There is an absence of self-reflection. The ambiguities and uncertainties that trouble those who attempt to understand and explain human behavior or the physical world are absent except for an occasional verbal dressing. There is no meaningful dialogue with those holding different views or evidence. No dialogue results from the absence of shared or at least similar beliefs, models, and evidence from which dialogue can proceed. The indoctrinations of children brought up in religion-committed families or schools are familiar examples. The details of what is taught differ across families and schools, but those who teach share the aim of molding belief, emotion, and behavior.3 Ritual is often an important part of the process in that it reinforces what is believed. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and their many variants have specific rules regarding behavior, thought, preferences, prayer, votive offerings, and the observance of sacred moments.
That indoctrination works as well as it does is not surprising. The brain is prepared to participate in the process. There are brain substrates of long-term-memory conformity that are responsive to social manipulation and have an identifiable fMRI brain signature.4 They reveal a strong tendency of memory to conform to group recollections independent of the accuracy of what is recalled. When carried out successfully, those who are indoctrinated embrace the view that their beliefs are superior to those of others, particularly those of possible distracters. The net effect is that doctrines serve as blinders to alternative views.
It is now clear that indoctrination can take place among adults as well as children. People of all ages are susceptible. In part, this is the story of adults who are converted to religions, political ideologies, secular causes and agendas, and a portion of prison-camp captives. Groups commonly known as cults provide clear examples. The Branch Davidian sect, mystery cults of Asia such as the Many Faces of God cult,5 the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan,6 and Jonestown—to name only a few—are religious-political indoctrination systems. At times, their influence has been so pervasive that it overrides evolved tendencies to survive and reproduce. For example, 530 members of the Ugandan cult Restoration of the Ten Commandments died in a mass suicide in March of 2000,7 and a similar carnage occurred in Jonestown in 1978 when 918 cult members took their own lives or were murdered.8
Perhaps the most well-publicized current example of intransigence is found among jihadists. In most instances, their beliefs have been acquired through indoctrination. Alternative beliefs are rejected. Individuals who embrace Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or atheism, or those who are advocates of secular societies are viewed as enemies of Islam who must be converted or killed—in effect, those who don’t believe or behave properly are expendable.9 Jihadists embrace a belief system that asserts itself as the single truth, tolerates minimal variance of believer’s behavior, and justifies rewards without guilt for violence toward nonbelievers.10 Card-carrying Catholics and Mormons are similar in certain ways. Often their beliefs are intransigent. But what is indoctrinated differs in one critical way: killing those who harbor alternative beliefs is rarely part of their message. Brain systems are very much involved in the process. For jihadists as well as others with intransigent beliefs, brain reading of nonbelievers’ brain states serves to confirm their already-present negative attributions toward nonbelievers—in effect, one sees what one believes. Positive brain readings take place among those who share one’s beliefs. Stories and models affirm what is believed—both the Koran and the Bible are striking examples of story affirmation.
Milder forms of Islam are often imagined to be tolerant of other ideologies. But in the estimate of a number of scholars, this is largely myth based on wishful thinking.11 Perhaps this is why Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently noted that Germany’s decade-long attempt to establish a civil multiculturalism in a country that is predominantly Christian with secular-based laws has failed.12
Jihadists’ beliefs are but one example of intransigence. Intelligent design, when it is combined with a rejection of evolutionary theory, is another example: it asserts a belief and identifies the enemy of the belief. Intransigence can prevail when universities deny jobs to teachers because of their religious beliefs or their sex.13 It can occur when people feel powerful and new opinions are ignored.14 The list does not end here. Similar intransigence is found among people who embrace particular lifestyles, politically correct thinking, animal rights, gender rights, and environmentalism.15 For these individuals, their beliefs are morally superior. There is a sense that they possess special knowledge and only they know what needs to be done for a larger good, which they alone define. Emotionally there is only one right way to feel. Cognitively there is only one right way to think. Behaviorally there is only one right way to act. The divide-reducing and desirable physiological effects of this type of believing have been noted.
This may seem to be a harsh evaluation of our nature. Perhaps it is. Hopefully it is wrong. Yet it is one that evidence favors: much of humanity seems willing—perhaps even motivated—to build belief superstructures and illusions of understanding, hide from the reality of others and evidence, and experience satisfaction in doing so.16
The preceding points add up this way. The brain is prepared for indoctrination. Once it is achieved, contexts, symbols, and behavior trigger beliefs about how the world is supposed to work, identify the deficiencies and dangers of alternative beliefs, and imply or specify expected actions among believers. Those who indoctrinate surely understand this. They tie beliefs to personal satisfaction and pleasure, assert that believers will have access to special belief-related truths and, possibly, rewards, and affirm the moral uniqueness and superiority of their teachings. Negative attributions identify outsiders and their beliefs.
