, he comes to accept that he isn’t going to get any food down right now, and so he pushes his tray away.
Here we begin to get to know a character who is struggling with the embarrassment of being poor. Meanwhile, another character, Ron seeks to humiliate him. Mysterious Jane, in contrast, displays empathy.
In another type of literature, Ron would be treated as a character that is just one awful guy. Not so in AHero Grows in Brooklyn. Here we come to see that through the help of the talented social skills of Steve, Ron begins to develop into someone that is far more mature than when we are first introduced to him. The other characters, as well, mature as the story unfolds, and the reader grows with them.
The other two novels in the trilogy take the same characters that we met in the first of the series into high school. More and more mature themes are addressed as they approach their date of graduation.
Together, these novels challenge readers to explore social and emotional issues within a context that teenagers find themselves fully engrossed in.
Interestingly, the feedback I received about these novels indicate that adults enjoy them as much as teenagers. You can learn more about these novels HERE.
For adults, in addition to my own trilogy, I recommend making selections from the list of fiction finalists of the National Book Awards, which, each year, is readily retrievable from a Google search. For those who prefer short stories, O’Henry Award winners are great. Some of these stories were used in the research study published in the journal Science that was mentioned earlier in this post and found to increase empathy. You can find collections of these short stories by doing an internet search using the key words, “short stories, O’Henry Award Winners.
Well, that’s all the time we have for today. Here’s hoping you join us again real soon at From Insults to Respect. Until then, may your life be full of delightful wonder.
———————————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
There I spoke about a dog who had recently passed away, and how my empathy helped the owner through his anguish. Further, I presented arguments that empathy motivates individual behavior that aids in solving communal challenges.
Since writing that post, I learned of a study by Sidney Blatt and his colleagues based on data from the large NIMH Depression Collaboration Project. These researchers found that the most effective practitioners shared the following qualities; being perceived by pateints as more caring, empathetic, and sincere then the less effective practitioners.
So, to me, empathy is a pretty good thing–I mean, what’s not to like?
Well, Paul Bloom, psychologist and Yale professor, recently has argued in a piece titled, “Against Empathy,” that it’s a bad thing—that it makes the world worse. Is he kidding me?
The Case Against Empathy
Dr. Bloom tells us that while we’ve been taught that putting yourself in another’s shoes cultivates compassion, it actually blinds you to the long-term consequences of your actions.
In defending his position, Dr. Bloom tells us about the warm glow that many get when they give to charity.
“So, what they do when they give, is to give to a lot of different charities, and give a little bit of money to each one because for each one they get a little rush–‘Oh, I’m helping the blind babies. Oh, I’m helping the farm workers. Oh, I’m helping the chickens.’ The problem is that when you give a small amount of dollars to a charity, often it doesn’t do much good because the dollars they need to process your donation, in some cases, actually ends up with the charity taking a loss on your donation.”
In addition to the charity example, Dr. Bloom tells us:
“Empathy’s engagement, being caught up in the suffering of victims, is usually the number one argument in a democratic country for going to war…. If we ever go to war against ISIS, a full blown military war, it will be motivated by our feelings for the suffering of their victims. But that’s just one consideration. Other considerations are, how many people will die in the war? How many other victims will the war create? But our empathy, our selfish moralizing, zooms us in and says, ‘Oh, my God, there are these people who are suffering, let’s bomb the crap out of them; Let’s destroy the whole country to save these people.’ And then people are later surprised that apparently we killed, you know, we killed 50 thousand people. Gosh, who would have known?”
Is Dr. Bloom Right?
It seems to me that the good professor confounds in his argument the experience of empathy with what one chooses to do when experiencing empathy. Yes, in some situations in which we experience empathy we could choose to take actions that in the long run causes more harm then good, but in other situations we act in enormously helpful ways.
When we choose to try to help a person or group for whom we have empathy, this is called altruism if it is not motivated chiefly by self-gain. In natural settings, altruism has been clearly observed in human beings during disasters and the almost universal protection of parents of their offspring.
