September 6, 1993
(Mary) Carillo: Michael, Let’s get you first. Tremendous match! At 5-all in the fifth, it looked like you had this match, and the tournament wrapped up. What happened?
Chang: You know, Mary, I thought I had it…but well, I kind of collapsed. Actually, my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ, let me down.
Carillo (in unfamiliar territory, the muscles in her face form into a gaze of utter stupefaction): …a muffled “huh?”
Chang: Jesus is always there for me, Mar; he completely left me today.
Carillo: Mike, are you ok?
Chang: God’s a big tennis fan, you know?
Carillo: Well I am a Catholic ….
Chang: Aaw, you Catholics don’t KNOW God!.....Seven consecutive matches Agassi has whipped me!...and he’s a fucking Arab, not even a Christian! I’m through----
Carillo: dumbfounded-----
You may have missed this interview; actually, so did we. He lost the match; but the interview took another course. Chang, ever the gracious loser, was always on script after a victory: “First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ---without his help I could never have accomplished this.” You’ve heard many athletes credit victory to God, but never blame God for a loss. Do they actually believe this? Largely, Yes! How can that be?
In April we began a series on religion and God. The April article explored “Intelligent Design” (Creation Science) and what is the nature of man?
In July we explored God: what is the nature of God, and why do we believe in it? This month, as promised, we look at the individual. What is it in an individual that leads him to religion? Why do two people with similar backgrounds, similar education, similar intelligence and similar social status come to different conclusions on religion? Why would those same two people disagree on political perspective?
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while standing on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary." St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. All else is ambiguous.
Given the simplicity of our religious tradition, how does the Republican Party, the party of guns, war, capital punishment and torture become the party of our good, God-fearing Christians?
This comes down to ambiguity. The religious mind does not deal in ambiguity. If it’s good, credit God; if it’s bad, God’s taken the day off. To deal with the ambiguity that God’s hand is at work in failure is a breach of faith. There’s no conscious evasion of reality here. Some people’s brains work this way.
Essentially, they see the world in black and white---good/evil, right/wrong. And it goes far beyond religion. The good Republican ascribes all good works in the public sphere to the Republican Party. Anything that goes wrong is the fault of Democrats. Somehow their man, be it Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Palin---even Nixon, is beyond scrutiny. And don’t bother discussing it! Most of those who couldn’t stand behind these men, in case you haven’t noticed, have left the party.
Researchers have shown that even in humdrum, nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently. Their brains work differently. Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. Read the linked article for specifics of the study.
Conservatives (generally “right-wingers”) crave solid answers, while the left-winger accepts uncertainty. Your Robbinsense editor, for example, relishes ambiguity, and frequently drives right-wingers up a wall with simple expressions of doubt. How often do you hear people ask, “Are you sure?” How, I beg you, can we be sure of anything, when we find countless examples of “certainty” collapsing into falsehood. But the right-winger readily jumps into commitment.
In the religious sphere, man’s craving for explanation leads to the acceptance of “spiritual” answers to the every-day mysteries of life…religion. Witness the paroxisms that the Episcopal Church is going through as it attempts to accommodate the diversity (and ambiguity) of modern society. The rigid, “Christian” wing of that church is threatening to branch off. Notice that “good, church-goers” tend to be conservatives---Republicans. The Republican Party caters to this mind-set by manipulating their base with social "wedge issues". They seem happily oblivious to the disconnect between their religious heritage and the political positions of the party.
The “right-wing brain” compartmentalizes issues, which yields simple solutions to difficult questions, such as creation. These people live in an “ideal” world that conforms to their perception. They welcome and cling to voices that re-enforce their beliefs; the shrill voice of a Rush Limbaugh is welcome, as he reflects the distress involved in challenging doctrine. Diversionary tactics, such as the use of euphemisms are effective tools for validation. If their man calls it “enhanced interrogation”, that's good enough. He's not a criminal, a recognized felon, practicing torture. End of discussion.
Beyond this, scientists have now shown that their brains are actually built differently.
“Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear,” said the study on Thursday in Current Biology. "We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala," the study said.
The study was based on 90 "healthy young adults" who reported their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative, then agreed to have their brains scanned. People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.
