Fwd: eeing how the spirit moves us

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:30:05 GMT

  • Next message: William Benzon: "Re: eeing how the spirit moves us"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA05914 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:33:58 GMT
    Subject: Fwd: eeing how the spirit moves us
    Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:30:05 -0500
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: <skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>, "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
    Message-ID: <20001206142849.AAA20741@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Seeing how the spirit moves us

    By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff, 12/6/2000

    Show people scenes from the life of Mother Teresa, laboring in the filth
    of Calcutta, and they will get a feeling often described by prophets and
    poets, but not recognized by science.

    Even a glimpse of human kindness - a hand placed on a leper's forehead,
    or a newborn, once fragile and abandoned, being lifted from its crib -
    can be enough to evoke what University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan
    Haidt calls ''elevation.'' A branch of the vagus nerve is activated, he
    said, giving the chest a ''sensation of expansion,'' provoking chills,
    causing the tear ducts to well up, and, in some cases, clenching the
    throat.

    Haidt has embarked on a quest to prove that elevation deserves
    recognition as a distinct emotion, like anger, with its own constellation
    of physical symptoms.

    ''People of many cultures imagine a ladder with God above and the devil
    below. When we see someone move down, we feel disgust,'' said Haidt.
    ''But what if we see someone move up?''

    Modern psychology has been rediscovering emotion, as brain imaging
    improves dramatically and researchers share a sense of embarrassment
    that, to date, they have agreed on only six emotions - happiness,
    sadness, surprise, fear, disgust, and anger - and that most of them are
    downers. Amusement and relief are now in their sights, but the greatest
    feeling, love, is still too elusive to be defined by sudden physiological
    changes.

    Haidt's initial research is especially interesting, researchers say,
    because there are hints that elevation functions as a kind of moral
    inspiration, motivating people to be more social and more giving. And if
    scientists can identify the emotional roots of charity, and the
    conditions that foster them, that would bring closer the dream of
    religious visionaries like Mother Teresa: a society in which the season
    of giving lasts all year.

    ''In the last 30 years, we've come to see emotions as important for
    survival, for making good decisions. What Haidt is doing is showing that
    they also have these moral functions,'' said Dacher Keltner, an associate
    professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley who
    is studying the feeling of awe. ''To the extent that you can find a state
    that makes people adhere to moral principles, that suggests you can
    improve things.''

    From the beginning, the inspiring behavior of some people has posed what
    evolutionary theorists call ''the problem of altruism'' - that is, why
    does charity exist at all? In the Darwinian crucible where only the
    fittest survive, one would expect that creatures who give away food would
    quickly go extinct. Any altruistic tendencies should have disappeared,
    washed away in the acid bath of competition.

    Yet, this theory can be difficult to reconcile with the fact that, for
    example, Americans gave $190 billion to charity last year, according to
    Giving USA, an annual philanthropy report.

    The solution, scientists think, lies in the insight that humans, like
    chimpanzees or dolphins, are social animals that communicate and
    cooperate to survive in a hostile environment. Even the simple innovation
    of having someone keep watch for threats while others sleep would bring
    huge evolutionary advantages.

    Thus, they theorize, a system of ''reciprocal altruism,'' in which
    members of a group trade favors over time, could take hold.

    In a seminal paper nearly three decades ago, Robert Trivers explained how
    this system would create the foundations of morality, in which creatures
    commit acts that will bolster the group's survival, and even punish those
    who break the rules and threaten stability. As animals adapted to
    function in the complex new social order, they would develop a capacity
    for sympathy and trust.

    ''We have built up our morality on a firm foundation that you can see in
    the animal world,'' said Frans de Waal, author of ''Good Natured: The
    Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.'' He has shown
    that chimpanzees share, mediate, console, and reconcile after conflict.
    ''We have a lot of psychological continuity with chimpanzees,'' he said.
    Still, de Waal said, humans are unique in that they will help strangers.

    Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi argues that charity is just a form of
    ''showing off,'' of gaining social status, or impressing potential mates.
    Even anonymous donors, he said, could be trying to impress their spouses,
    or secretly hoping that their identity gets out.

    Others theorize that as humans have developed the ability to reason
    abstractly, they have also broadened their notion of who belongs to their
    tribe, so that they can feel kinship with, and thus sympathy for, someone
    they have never met.

    The answer has not been settled, but, still, biologists are increasingly
    convinced that the roots of goodness run deep. Morality, they say, is not
    solely a human creation, invented by philosophers and religious leaders
    to tame a sinning beast, but part of our core being, driven by instinct
    and emotion.

    To study elevation, Haidt and University of Virginia student Anita Tam
    divided subjects into two groups. One was shown a television documentary
    on Mother Teresa, and, to distinguish elevation from happiness, the other
    group was shown ''America's Funniest Home Videos.''

    The results, which have not yet been published, showed that viewers
    reported different physical responses, and that the comedy viewers were
    more likely to be focused on themselves, while the Teresa viewers were
    more likely to feel like doing ''prosocial'' activities such as
    volunteering.

    The next step, which Haidt has begun, will be to describe more precisely
    what the physical elevation response is, in the laboratory, and then
    demonstrate that it is distinctive and reproducible.

    Also crucial will be showing that the results hold in different cultures,
    said Paul Ekman, who established the list of six basic emotions that have
    been widely accepted as benchmarks. Ekman is a professor of psychology at
    the University of California Medical School in San Francisco.

    For a response to qualify as an emotion, researchers will need to show
    that it is an immediate reaction to a change in the environment - not a
    broader ''sentiment,'' like love - and that, while activated, it causes a
    person to think differently.

    Ekman and others speculated that elevation might be a kind of awe, which
    has become a favored topic of research among emotion specialists. Just as
    the dizzying, rough-hewn walls of the Grand Canyon can inspire a
    transforming feeling of being in the presence of something greater, so
    can acts of what Haidt calls ''moral beauty.''

    Haidt said that he became interested in elevation after he studied what
    he considers its opposite - the kind of ''social disgust'' one feels at
    hearing that someone has, for example, sold a child. Just as that feeling
    is nature's warning of someone to avoid, Haidt reasons, elevation could
    be a signal that you are near someone that would be good to cooperate
    with.

    And if these feelings are, as Haidt thinks, an essential part of us, then
    the theory would help explain how moral leaders such as Jesus or Buddha
    or Mohammed could have such a foundation-shaking influence on so many.

    It could also explain why nonviolent protest, of the kind championed by
    Gandhi or Martin Luther King, can have such power. Righteousness, they
    argue, would by its example go straight to a person's heart, literally
    changing it.

    This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 12/6/2000. © Copyright
    2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:35:22 GMT