Consistent with Dr. Bloom’s position, there is some evidence available that indicates that sometimes people will, upon experiencing empathy, act altruistic without much thought to the consequences. For example, in a study carried out by C. H. Fellner and J. R. Marshall, these researchers found that some kidney donors told them that they had silently made up their minds about the “right thing to do” as soon as they were asked to consider whether they would be willing to make the sacrifice to save the life of a member of their family. These donors reported that they were not really very curious about, or interested, in what the doctors were telling them. They appeared to have applied a simple moral decision rule as soon as they realized what the physician was driving at.
This type of evidence is far from conclusive because the donors may have retrospectively distorted their accounts to present themselves in a favorable light. However, a number of other studies (see HERE and HERE) has led me to support the hypothesis that there are indeed times when people do make moral decisions without much careful thought. That said, I believe that in most situations that require some significant physical and material cost (e.g., exertion, time loss) such costs do influence helping decisions (see Black, Weinstein, and Tanur for a review of this research evidence).
I think that Dr. Bloom’s real worthwhile point is not that empathy is bad, but rather, when we experience empathy we should be careful. If our empathy seems to be urging us to be helpful in some way, we would be wise to indeed consider the long term, as well as short term consequences of our actions. This, in truth, is how all of our decisions are best made.
——————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their stress management skills and their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can clickHERE.
The good professor first covers the fact that to most the question of whether or not life is worth living hardly ever comes up, so intent are they to live every moment that they have. Others, spend most of their lives questioning whether it would be better to enter into the peace of being consigned to the earth. And then there are those who drift back and forth. After a poetic discourse of these different types, James delves into what we might say if we meet someone who indeed is questioning whether it would be better just to end it all.“To breathe the air, how delicious!
“To come immediately to the heart of my theme, then, what I propose is to imagine ourselves reasoning with a fellow-mortal who is on such terms with life that the only comfort left him is to brood on the assurance, ‘You may end it when you will.’ What reasons can we plead that may render such a brother (or sister) willing to take up the burden again?”
At this point, Professor James hastens to confess that nothing he has to say will be able to prevent all suicides. If we make an effort to help and despite this, the person ends his or her life, “cases like these belong to the ultimate mystery of evil, concerning which I can only offer considerations tending toward religious patience at the end of this hour.”
He tells us that certain people who have grown up with a religious background, find that as they get older what they were taught and came to sincerely believe is not meshing well with their personal experiences. They observe that their own actions don’t accord with every teaching of the scriptures, and guilt begins to mount. And they begin to learn in science based teachings that the world was not created a few thousand years ago in six days, the animal kingdom evolved in a manner very differently than their religious stories, and when some of this science stuff seems to make sense to them, they feel they are engaging in blasphemy. They feel confused and fearful. Thus, Professor James tells us,
Once the springs of vitality are let loose in this way, without the burden of infinite responsibility, many experience an immense relief. Meanwhile, whatever is causing the suffering “can be tolerated for another twenty-four hours longer, if only to see what tomorrow’s newspaper will contain, or what the next postman will bring.”
Professor James believed that for some suicidal folks, once they have reached the first stage, it may be possible to incite a fighting spirit within. Identify one or more perceived evil from their perspective, and make appeals to help to overthrow it. Professor James explains,
From these words, James encourages us to use inspiring narratives of those who, through acts of courage, made a real and wonderful difference. In the essay, Professor James’s examples are very dated. Therefore, readers may prefer to turn to my coming of age trilogy for this purpose because modern readers will find it far easier to make personal connections with the characters.
Some promote the idea that depression is a disease with genetic factors playing an important role in its development. This line of thinking is theorized to reduce stigma because it reduces any blame for the person who is having the experience. But others say that promoting the idea that this group of people have faulty genes will actually increase stigma even if it does reduce blame.
The current study attempted to replicate the initial findings with a large sample of over 38,000 people of European ancestry, using methods that are viewed as “rigorous best practices.” The team of researchers involved in the study found that the presence of the 5-HTTLPR genotype did not increase a risk of depression, even in those who experienced significant life stressors and traumatic events. However, as expected, stress and trauma by themselves were strongly associated with the development of depression.
As we have seen above, the argument that depression is a genetic disease currently has little scientific support. Nevertheless, there are people who will continue to insist that it is due to genetics because some research indicates that if you have family members who experience depression, you are at an increased risk of also having this type of experience.