The literature is filled with reports critical of the indoctrination of children, prisoners of war, and members of ethnic groups and cults. Thus it is easy to abhor the process. Yet many of us attempt to indoctrinate our children on matters of personal safety, hygiene, manners, and open-mindedness—we just give these efforts another name, such as “responsible parenting.” This is a special type of indoctrination, however. Indoctrination leading to intransigent beliefs can be viewed as a form of censorship in that alternative beliefs are dismissed or become the targets of action. In contrast, good parenting acknowledges alternatives such as teaching a child to understand and respect the lifestyles of others.
Still, things are not completely tidy. For example, there are studies documenting that indoctrination is an effective form of behavioral modification for children with serious attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).17 Religious or lifestyle indoctrination is associated with improved personal health and increased longevity (see chapter 8). And what is to be made of organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, or highly competitive companies, which often indoctrinate their employees regarding the safeguarding of classified information and its unauthorized dissemination?
An intriguing feature of indoctrination is the frequency with which key beliefs and rituals are repeated. Consider how unusual this is. If every day of your life you are told over and over that one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen combine to make carbon dioxide or that Rome is closer to the equator than Paris, it would be irritating. Why then is there far less irritation when indoctrinated beliefs and rituals are repeated daily? One answer has been mentioned: there are desirable physiologic and psychological effects associated with such beliefs and behavior. Another is that repetition, such as frequent prayer, asserts one’s commitment to a belief. This too is likely to have desirable physiologic and psychological effects as well as assure one’s continued membership among groups whose members share the same belief.
There is another possible reason. Repetition may be essential to offset the anti-indoctrination effects of a wandering brain, situational cognition, and tensions resulting from occasional doubt about what is believed and what seems believable. Repetition suggests that intransigent beliefs are vulnerable to modification or rejection. That th
is can happen is suggested by the number of individuals who exit from religions, cults, and other belief-dominated groups.18 Belief repetition, ritual, and programmed socialization may serve to reduce exit frequency. Stated another way, tasks involved in sustaining an indoctrinated belief include controlling information—perhaps also physical contexts—so that questions are not raised and experience is consistent with what is believed.
It is worth noting that behavior analogous to intransigent beliefs is observed among nonhuman primates when animals in one group treat members of other groups with the same suspicion as do many of their human cousins with other members of their species.19 Similar behavior among humans thus may be strongly predisposed, which implies that it will be very resistant to change.
SELF-INDOCTRINATION
People self-indoctrinate and the brain assists in the process.
People seek emotional satisfaction and meaning in their lives. They desire comfort in the face of a world that they often perceive as insensitive to their needs and values. At times, they indoctrinate themselves into religions, cults, and lifestyles to achieve these ends. This was the choice of the interviewee in chapter 3 who joined the United States Marines and then a cult in his search to “be someone.”
People who self-indoctrinate actively seek to assimilate dogma. Doing so is not considered an imposition, an affront, a limitation on their freedom to believe as they please, or a form of censorship. Self-indoctrinated beliefs are associated with a positive self-image, which assures that a believer’s emotions and physiology are involved. The elimination of ambiguity and divide reduction simplify the process. When known others share the same or highly similar beliefs, one is a member of a community of believers.
CULTURAL INDOCTRINATION
There are also forms of cultural indoctrination. The cultural myths discussed in chapter 5 are examples. This type of indoctrination often suppresses existing beliefs and evidence that then become lost to members of a culture often to be rediscovered or reinvented by later generations. A familiar example is the abandonment of key parts of the Greek intellectual tradition during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine and the low Middle Ages, followed by their subsequent rediscovery during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.20
Although culturally indoctrinated beliefs tend to change slowly, there are exceptions. This was the case, for example, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Overnight, a large percentage of Americans came to believe that the Japanese were evil and duplicitous. These beliefs persisted throughout World War II and for years after. The events of 9/11 and their association with al-Qaeda have had a similar effect for many Americans.
EXPERIENCE
Experience may lead to intransigent beliefs. A portion of an interview with a young woman associated with PETA provides a relevant example.
Author: “What drew you to PETA?”
Interviewee: “I was working in a medical research lab. I was very enthusiastic about the job, thought the research might help people who were mentally ill. But after a while, I was struck by the way the research team treated animals.”
Author: “For example?”
Interviewee: “The animals were young monkeys. They seemed very human to me. They all had names and recognized us. They were happy to see us each day. They became our friends, just like people. Then the experiments started. The monkeys received experimental drugs. Electrodes were placed into their brains to measure the effects. I hurt every time I saw that happen. They were never the same after the experiments. We damaged them for life.”
Author: “Go on.”
Interviewee: “I complained to the research director. It seemed to me that if the experiments had to be done, it would be better to sacrifice the animals after the experiments were finished rather than leave them damaged to live out their lives. I told the director so. He rejected my suggestion.”
Author: “Did he tell you why?”
Interviewee: “He claimed that it was important scientifically to know the long-term effects of the drugs.”
