Showing posts with label Empathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Empathy. Show all posts

The Stories We Don’t Tell: My Mom On Raising An Autistic Child And Why She’ll Never Write About Me

Sarah Kurchak and her Mother Jane Kurchak
 [image: Cheerfully geeky selfie of the author, a white Canadian woman wearing
glasses and also goggles on top of her head; and her mother, a white woman
also wearing glasses plus a pinstriped blue collared shirt, tie, and white jacket.]

Sarah Kurchak
www.riskyfuel.com

When I’m feeling particularly frustrated with my career, I offer to ghostwrite a memoir for my mom. It’s a slightly bitter, semi-serious joke. I’m mostly taking a shot at the fact that the memoirs that non-autistic parents write about raising their autistic children have a much better shot at getting published and selling than anything that I, as an autistic person, could ever hope to write about autism. But there’s also a little part of me that just wants that payday. (I can’t extend this offer to my dad, because he’s a fellow autist and no one seems particularly interested in hearing what autistic parents have to say about these things, either. Or acknowledging that autistic parents even exist.)

My mom is a funny person, and usually quite indulgent when it comes to my humor, but she always shuts this joke down pretty quickly. Even in jest, her answer is clear. This isn’t her story to tell.

As I’ve watched the autistic community respond to the latest offerings from this wretched subgenre and wondered how I could contribute to the conversation at a time where I don’t feel intellectually or emotionally equipped to properly tackle the issue as a writer or an advocate, I kept coming back to this point. So I asked my mom to read two of the most recent and high-profile examples of the Autism Parent memoir, Judith Newman’s To Siri With Love, and the excerpt from Whitney Ellenby’s forthcoming Autism Uncensored that was recently published in The Washington Post. And then I asked her if I could interview her about them. And about us.

The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity. And I’m not so sure it helped the latter. I’m not convinced that I perfectly articulated my points, but it’s the best that I can do right now and I’m hoping you can get the general idea from what I have said.

People argue that no one represents the real autism. This, in its somewhat rambling, possibly overly earnest, and well-meaning glory, is also the real autism.

Sarah Kurchak: You read To Siri With Love recently. Can you give me your general impression of that book?

Jane Kurchak: OK, what I went through while reading was a range of emotions. Mostly it was anger, and then sadness. But, I guess, ultimately I felt that Gus was the punchline and he wasn’t in on the joke. And that bothered me. And I kept thinking…she’s his mother, and that individual that should be the most secure person, place, everything on earth was [instead] doing this end run behind him and telling the whole world about his bathroom issues. And it wasn’t her story to tell.

I always put you in the kid’s position. How would you feel if that were going on? How would you feel? How is Gus going to feel in ten years when maybe the reality of that book hits him? It may or may not, but it still was never her story to tell.

Another thing that bothered me were the number of people and celebrities that were gushing over this book. I kept thinking…why is nobody saying to her “Maybe you shouldn’t be telling Gus’s toilet secrets?” I don’t know. So that’s what Siri did to me. And, in that case…I never, ever questioned that she loved Gus. I just don’t think that she went about all of this the right way. And who am I to judge? But she put the book out there. It’s for all of us to read. We’re going to have opinions. And I just don’t think that was her story to tell.

Which brings us to the article in The Washington Post that we read last week, which was called “Bystanders were horrified. But my son has autism and I was desperate.” Can you give me your general impressions on that?

That made me cry. As upset as I was with the whole Siri book, that pales by comparison to that article I read. That’s child abuse. It is. And, again, I put you in that kid’s position. And never…and I’m not saying that I’m parent of the year, or any of those things. I stumbled through this. I didn’t know. But I cannot, for the life of me, ever ever imagine thinking that was a good idea. To do it wasn’t a good idea. And to write about it is as repugnant as the action.

I was thinking…what the eff is that lady thinking? “I was desperate? People were watching me?” You took him into the damned situation in the first place! This isn’t about her. It shouldn’t be about her. She wanted him to see Elmo.

What I noticed in that piece, even more than in Judith Newman’s observations, was that she kept blaming situations on her child’s autism that were actually problems involving people’s perception of her.

This is all about her. This is all about her.

I try to have sympathy. Not just as a human, but as a writer. Because I think we do have somewhat different boundaries. And yet…I am also someone who has significantly benefited from other people protecting my boundaries so that I could get to the point where I could decide to reveal perhaps too much in certain situations. But even though I am an open book in a lot of ways, there’s a lot of stuff that people don’t know.

And there’s a lot of stuff that is probably going to get weirdly meta in this conversation, where we’re going to talk around what we don’t talk about in my life, so that it can’t be Google-able and people can’t attach things that still have a lot of stigma around them to me, so that I can continue to survive and function as a person in the world and as a writer. As small as my profile is, it’s still a public profile. And none of that would be possible if you and dad had ever been more public about my life.

And we’ve talked about this before. It never occurred to me to make any of your stuff public. We talked about your sleep thing. We all knew about your sleep thing and I joked about that. “Sarah didn’t sleep! That’s why she’s an only child.” There were jokes like that.

There are other situations that we will never discuss. But they were never insurmountable and I can tell you that when some of those things were happening, I would simply say “She’s not going to be doing this at ten. She’s not going to be doing this at sixteen.” It was in the moment.

Do you remember…of course you remember wearing the Smurf hat to Pupo’s [Welland, Ontario’s most beloved grocery store].

I also remember wearing the Smurf hat in grade nine.