There are many examples of people who, when they become depressed, take to their beds for a period of time. And indeed, some people who become depressed, though not most, will violently end their lives.
I am not seeking to eliminate this support, though I bemoan the fact that for many the only support that is offered is a prescription for drugs which I believe in the long run leads to far more harm then good.
To counter stigmatizing these individuals, it is far better than pathologizing their experience if we focus on pointing to the numerous examples of people, such as Abraham Lincoln, who suffered deeply from depression experiences, and yet made enormous contributions to our society. Equally important is to explain that simply being at an increased risk for something doesn’t mean someone has a disease. Risk takers, such as the Wright brothers, are well known to be at an increased risk of an early death, but that characteristic allows some folks to bravely enter into a tiny capsule to explore the moon.
Currently, in many countries a wide variety of children are being classified as having ADHD and placed on a regimen of consuming psychiatric drugs. Supporters of this trend often cast a disrespectful eye toward their critics while arguing that scientific research supports their position. Meanwhile, equally scientific minded individuals who have looked at the same research come up with a completely different set of conclusions. So, about once a year I take a look at the most current research to see if I can throw some light on this topic.
Factors looked at were academic achievement and social functioning. Although the medicated ADHD students didn’t do any better or worse on these measures then the unmedicated ADHD students, they did endure many uncomfortable side effects while they were on the ADHD drugs, such as sleep problems, headaches, stomach aches, and feelings of depression each evening when the drug wore off. Thousands of dollars per child were consumed on purchasing the medications that achieved some modest short term gains but had no lasting positive effects.
“In this study, the authors pooled together MRI brain-scan data for the 3,242 participants in the study (which had been collected and archived at the 23 sites), and then calculated, for each cohort, mean intracranial volumes and mean volumes of specific brain regions. They reported the differences for each of these comparisons and the “effect size” of the differences. This is the critical aspect of the results to consider and understand: effect sizes reveal the true strength of the findings and how much overlap there is between the individual brain volumes in both groups, and thus establish the likelihood that an individual in the ADHD group has a smaller brain volume than an individual in the control group.
The biggest effect size that was found was .19. This was for differences in the mean volume of a region known as the accumbens for ADHD labelled children under 15 years of age. An effect size of 3, which is the largest effect size one can obtain using this type of statistic, would have suggested that pretty much all of the children in the study that were labelled as having ADHD had a distinctly smaller volume in that region than controls. An effect size of 2 would have suggested a distinctly weaker relationship and that some of the children in the ADHD group did not have smaller volumes than the control group, some in the ADHD group had larger volumes than the control group, and some of the control group had smaller than average volumes in that region and yet showed no signs of ADHD. An effect size of 1 would have indicated even a weaker relationship. The effect size of .19 is less than a fifth the size of 1, that is, about a small an effect size as you can imagine. (To learn more about what an effect size is, access this article by Robert Coe: 
Particularly troubling is the suggestion by the study’s authors that their findings will help to reduce stigma. How in the world does telling people that ADHD people have smaller brains help to reduce stigma for that group of people? Moreover, even if we found enough evidence to conclude that there are some differences in the brains of people being labelled ADHD, this would still not lead us to conclude they have a brain disorder. A difference is not automatically a disorder. Having people with different brains can be a wonderful thing. For example, it can mean that some people will prefer to work sitting all day, while others prefer to do work requiring lots of activity. We need both types of people, and other types as well, to enrich our lives.
For example, in this panel from a recent comic, we see a caricature of Trump insulting several news outlets. Whenever the president has been asked why he has been utilizing these types of insults, he claims that the other side started it. He’s just getting back at them, he explains, because they insulted him first.
In the comic, TRFF, the guy with a mustache and cigar, views himself as an authoritarian and is just delighted that he has been appointed Deputy Director of Payback. Let’s begin our exploration below the surface with a quick discussion of what it means to be an authoritarian.
“An authoritarian leadership style is being used when a leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates. This leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group.
Perhaps one of the best known leaders who embodied the authoritative style of leadership was Nelson Mandela. After serving 27 years in jail for seeking justice for the majority of South African people, he had plenty of reasons to seek payback. But in a speech delivered to the European Parliament in 1990, he stated:
In contrast to the image that many people have of Nelson Mandela’s leadership style, take another look at the caricature in the Doonesbury comic of a authoritarian in charge of payback for the president’s administration. As a response to some guy who is disloyal to the administration, TRFF says that if it was up to him, he’d throw the guy out of a plane. TRFF is just loving the fact that he gets to demean, threaten, or fire people every day.
