Yes, the Elf is a strange one, but...

In "Saint Nick is a Multicultural Nightmare?", Michael Gerson muses,

Christmas has become a kind of alternative religion, offering watered-down versions of profound theological doctrines. Its miracles are found on 34th Street, not in Bethlehem. The visitation of Gabriel has become the visitation of Clarence, assuring us that it is a wonderful life. The modern cult of Christmas offers a domesticated form of transcendence. Naughty or nice instead of good or evil. A jolly old elf rather than an illegitimate child, destined for an early death.


One's reaction to the modern cult of Christmas depends on one's view of comparative religion. Believers often assert that other religious traditions are simply wrong and inherently dangerous, worthy of attention only to condemn or debunk.


Admittedly, it is not credible to assert that all religions -- from Buddhism to Aztec human sacrifice to Quakerism to Wahhabi Islam -- are equally true. Religious differences are not trivial. But most faiths share a similar striving. Across the world and across history, human beings have been hounded by an instinct to seek meaning beyond the material -- a desire for forgiveness, acceptance, holy awe and ethical behavior. This search takes many forms and faiths, from animism to Zoroastrianism. If the instinct is not merely a cruel evolutionary joke, the practice of religion has produced varied insights and wisdom. As a Christian, I believe that the claims of Christianity are true -- but this does not mean other faiths are devoid of all truth.


C.S. Lewis put it this way: (For more, go here. )

Neuroscience and popular culture: Neuroscientist examines brains of his family members for killer gene

Here we read,

The idea was to correlate findings from his family's brain scans with a parallel analysis of genes thought to be associated with aggression and violence. Changing activity in certain parts of the brain relates to aggression, emotion and the inhibition of impulsiveness. Dr. Fallon's previous research on murderers had suggested that many killers show distinctive patterns in these brain areas.

"There's gonna be bad news, but I don't know where it will pop up," Dr. Fallon said in September, before he had seen the family data.

- Gautam Naik, "What's on Jim Fallon's Mind? A Family Secret That Has Been Murder to Figure Out: Nature Plays a Prank on a Scientist Looking for Traits of a Killer in His Clan", Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2009

Whatever happened to a fundamental rule of medicine that you do not practice on family members – with or without a license?

Naik decently points out what many miss:

The idea of the "born criminal" has a long history and is deeply controversial. Drawing conclusions about the biology of psychopathic murderers is especially hard because data are scarce. Those in jail rarely agree to a genetic or brain analysis. As a result, scientists rely a good deal on inference. While many people can be aggressive, violent and impulsive, only a tiny fraction become psychopathic killers, capable of committing bone-chilling crimes without empathy, remorse or a sense of right and wrong. Dr. Fallon says his research and other findings suggest that psychopathic killers often have lower intelligence than most people, which can be the result of brain damage.

Dr. Fallon and other scientists increasingly believe that violent offenders emerge when three factors are combined: several "violent" genes; damage to certain brain areas; and exposure to extreme trauma and poor parental bonding in childhood. In other words, nature and nurture.

Notice how personal choice has dropped out of the picture.

I don't know about any of this stuff:

"'violent'" genes? Most people want to live and thrive, however misguided their approach. Whether violent crime results depends on where and how they live, what they expect from life, and how it squares with legal and social codes.

"damage to certain brain areas"? Well, that is unlikely to be inherited, but bad memories of brain damaged adults, passed down as stories, may well be a cultural inheritance.

"exposure to extreme trauma and poor parental bonding in childhood"? Sure, but for every person I have met who shipwrecked on the shoals of life on these accounts, I have met at least six who decided, "I will not live the way I learned."

Anyway, in my experience, the dictum that one should not practise on family members is a sound one.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.


Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Neuroscience and popular culture: Reasons not to buy "neuronovels" for people for Christmas

In the age of neuro-everything, I am hardly surprised to hear about the neuronovel. Jonah Lehrer at Frontal Cortex reports,

The last dozen years or so have seen the emergence of a new strain within the Anglo-American novel. What has been variously referred to as the novel of consciousness or the psychological or confessional novel-the novel, at any rate, about the workings of a mind-has transformed itself into the neurological novel, wherein the mind becomes the brain. ince 1997, readers have encountered, in rough chronological order, Ian McEwan's Enduring Love (de Clérambault's syndrome, complete with an appended case history by a fictional "presiding psychiatrist" and a useful bibliography), Jonathan Lethem's Motherless Brooklyn (Tourette's syndrome), Mark Haddon's Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (autism), Richard Powers's The Echomaker (facial agnosia, Capgras syndrome), McEwan again with Saturday (Huntington's disease, as diagnosed by the neurosurgeon protagonist), Atmospheric Disturbances (Capgras syndrome again) by a medical school graduate, Rivka Galchen, and John Wray's Lowboy (paranoid schizophrenia). And these are just a selection of recently published titles in "literary fiction." There are also many recent genre novels, mostly thrillers, of amnesia, bipolar disorder, and multiple personality disorder.

Lehrer is appropriately skeptical, though at the end of his piece, he almost bows down to materialism - as he must, I suppose. It is very difficult for anyone with a stake in this present darkness to avoid at least appearing to believe that darkness is light.

My own view: Once we put -ogical or -ology in our explanation of a novel ... watch out! We are already wandering off the main highway of narrative. "Once upon a time" is actually much better.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Atheism and pop culture: Religious commitment as mild dementia?

I had computer problems last week, hence no blogging.

In "God vs. Science Isn't the Issue", William McGurn (Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2009) notes,

In contrast to the majority of scientists whose wondrous discoveries seem to inspire humility, today's advocates of scientism can be every bit as dogmatic as the William Jennings Bryans of yesteryear. We saw an example a week ago, when the New York Times reported that many scientists view "outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia."
.
The reporter was Gardiner Harris, and the object of his snark was Francis Collins—the new director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Collins is perhaps best noted for his leadership on the Human Genome Project, an effort to map the genetic makeup of man. But he is also well known for his unapologetic talk about his Christian faith and how he came to it.

Mr. Harris's aside about dementia, of course, is less a proposition open to debate than the kind of putdown you tell at a private cocktail party where you know everyone in the room shares your orthodoxies. In this room, there are those who hold that God cannot be reconciled with what science has discovered about the human body, the origin of the species, and the beginnings of the universe. The more honest ones do not flinch before the implications of their materialist principles on our understanding of human dignity and human rights and human freedom—as well as on religion.

A couple of thoughts:

- Whoever said God vs. science was an issue? The whole idea was invented and is kept alive by materialist atheists, whose comments about "dementia" tell you something worth knowing.

- I have noticed that working scientists tend to be humble in the face of the facts, which is a good place to begin any type of true knowledge. The practitioners of scientism, by contrast, behave like cult members.* Recently, I was listening to one of them hold forth as an after-dinner speaker, proclaiming that on many science stories there is only one side. Well, that's all right then; we can all just mindlessly shout in unison. Oh wait. Cue the pop science press on any subject to do with neuroscience. It is genuinely hard to imagine a neuroscience story so stupid they wouldn't run with it.

- Francis Collins is, in my view, one confused puppy about some issues about which Christians generally have not been confused. So if even Collins is being attacked - when he agrees with the materialists that there can be human lives that don't matter, that humans can do whatever they want with - what does it tell you?: A materialist elite will attack theists even when they are trying to make nice by throwing away key reasons for being a theist.

- Lastly, William Jennings Bryan was not a dogmatist. He had been secretary of state for the US in World War I, and he knew that Darwinism played a role in the notion, prevalent among Germans of the day, that they were born to rule, due to "evolution". He did not want similar ideas taught in publicly funded schools in Tennessee. However, the textbook used there featured eugenics quite openly. As a once textbook editor myself, I can assure you that statements made in the text Scopes taught from (Hunter's Civic Biology) would just never appear in any textbook in Canada today. Lawsuits, and probably hearings as well, would follow.

