Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder

I might expound more fully on "Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder" in the future. In the meantime, we have all encountered those who make their attitudes our problem.

I stumbled across an old post about The Need for Absurd Belief Among Fundamentalists on the Breaking Spells blog. It discusses, amongst other things, the fact that fundies are desperate to attack segments of scientific knowledge.

I read it with interest because I am fascinated — and dismayed — by what I regard as the Fundamentalist Cognitive Disorder*. This is often linked to the Fundamentalist Antihumanist Personality Disorder.**

The final line of the post reads:

""Eventually, perhaps, the spell of religion will be broken.""

I decided to convert my response into a post.

Let’s hope! Religion continues to support damaging and outright dangerous cognitive and behavioural disorders.

I completely agree that fundies are terrified of knowledge — whether it’s science or the expert conclusions of unbiased biblical scholars. I also agree that this rigid thinking is the result of childhood indoctrination. Why else would IDiots be fighting to insinuate creationism into secondary science curricula?

I think that the motivation is not merely habit — it is highly emotional. It is also deliberately anti-factual, and, most important, illogical. They are trained into illogic and this fallacious thinking is reinforced by Bible quotes.

Successful religions have set up clever reward and punishment systems. Community is the most mundane motivation, but is probably essential for many. An eternal afterlife with a loving SkyDaddy who punishes one’s enemies is an obvious incentive. The flip side is the prison door. They fear what they are instructed to fear.

However, based on long observation of how some fundies think, I conclude that much of the emotional appeal lies in certainty and the assurance that religious-rule-following renders one RIGHT and morally SUPERIOR. (Excuse the caps. They seemed appropriate.)

It always reminds me of prefects in a school playground. Not a highschool playground. Not a primary school playground in North America. No, a school playground for children up to age 11. That’s the moral level at which these authoritarianism-oriented folk function.

Ugh!

* and ** : not official terminology

* and ** Disclaimer: not all fundies, religionists other than fundies, the occasional atheist.

Dumping Poison down the Well

The article dumps. I'm dumping back.

(Contrary to what the article contends about atheist bloggers, I'm busy with other things, so I shall have to dump in a series.)

You might need an antacid, but, for what it's worth, here's the link. It was written by Charlotte Allen who is author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus". She's in for a long search, in my opinion. Still, I bet that she thinks that she's found incontrovertible evidence.

(Heck, there is no corroborating evidence for the omnipotent, omnipresent "Creator" of the universe, so why would she require the writings of independent, contemporaneous witnesses and physical evidence for Jesus? I have not read her book, and shall not read her book, so I admit that I am guessing about the contents. If any of you read it, please let me know if she actually found the guy.)

On to the article, which constitutes half of what I have read of her predictable opinions. (Here's a synopsis of her "argument".) I should point out that I am not in the least insulted by any of her ad hominems. I am irritated by the rest of her fallacious argument against atheism, but that is because illogic irritates me. Her article will, however, convince the right wing types who read the LA Times.

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Funny thing. I could honestly say exactly the same thing in reverse. I can't stand religionists, but it's not because they believe in God. It's because they are worse than crashing bores.

By "religionist", I do not mean all believers. Rather, I mean those people who are aggressively obsessed about their delusions. This category includes fundamentalists of any religious persuasion and Boring Again Christians.

Worse than crashing bores? Religionists are illogical bores, which I find truly irritating. Worse than that, my experience has been many of them are quite unpleasant. Let's put it this way, "You are going to burn in HELL!" is not guaranteed to win friends and influence rational people.

Speaking of rationality, Charlotte is clearly offended by all the evidence that indicates that, as a group, atheists have more education and higher IQ scores than theists. Of course, as the numbers of atheists gradually swell, this discrepancy will ultimately diminish. Initially, of course, the decampers from religion usually abandon delusion because of rational examination of mythical claims. On the rationality-neutral side, some deconvert because of their emotional reaction to the predictable failure of religion to honour its promises in this lifetime. (It won't honour the after death promises either, but we cannot test this fact – beyond having falsified dualism.)

I'll get back to that later, but in the meantime, here's an article that Charlotte wrote decrying the "emotionality" of some women. Actually, the article is a thinly disguised attack on Democratic political candidates. Charlotte, if you really wished to examine the stupidity of some women, then you could have had a field day with Sarah Palin.