In the short run, there are people who are willing to Kowtow to them, but there is a spirit within that slowly begins to get riled, and danger lurks below. It is not always easy to see this in the muddy complexity of large organizations, but search your own heart and you will know of its existence.
A while back, I heard about a company that had been having a hard time getting its workers to arrive on time. The company executives had a policy of punishing those who came late by docking their pay. Not only didn’t this work well, but the workers became bitter toward the executives, and many workers, after being trained at great expense, would soon leave for employment at competing companies.
Recently, President Trump advocated that the current US health plan be replaced with a new health care law. He was unable to get enough votes for its passage. Will he now unleash the dogs of payback? Should he?
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we take up the question, can the science minded and religious minded legitimately take up an attitude of mutual respect?
There are, of course, people who fervently believe that opinions that do not rest firmly on the broad shoulders of scientific evidence are nothing more than superstition. Many of these individuals, as soon as they hear that a person is religious, give off vibes of disdain.
Meanwhile, there are religious folks who believe that science minded individuals have led to a world of atomic energy catastrophes, billowing coal chimneys, people with their noses in their devices while tending to their babies, etc. In their hearts, these religious folks angrily believe that the science minded are leading humanity down a filthy, destructive path.
Then there are people who richly agree with Albert Einstein when he wrote, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“First, what is the nature of it? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, What is its importance, meaning, or significance, now that it is once here? The answer to the one question is given in an existential judgment or proposition. The answer to the other is a proposition of value…. Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together.”
Religion, in contrast, seeks to deliberately nurture the moral sense. For Einstein, “A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value.”
Did Laura and Harry make the right decision? The question may seem easy if they had a great time and came back uninjured. But what if they had had a terrible accident? Would this require that they conclude that they had made the wrong decision? Can science answer this question?
Now, some science minded folks well recognize that some decisions must be made before the availability of sufficient scientific evidence. They argue that in such cases, they don’t need any religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong, they can decide that perfectly well on their own. I, for one, am on friendly terms with these people. I am not seeking to force religion on them. At the same time, I know there are people who choose to participate in a religion, valuing the stirring lessons from their clergy, the social connections, and the community support for worthy causes. They choose to use some of what they experience by being a member of their religion to make some of their decisions. I, for one, am on friendly terms with them. I don’t see the sense of automatically disdaining either the science minded or religious minded.
Some people in the science camp like to point to several religious related incidents, such as planes crashing into the World Trade buildings, in order to condemn all religion. But there were people in the science camp during the religious hating Soviet Revolution that participated in the slaughter of millions. Moreover, during the Nazi regime, Hitler found plenty of science minded people willing to aid in the carrying out of atrocities.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty science minded people have with religion is that it promotes magical thinking. I hasten to point out that not all religions do so. For example, the Transcendentalists, with Ralph Waldo Emerson as one of their most eloquent writers, embraced principles of science. The Dalai Lama, as well, presents us a religion very open to what science can teach us.
Let me add as well, with regards to this magical thinking issue, that many people who view themselves as religious, well recognize the magical thinking that appears in their scriptures, but do not accept them. Instead, they view them as comforting to those who don’t have a scientific mind, then they slip by those sections of scripture to those that they more highly value. We can liken it to a guy who recognizes that his mother holds some beliefs with which he completely disagrees, but he continues to love her for all the other aspects of her life that so beautifully nourishes his existence.
This one has to do with the wisdom of remaining skeptical until we have sound science evidence to support our position. I can see some merit in that. At the same time, in real life circumstances, a question comes up regarding just what is the point at which our opinion should be coerced by the existence of sound science? Bear in mind that there was not so very long ago a procedure known as lobotomies. This brain surgical procedure was viewed as being backed by such solid scientific evidence that powerful people were able to involuntarily subject less powerful folks to the scalpel. It didn’t turn out well, at least not for those who had part of their brains gouged out.