Bryan's approach was unwise, in my view, because it would be better to just edit that garbage out of the textbooks than make a law or try a teacher over it. But Bryan has been unfairly caricatured, as above, as a foolish fellow, when he was in fact concerned about a legitimate problem. One that - it should be admitted - few others were even trying to address.

Most important, al this tells you what governance by a materialist elite is like (= reasons for not voting for them and not cutting them any slack).

*Not to be confused with religious people generally, who often have the good sense to be confused, divided, or uncertain until they have had an opportunity to weigh the matter in the light of a long tradition - millennia, maybe - of difficult problems.

Neuroscience and popular culture: "Wired" business bumph on leadership

A friend alerts me to this:

His work suggests that the behavioural and emotional qualities of leadership can be traced to neurological activity in identified regions of the brain. He is working on linking this activity with the qualities that best benefit those at the top of a company to create training techniques that develop effective leadership abilities.

Prof Balthazard was drawn to the work of neuroscientist Jeffrey Fannin, a psychologist and executive director of the Center for Cognitive Enhancement, a clinic near ASU’s campus. Dr Fannin scanned patients’ brains and found that signature patterns existed for dysfunctional behaviours. Through exercises and scanning, he was able to help patients train their brains to change their behaviour.

The two men collected data from 55 business and community leaders with a variety of leadership skills, including entrepreneurs, bankers, lawyers, doctors, a land developer, a retired business school dean, a senior diplomat and a mountaineer. Prof Balthazard measured the electrical activity of their brains and demonstrated what he is believes is 100 per cent accuracy in determining who is a strong leader. He has also discovered that leaders with high “psychological capital” (hope, optimism, resilience) display different brain activity to those with low psychological capital.

Rest here, but you must register.

Personally, I am skeptical. Historical experience shows that many different styles of leadership work, depending on who the followers are. Some leaders are collegial, others charismatic, others enigmatic or authoritarian. What works? Well, anything, everything, and nothing, depending on the circumstances.

If Prof Balthazard achieved 100 percent accuracy "in determining who is a strong leader," he must have a very specific setting in mind, with highly specified types of followers.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Psychology news: Undeserved praise related to narcissism?

In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, Jeffrey Zaslow addressed the interesting problem of offering too much praise. The corporate and academic fad of praising people - even for showing up on time (like, clocks are a rare and illegal substance these days?) Has, some fear, resulted in a spate of people who need constant praise just to function. That sounds to me like an addiction, but read the article for yourself and decide. Zaslow quotes Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me:
Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled - and More Miserable than Ever Before.. She would like to put a stop to meaningless praise, as just another undesirable urban noise - if it did not contribute to narcissism:

Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented.
America's praise fixation has economic, labor and social ramifications. Adults who were overpraised as children are apt to be narcissistic at work and in personal relationships, says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University. Narcissists aren't good at basking in other people's glory, which makes for problematic marriages and work relationships, she says.
Her research suggests that young adults today are more self-centered than previous generations. For a multiuniversity study released this year, 16,475 college students took the standardized narcissistic personality inventory, responding to such statements as "I think I am a special person." Students' scores have risen steadily since the test was first offered in 1982. The average college student in 2006 was 30% more narcissistic than the average student in 1982.

Well, I am with Twenge on that one. The whole thing is really kind of simple and predictable. Most of us discount expected noise. So we don't count "good job!" if we hear it all the time. We have to hear "great job!" to think we are being praised. But what if we always hear "great job!"? Trust me:

There.are.not.enough.adjectives.in.English.to.make.continual.inflation.of.praise.work.

So it is time to put this "praise" fad out of its misery, while we still have usable dictionaries.