Here's a tidbit:

So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.

I think that by "the ones fewer of us possess" she was hinting at her own superior powers of insight and erudition. The final line should convince all women that they ought to be barefoot and pregnant while comparing fabric swatches in the kitchen.

Uh-huh!

She concludes by trying to dispell the impression that she is bragging about rising above giddy females:

Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.

Speak for yourself, honey! I could be kind of dim, but I don't shriek, or swoon, or gossip any more than the average gal or guy. (Social anthropologists have found that, in casual conversation, both males and females spend most of their time talking about other people. Let's face it, people are a more varied topic than the weather.)

Perhaps I do not need to write a series:

Sites Elsewhere: Charlotte Allen really is angry at us on Pharyngula (always worth reading, which is why it's so immensely popular) . even more scathing, The Unholy Wars and Flagrant Bigotry at the LA Times . some irony (not intended to criticise Jews) Jews: No Jesus, No Reason, Just Whining; They’re Motivated by Anger and Boohoo Victimhood . Sandwalk Charlotte Allen whines that Atheists exist . Charlotte Allen whines that Atheists exist . God botherer bothered . Sam Harris [Harris’ Note: This is, without a doubt, one of the most embarrassingly stupid attacks on the “new atheists” to be published in a major newspaper.] . Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining .

Liberal plasticity, Conservative rigidity

I have been thinking about right-wing cognition, and have developed a theory based on the fact that the moderately clear dichotomy between conservative and liberal (moral) thinking probably has a fairly simple genetic-developmental explanation. That is, relatively few genes predisposing to one or the other cognitive style.

1. It has been demonstrated that willingness to obey authority is genetically inherited. Such willingness would have conferred a survival value after city states had arisen – disobey at your own peril.

2. It is has also been repeatedly demonstrated that conservatives are more likely to be less educated and to be staunchly religious church-goers.

3. It is also known that the brain is plastic in that it can recover many functions after head injury. However, people do not recover equally well after head injury.

4. Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat (modify) and dogmatic thinkers typically fare poorly in talk-therapy. Liberal thinkers fare comparatively well. Some dogmatic thinkers are extreme left-wingers because that was their parents’ political affiliation. However, dogmatic thinkers are more likely to be right-wingers.

5. Conservative church-goers are more likely to exhibit emotional, black-and-white thinking, and to be bigoted. They are more likely to be ESJ than NP. They are notoriously closed-minded and strongly resist reconsidering any of their early beliefs and assumptions. It’s as though they are not even able to modify their early pathways. (This is the reason that right-wingers are fighting to corrupt early school education.) Conservative fundamentalists react very emotionally and personally to any questioning of their beliefs – either by taking offence, or by personal attacks on the questioner.

6. Liberal thinkers tend to move from facts to theory (induction). New facts lead to a logical re-evaluation of theories, particularly for scientists. Conservative thinkers tend to move from emotionally satisfying dogma to distortion of facts.

So, here’s my theory about a genetic predisposition to right-wing thinking. It’s basically a matter of generally lesser brain plasticity. Conservative brains are genetically predisposed to be less able to readjust (be plastic) than are the brains of liberal thinkers. It’s also likely that higher education trains the brain to be more plastic.

It's no accident that mythical Eve's mythical fruit was plucked from the mythical Tree of Knowledge.

I’d be fascinated to see a comparison between cognitive styles in those who recover well or poorly from similar head injuries, or between cognitive styles and other measures of plasticity.

Religiosity und Moralkrankheit

The Germanic neologism translates as "moral illness". Does the squawking chicken come before the rotten egg, or vice versa?

"It is commonly held that religion makes people more just, compassionate, and moral, but a new study suggests that the data belie that assumption. In fact, at first glance it would seem, religion has the opposite effect. The extensive study, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” published in the Journal of Religion and Society (JRS) examines statistics from eighteen of the most developed democratic nations. It reveals clear correlations between various indicators of social strife and religiosity, showing that whether religion causes social strife or not, it certainly does not prevent it."