Author: “And?”
Interviewee: “I stayed around for almost a year to see the long-term effects. They were as you might expect: the monkeys were abnormal, and that didn’t change. Even the director agreed. So I raised the issue of sacrifice again. Again he rejected it, this time on the basis of funding.”
Author: “Funding?”
Interviewee: “Yes. Apparently there was a per diem payment from a grant for each day an animal was alive. So now the animals were being kept alive just for money. It was about then that I called some friends who worked with PETA.”
Author: “And?”
Interviewee: “The rest is history. I became an active PETA member and participated in some of its activities. I was arrested. A fine and a probationary period followed.”
Author: “And what is your situation now?”
Interviewee: “If you are asking whether I am an active PETA member, I won’t say. But my sentiments haven’t changed. There are literally hundreds of examples of animal abuse in medical and drug company laboratories. Members of PETA care and want change. Not many others care. The medical researchers and the drug companies are the worst of the bunch. They’ll say anything to justify their behavior. They lie. Their research and funding are more important than caring for animals. They’re even worse than slaughter houses—at least there they kill the animals and don’t extend their suffering.”
Author: “Has your distress lessened with time?”
Interviewee: “No. Every time I hear of an example of animal abuse, I pain.”
The events experienced by the interviewee above differ little from similar reports by people whose dissatisfactions precede their joining groups, adopting certain beliefs, and, at times, engaging in illegal or violent behavior. Typically there is a series of disquieting events. These are followed by attempts to change individuals or groups that are perceived to be responsible for the events. Rarely does change occur. The sense that little will change in the future follows. Illegal or violent behavior may loom as a justifiable or necessary response.
IMAGININGS THAT BECOME BELIEFS
There are over 4,200 currently identifiable different faith groups or religions. There are over 2,000 Christian groups each harboring identifiably different beliefs. There are over 1,000 known political-ideological beliefs. There are millions of people who believe in ghosts, haunted houses, and conspiracy theories. Add to these numbers the thousands if not millions of private beliefs that are not recorded and often not shared with others. Many of these are intransigent. Very likely, many have their origins in imaginings, particularly those for which there is no foolproof disconfirming evidence.
A portion of an interview with a forty-five-year-old man that came to believe that his dog was a reincarnation of his grandfather illustrates the shift from imagination to belief.
Author: “Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that you believe your dog is the reincarnation of your grandfather?”
Interviewee: “Yes.”
Author: “Can we give your grandfather and your dog names?”
Interviewee: “Sure. Mack and Spot.”
Author: “Good. Can you now explain how you came to this belief?”
Interviewee: “The dog—I mean, Spot—was about a year old when the thought occurred to me. My grandfather Mack was a very loving man. He thought the world of me. Most of the time, I couldn’t do anything wrong. Well, that’s wasn’t always true. When I did something that he didn’t think was wise, he would vigorously scold me and was less loving for a time. Anyway, one day, it occurred to me that Spot acted the same way. He is very loving and my constant companion. We get along beautifully. But once in a while, I will do something that irritates him. He will bark and then sulk—just like Mack.”
Author: “Are there examples of things you did that bothered Spot?”
Interviewee: “Yes. And it was really weird at first. One day I was splitting wood and left some
pieces on the ground—didn’t put them on the woodpile as I usually do. He began to bark. He picked up a piece of wood and took it to the pile—Mack would have done the same thing. At the time, I had other things to do, so I didn’t put the wood on the pile. Spot sulked for the rest of the day.”
Author: “Rather amazing, don’t you think?”
Interviewee: “Yes, truly.”
Author: “Might Spot’s behavior be explained by coincidence or maybe he was trying to help or imitate you?”
Interviewee: “Perhaps. But there were other incidents.”
Author: “For example?”
Interviewee: “One day, I was trimming trees with a chainsaw. Normally I turn off the saw while I pick up cuttings. But on that day, I left the saw running on the ground while I was piling branches. Spot started barking uncontrollably. He did so until I turned off the saw. That is exactly what Mack would have done. From that moment on, I was convinced.
The interviewee was married, the father of four children, CEO of a successful company, a respected member of his community, and not associated with a religion or a cult.
BELIEF-DISCONFIRMATION FAILURE
Belief-disconfirmation failure and intransigent beliefs go hand in hand. Failure occurs because of a person’s refusal or inability to widen divides—“change one’s mind,” in everyday parlance. The brain is closed to new beliefs and evidence and their possible interpretation.
There have been many explanations of disconfirmation failures. It may be that we are stuck with ancient, irrational, stubborn brains.21 It may be that the preference for certain beliefs and ideologies is affected by one’s physiological makeup. This has been suggested regarding political preferences.22 Or it may be that there is what has been called “the curse of knowledge”: one’s knowledge—think “belief”—about an event’s outcome can compromise one’s ability to reason about another person’s beliefs.23
Believing Page 21