This leads to a significant dichotomy in human nature: Some people, when they’re wrong about something, want to know it---really want to know it. They are willing to put their ego on the line and expose themselves as “wrong”. In order to take such a stance, one must first accept the notion that they may be incorrect. This is acceptance of ambiguity. Others (perhaps most) who do not entertain the notion that they may be incorrect (about anything), do not want to discover that they’re wrong. They certainly don’t want you to revealed it! A chink in the armor of their perception leads straight to identity crisis. One way or other, these people will excuse themselves from a conversation moving in that direction. Mingling of these two groups has the potential to produce sparks when the conversation strays from health, sports and the weather.
Those on the left, or even center, are mystified by the unconditional allegiance that their right-wing friends afford their “favorite sons”. The “left-wing brain”, which recognizes that beliefs are opinions, not fact, holds his favored politicos up to scrutiny, realizing that they may fall from grace. Witness Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the left lead their sessions with items of contention that they find with President Obama, while conservative media, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, never stray from support of Republicans---never express doubt or recognize hypocrisy. Their audience doesn’t tolerate it, because they have no desire to question their own logic, to examine their own beliefs. They live in an unambiguous world where their beliefs stand up to all scrutiny.
This produces the political divide that we currently face in this country, where the two sides are polarized. The base of “mindless Republicans”, is actually well-considered; it’s just that their minds are made up. To them, Democrats seem wishy-washy, un-focused, unpredictable and un-trustworthy.
Where do you fit? You probably have friends that you can place into both groups.
This article has given me a lot to think about, and perhaps some insight into my parents and the world around us at the moment. I remember trying to argue the value of stem-cell research with my father a number of years ago, when he was a card-carrying Republican. Instead of discussing the issue, he started yelling at me!! There was no middle ground, he said. The conversation was over. It seemed very weird and I still remember my confusion.
ReplyDeleteNow I see Republicans actually screaming at our elected officials regarding health care at Town Meetings. Could it be the same phenomenon? Screaming certainly stops any meaningful conversation or debate from taking place...it becomes a "Just Say No" approach to public compromise.
The idea of right-brained people versus left-brained people got me wondering what type of attributes fall under each “half of a brain.” I consulted the Oracle (the Internet) and discovered that left-brained people tend to be more sequential, literal, functional, textual, and analytic. Meanwhile, right-brained people tend to be more simultaneous, metaphorical, aesthetic, contextual, and synthetic. I found a Right Brain/Left Brain test and I took it.
ReplyDeleteThe results say that I’m 45% left-brained and 55% right-brained. That seems correct to me as I’m a technical writer by trade which allows me to mostly draw on my left-brain attributes. This is that part of me that is employable in our technological world. Meanwhile, my right brain has always been busy with reading and analyzing English literature, dabbling in paints, and listening to music. This is the part of me that is chronically unemployed in our technological world. So, it seems like my brain has a practical side and a philosophical side, or simply a science side versus an artistic side.
In his blog, Jackson Dave presented an interesting comparison between left-brained people, political conservatives, and religious fanatics on one side versus right-brained people, political liberals, and religious indifference on the other side. This caused me to wonder, where did all this right brain/left brain contention begin? In looking for an answer I surprised myself in turning to an old reference book, the bible - or as some folks like to say, the Bible.
Specifically, I turned to the Cain versus Abel story. According to the Bible, Cain was a farmer. And, as a farmer, Cain represented a break with man’s first occupation/lifestyle, that of hunter-gatherer. In order to be successful as a farmer you would need to be very scientific in paying close attention to the seasons, knowing when to plant, how to tend and prune the crops, and when to harvest. Cain sounds like a left-brainer to me.
Meanwhile, Abel was a shepherd. Being a shepherd was just an extension of the hunter-gatherer occupation. A shepherd would tend a flock of domesticated animals as they grazed and wandered the hillside. The classic view of a shepherd that comes to mind is of one who plays a musical instrument while his flock munches away in their meandering. Abel sounds like a right-brainer to me.
Now, I believe the stories in the Bible are meant to be interpreted allegorically and not literally. These stories are not the words of God handed down to men but are in fact the words of men, wise men, handed down to their fellow men as life lessons. Could the story of Cain versus Abel be a life lesson to the rest of us that we must come to grips with both halves of our brains in order to be a whole person?
Thanks, Anon, for a well-considered, constructive comment. Unfortunately, you have addressed a separate dichotomy. You speak of left-brain/right-brain, where supposedly the left-brain person is more logical, while the right-brain person is more "artistic". This essay addresses the dichotomy of "left-wing brain" -vs- "right-wing brain". (See the attached article.) There may be some correlation, but it's a different matter. Ed
ReplyDelete