"The question is one of causation, and there is no clear answer. Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). This study is complicated enough that I do not think that we can draw definitive negative conclusions about religion. But we can at least conclude, contrary to popular belief in this country, that it is not a given that religious societies are better, healthier, or more moral. What we can be clear about from this study is that highly religious societies can be dysfunctional, whereas by comparison secular societies in which evolution is largely accepted display real social cohesion and societal well-being. "

Religious Belief & Societal Health : New Study Reveals that Religion Does Not Lead to a Healthier Society, by Matthew Provonsha

More: Sexism and Religiosity . Inverse Correlations . Delusion inversely correlated with FLQ .

Sexism and Religiosity

“There is evidence to support the notion that practitioners of well-established religious traditions tend to show greater adherence to conventional gender roles (1) and that increased education is associated with less prejudiced attitudes in general (2) and with less sexist attitudes in particular (3).”

"The relationships of education and religiosity to hostile and benevolently sexist attitudes toward women and men, as assessed by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999), was explored in a random sample of 1,003 adults (508 women, 495 men) from Galicia, Spain. For both men and women (a) level of educational attainment negatively correlated with hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes, and (b) Catholic religiosity uniquely predicted more benevolent, but not more hostile, sexist attitudes. Although correlational, these data are consistent with the notion that active participation in the Catholic Church may reinforce benevolently sexist ideologies that legitimate gender inequality, whereas education may be effective in diminishing sexist beliefs."*

Education and Catholic Religiosity as Predictors of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism toward Women and Men

Journal article by Peter Glick, Maria Lameiras, Yolanda Rodriguez Castro; Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, No. 96, 2002

1. e.g., Jensen & Jensen, 1993; Sanchez & Hall, 1999; Wilcox & Jelen, 1991
2. Farley, Steeh, Krysan, Jackson, & Reeves, 1994
3. Benson & Vincent, 1980; Sidanius, 1993

Personality and Religiosity

Some of the research on personality and religiosity seems to employ the quite useless Eysenck personality questionnaire – perhaps because a slight negative correlation with psychoticism sounds good for religion. Yes, I am being a tad skeptical here, but one has to wonder why any studies would focus on such a poor measure of personality.

Studies on the genetic heritability of religiosity seem to show a range of results. Reported levels of religiosity are so high in the US that it might be difficult to tease genetic and cultural factors apart. I'd be more inclined to trust the conclusions of a study on 1974 Dutch families with adolescent and young adult twins:

"Analyses of these data showed that differences between individuals in religious upbringing, in religious affiliation and in participation in church activities are not influenced by genetic factors. The familial resemblance for different aspects of religion is high, but can be explained entirely by environmental influences common to family members. Shared genes do not contribute to familial resemblances in religion. The absence of genetic influences on variation in several dimensions of religion is in contrast to findings of genetic influences on a large number of other traits that were studied in these twin families."

Ignoring extremes of neurological functioning, such as temporal lobe epilepsy, and extremes of psychological functioning, such as personality disorders, I have a hunch about the temperament that might be most likely to adhere to parental patterns of religiosity:

Whereas the Eysenck personality questionnaire is utterly outmoded, the Myers-Briggs Types Inventory is more generally useful with regard to attitudes. The MBTI types individuals according to their self-report of preferential approaches to others and to information:

E/I : extraversion vs introversion – outgoing, energized by social interaction vs introspective and fatigued by too much socializing.

S/N : sensing vs intuitive – satisfaction with the basic information (S) vs a tendency to search for cognitive insights based upon that information (N).

F/T : feeling vs thinking – self-perception of basing of decisions upon 'gut'-level intuitions and feeling (F) vs basing of decisions on logic and rationality (T).

J/P : judging vs perceiving – a preference for closed-ended structure and quick decisions (J) vs a desire to keep options open and to seek more information before making decisions (P).

The four parameters yield 16 different combinations. Though many mental health professionals might treat these combinations as cut-and-dried, there are shades of gray to these parameters – for example, you might consistently base some types of decisions on feelings and other types of decisions on logic.

All MBTI types are equally 'healthy' in a psychological sense. The differences relate to preferred modes of interaction with others and the world. The commonest personality type is ESFJ and the least common is INTP (or is it INTJ? – it's years since I saw the actual statistics).

Because the inventory is administered by fee-charging professionals who purchase it from the developers, it is not available on-line. However, it is not too difficult to quickly guesstimate where you – and your family and friends –would place on the inventory. This page has a chart with roll-over descriptions of each combination.