So, there are good people who are hesitant to accept what science folks tell us. Is it wise to treat them with disdain, or to remain on friendly terms with them while respectfully disagreeing?
James points out that in most areas of human life, science simply has not come far enough to determine with any great precision what is the most favorable road to travel. The variables that in a controlled lab seem somewhat predictable frequently become entangled in so many other variables out in the more natural world that we must make decisions as best that we can, guided by nonscientific lights. Having some faith, even without sufficient scientific evidence, may be helpful.
For James, some people possess a strong religious sense, others less so, and others find a void in that section of their brain. Where is the evidence that any one of these types are somewhat less human, or less worthy of respect? Perhaps there is some value in having some diversity within the human species.
One day I was watching Donald Trump’s first news conference since he became president. There, the remarks that I found most interesting had to do with his expressed outrage about how hateful the press has been toward him. The first time it came up, he was asked the following question by a reporter:
“Well, the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it. Because there’s nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit but the reporters, good reporters.
“And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl was asking you about. You said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake. I guess I don’t understand. It seems that there’s a disconnect there. If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake?”
A great model to consider as an alternative to Trump’s style is that of John F. Kennedy’s. Over the whole of his presidency, Kennedy averaged a 70.1 percent approval rating, comfortably the highest of any post-World War II president. By comparison, the average for all presidents between 1938 and 2012 is 54 percent. Trump, last I looked, was at about 40 percent.
Perhaps he has come to believe that many of his most ardent supporters actually believe him when he lies, and it is the media who are telling the lies. Trump may also believe that others of his supporters don’t care that he lies because they believe business folks always exaggerate as they promote their goals, and that Trump is just promoting causes that match their values. Many Americans may therefore see his behavior not as a sign of mental illness, but simply that he is a shrewd businessman.
“I should note that nothing I am saying should besmirch the reputations of men like President Abraham Lincoln or Sir Winston Churchill, both of whom are said to have fought the ravages of major depression or bipolar disorder. One was instrumental in ridding America of slavery. The other was instrumental in saving the world from tyranny. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way, also reportedly suffered from depression. Psychiatric illness does not, a priori, disqualify a person from rendering extraordinary service to mankind.”
In the February 14, 2017 edition of the New York Times, there appears a 
“Although no definition can capture all aspects of all disorders in the range contained in the DSM-5, the following elements are required:
Judy becomes bitter when she finds out that her husband, Glen, lied to her. That bitterness leads to a loss of the tenderness she had for him on their glorious wedding day. Despite efforts by Glen to straighten things out, his previous loving relationship ends in divorce.
As regular visitors to this blog well know, it is my habit of utilizing, from time to time, Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour show to provide a literary spin on a topic of interest. To that end, today we’ll turn to his wonderful episode that focused on the theme, “Truth and Lies.” You can listen to the show for free by clicking 
If the truth will hurt someone you love, 
If you are going to tell a lie, make it a white lie. The dictionary defines that as an often trivial, diplomatic, or well-intentioned untruth. According to a survey, 4 out of 5 people admit to telling white lies at least once a day, and I’m telling you that that other guy, he’s lying.
Even if lying is a sin, it is only a venal sin. It becomes a mortal sin only when the intention of deceiving risks mortal consequences. And just as a reminder, here are the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust. Let me see, I’m good for about five of them.
“Don’t Play that Song” was a major hit not only for Aretha, but for several other musical artists. Its popularity is due, at least in part, to it so powerfully capturing the emotional pain that many experience when it becomes apparent that the person they fell in love with has lied about loving them. Such painful memories can last a lifetime.
Well, let’s talk it over
A liar lies to nations
When I was very young, I lied without any forethought. For example, I remember when I was in second grade, one day in the lunchroom a boy at my table announced that he just got a toy Tommy gun for his birthday. Seeing the enthusiastic reaction of some of the guys at my table, I announced that I got one also for my birthday, despite the fact that I hadn’t, and I didn’t even know what a Tommy gun was. The lie just shot right out of my mouth.
One of the biggest influences on my ability to have some forethought when it came to lying was meeting a couple of people in high school that displayed a degree of humbleness. I came to admire this. Both appeared comfortable about their shortcomings, and although both had some impressive skills in a few areas, rather than bragging about them, they let their performance speak for themselves. I soon found myself modeling their style, and each time I was tempted to exaggerate something about myself, I found I could catch myself beforehand, and pretty often I chose a more truthful path.