My hunch is that those who attend church regularly are more likely to be ESFJ than are atheists. ESFJs are socially oriented, satisfied with basic information, feeling-oriented, and structured. I am not saying that all religious people are likely to be ESFJ, just more likely. This is not necessarily true of any theists who might choose to read a blog that sports a large red A – such theists might be atypical.

Reading atheist blogs, I detect a high level of emphasis on logic and analysis, so my hunch is that atheists are more likely to be -NT- (probably -NTP) than -SF-. Obviously, the latter would not necessarily apply to those who become atheists because of traumatic events that damage faith in the deity's benevolence, but it might separate those who turn to religion in the face of life's difficulties from those who do not.

If you want to try an on-line inventory, "True Colors" inventories yield somewhat comparable results here (it's quick). Individuals are a blend of the four colors – rather like a Scottish tartan – on this test. The commonest 'color', corresponding to ESFJ, is gold, while the least frequent type is green.

If I ever figure out how to write the code for polls, I might set one up to do a general survey of MBTI and colors amongst atheists (that's presumably who reads this blog).

In the meantime, it might be interesting if you want to list, as a comment, your a/religious beliefs and your 'type'.

The Friendly Atheist has a related post on this topic: What Role Does Personality Play in Belief/Skepticism?

Further to this topic, I found the following information:

A sample of 422 female undergraduate students, attending a university-sector college in Wales specialising in teacher education and liberal arts subjects, completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator together with the Troldahl-Powell Dogmatism Scale. The data demonstrated that higher dogmatism scores are most clearly associated with sensing rather than intuition. Higher dogmatism scores are also associated with extraversion rather than introversion, and with judging rather than perceiving. No significant difference in dogmatism scores were found between thinking and feeling.

That is, ESJ types are indeed more likely to be dogmatic. It's interesting that there was no significant difference in dogmatism between self-reports of T versus F.

Why not?

Feeling is only indirectly connected to thinking, yet decisional output ultimately involves thinking. Self-report on a parameter where feeling may be appropriate on some occasions and thought appropriate in others, is fraught with the potential for mis-reporting. This probably explains the observation that T is the parameter most likely to shift on repeated administration of the MBTI.

Self-report that an individual makes decisions on the basis of thinking does not necessarily indicate that the individual's thought processes are logical or effective. Since people are aware that intelligence is socially valued, they are probably more likely to exhibit a bias for overreporting themselves as Ts.

Most people are likely to overestimate the effectiveness of their thinking, in some areas at the least. One presumes that Sarah Palin fondly imagines that her thought processes are logical. An ill-informed, illogical, or magic-thinking thought is still a thought. So, S combined with T may be selectively ineffectual in promoting critical thinking. Data suggests that superficial, illogical, and emotional thinking are prevalent problem.

Source:
Dogmatism, Religion, and Psychological Type, Christopher F. J. Ross, Leslie J. Francis and Charlotte L. Craig, Pastoral Psychology, Volume 53, Number 5 / May, 2005

atheism, cognition, emotion, logic, psychology, personality, religion,

Lest I forget

One of these days I may find time to learn how to write the code for polls. Until I do, I'm limited to Google's polls or one of the online poll generators.

I set up a Google poll a little while ago and wanted to post the results before it closes. Thanks to everyone who participated.

If you wish to make your mark on the poll, there are a few days remaining.

The poll set-up did not allow for instructions, so some people were obviously a little confused by the questions.

When I realized this, I added the following request: "If you wish to participate in the poll below, please indicate whether your background is liberal or conservative and amidst or in which of the Abrahamic religions you were raised." I shall assume that the percentages of respondents in the categories before and after that clarification were approximately equivalent:

liberal 68%
conservative 32%

Christianity 93%
Islam 3%
Judaism 3%

I had expected that liberal backgrounds would appear overrepresented because I suspected that it's easier to deconvert to atheism from liberal roots. I could not ask the country in which respondents lived.

At top left is a map of religiosity in the US (lightest less than 35%, tan 35-50%, orange 50-75%, and most horrifying of all, brown at over 75%).

Potential atheism (below) could be taken as the inverse of this map (right).

Mapping religion in America