Empathy, as we have been lately discussing (see 
To give us a sense of the power of literature to promote empathy, Kathleen tells us about her own experience reading All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. The novel is based on Remarque’s experiences as a German soldier in World War I.
Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. To discover that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
Of particular importance here is that their studies indicate that reading just any book is not likely to significantly improve empathy skills. Neither nonfiction or popular fiction did the trick. Only what they referred to as “literature” clearly enhanced empathy skills even though there was some indication that most folks liked the popular fiction best.
things–rock formations, how to do quilting, etc. If you choose to read one of these books it is because you share a common interest with the author. No time is spent on getting to intimately know people who have opinions and views that are much different than yours.
Consider as an exemplar, the movie Star Wars, a phenomenally successful form of popular fiction. Within minutes, we come to know who the bad and good guys are. And the bad guys are pretty much completely evil, and the good guys, ever so swell. Moreover, the plot is rather simple–the good guys have to kill as many bad guys as they can, with the ultimate goal of destroying their headquarters known as the Death Star.
For children within the age range of 4 to 8, I recommend the free guide titled “Developing Empathy Though Children’s Literature.” It has been published by the US government, and you can retrieve it on line at: 
The first in the trilogy is titled A Hero Grows In Brooklyn, and although you can buy an inexpensive paperback copy of it, I have made it available to be downloaded for free (For your free download, click 
Steve gets in his lunch line. The aroma of chicken soup, peanut butter sandwiches, and fried fish cakes drifts into his nostrils. He picks out a peanut butter sandwich, a container of milk, and some ice cream. Then he shows the cashier his free lunch pass. 
The other two novels in the trilogy take the same characters that we met in the first of the series into high school. More and more mature themes are addressed as they approach their date of graduation.
For adults, in addition to my own trilogy, I recommend making selections from the list of fiction finalists of the National Book Awards, which, each year, is readily retrievable from a Google search. For those who prefer short stories, O’Henry Award winners are great. Some of these stories were used in the research study published in the journal Science that was mentioned earlier in this post and found to increase empathy. You can find collections of these short stories by doing an internet search using the key words, “short stories, O’Henry Award Winners.
So, to me, empathy is a pretty good thing–I mean, what’s not to like?
“So, what they do when they give, is to give to a lot of different charities, and give a little bit of money to each one because for each one they get a little rush–‘Oh, I’m helping the blind babies. Oh, I’m helping the farm workers. Oh, I’m helping the chickens.’ The problem is that when you give a small amount of dollars to a charity, often it doesn’t do much good because the dollars they need to process your donation, in some cases, actually ends up with the charity taking a loss on your donation.” 
“Empathy’s engagement, being caught up in the suffering of victims, is usually the number one argument in a democratic country for going to war…. If we ever go to war against ISIS, a full blown military war, it will be motivated by our feelings for the suffering of their victims. But that’s just one consideration. Other considerations are, how many people will die in the war? How many other victims will the war create? But our empathy, our selfish moralizing, zooms us in and says, ‘Oh, my God, there are these people who are suffering, let’s bomb the crap out of them; Let’s destroy the whole country to save these people.’ And then people are later surprised that apparently we killed, you know, we killed 50 thousand people. Gosh, who would have known?”
It seems to me that the good professor confounds in his argument the experience of empathy with what one chooses to do when experiencing empathy. Yes, in some situations in which we experience empathy we could choose to take actions that in the long run causes more harm then good, but in other situations we act in enormously helpful ways.
Consistent with Dr. Bloom’s position, there is some evidence available that indicates that sometimes people will, upon experiencing empathy, act altruistic without much thought to the consequences. For example, in a 
This type of evidence is far from conclusive because the donors may have retrospectively distorted their accounts to present themselves in a favorable light. However, a number of other studies (see 
I think that Dr. Bloom’s real worthwhile point is not that empathy is bad, but rather, when we experience empathy we should be careful. If our empathy seems to be urging us to be helpful in some way, we would be wise to indeed consider the long term, as well as short term consequences of our actions. This, in truth, is how all of our decisions are best made.