I do, too. But that was a bit of a dare, and you go for it. But you loved that hat. And then remember we had to convert it into a Smurfette hat, and you had those big yellow yarn braids hanging down? I loved that you wanted to put that on your head and wear it to the grocery store. You had so much fun doing that, why would I not have gone along with that?

And I do want to be clear for anyone who is going to read this and think this is just an example of someone who is quirky and not “really” autistic: This is an example that we can talk about freely. There are other ones that are way more private that we’re not going to get into. But your choices in all of these situations came from the same compassion. They all came from the same logic. And ultimately ended up benefitting me in the same way, too.

Yes, I can see where you’re going. Yes.

In this conversation, we’re talking about To Siri With Love as a book, because we’ve both read it. We have only read Whitney Ellenby’s article that was published in The Washington Post. We haven’t read Autism Uncensored, her forthcoming book, as a whole. And this is, in part, because you have asked me not to. So can we get into why you asked me not to read this book?

Your level of empathy can be debilitating. You’ve always been like this. Always. And I see your daily struggles. I see you try to function in a pull-up-your-bootsraps neurotypical world. And I know if you read this book, it will crush you. It will take a bigger toll on you, by far, than Siri did. And, as your mother, my concern is your ability to continue functioning carrying that level of upset. So it’s a selfish motive because I don’t want you to hurt and I know that what we’ve read is only a small part of what’s gone on. I don’t want you to read it.

If you were a writer, and you decided to write about me and my childhood, how do you think you would approach it versus what you’ve seen from these parent memoirs?

I have always said to you, to anybody that will listen to me, I have learned more about life in the world from you than from anyone or anything else. And if I were to write, it would be about the lessons that I’ve learned from you. Nothing that you’ve learned from me, but what I’ve learned from you. Only from my perspective. I would never, ever expose, without your permission, any of the incidences that have happened. But every one of those was for me to learn more than it was for you to learn.

So I guess it’s that. Watch your child and learn from them. Take you cues from your child. Just because I’m your parent doesn’t make me right. I would write about how you enrich my life. And people might read this and think “You have to say that. You’re a mother.” They can think what they want. My reality is that my life is a better life because of you. I’m a far more tolerant person. I’m a far more understanding person because of the lessons that I’ve learned from you. Not just because you’re autistic but because you’re autistic and the way you view things and the way you approach things has taught me a different way of viewing and approaching. So that’s what I would want people to know.

So I think we’ve already touched on this a bit but I’m going to try to get a bit more explicit because, for me, this isn’t just an issue of what we write about autism. What concerns me is that this gets to the heart of the stories that we tell about autism in daily life. And when I approach these books…I’ll admit, part of it is professional jealousy, because I want to have at least a fraction of the platform that these people have. I want to be able to write about my autistic life or write autistic characters that can make the next generation feel less of whatever the hell it was that I felt growing up.

But it goes beyond that, too, because I am someone who has benefitted—and, I would argue, only survived and reached this point—because of the stories that nobody told about me. Because I had parents who didn’t exploit me, didn’t film my meltdowns, didn’t tell people about, say, how much I lost my shit at the dentist every time I went, didn’t talk about my toilet training, my utter attachment to you to the point where you couldn’t really go anywhere alone without me freaking out. And these are all things that, again, I want to point out to anyone who is reading this, I am glossing over because this is as much detail as I feel safe revealing under my byline now. The only reason that I feel that anyone can come at me and say “You’re not autistic enough to count” or “You’re not the kind of child that they’re talking about here” is because, when I was that kind of child, no one told on me. When that happened, you would take me out of the situation. No one saw it. And then you wouldn’t talk about it later.

And it would never have occurred to me to talk about it later.

You also, I want to point out, suffered because of that. For all of the talk about autistic kids not being aware of their surroundings, I was hyper aware of the level of criticism that you and dad faced, often when I was around, for ostensibly coddling me, or overprotecting, or spoiling me. Obviously it never occurred to you to say anything, but it could have alleviated your burden if you had told people why you were doing it. And you never did.

No. I never really thought of that before. It didn’t occur to me.

We knew what worked for you. If we were to go into a situation with you, we knew what worked and what didn’t. So if we had to remove ourselves from that situation and hang out somewhere else, what was the problem?

I guess there’s a price that you pay…and people judge. We all judge. But we’re so…who wrote the damned book? Who wrote the book on how society has to function? What’s normal? We can apply it to your temperature, but we certainly don’t need to apply that to behaviour.

I think people assumed that I was a nervous, clingy child because I wasn’t pushed enough, when the reality was that you guys were like that because I was a nervous and clingy child and any steps I’ve made in life are because I have a secure home base. A safe place where I’m never going to be exposed or judged or unduly pushed into something.

And that’s what I feel like every single parental home should be, regardless of if you’re 6 or 36. You should be able to come here, to decompress, and the world doesn’t get to peek in.

My main point that I wanted to discuss here is that I’ve been protected by what you and dad didn’t share, but I also want to say that I think I was really nurtured by the fact that you didn’t bring any outside measurements to my growth and development. Ever. You always always wanted to work on my terms and do what actually made me succeed or survive, or grow. I bring up that shoe story that was in Refinery29 to parents a lot, because I think it’s a great example of how practical you were. The modifications didn’t help. They made me sad, because they ruined my shoes. So you were like “That’s not the solution.”

Unfortunately, because of the narrative that we have around autism now, so many parents are so scared of screwing up and so scared of having these autistic children who won’t be “normal” in the future that they just keep hammering away at one thing, even if it’s not working, even if it’s harming their child, like it’s the only answer.

So again we get back to society’s expectations is driving these parents to make these ridiculous decisions. It’s all of these benchmarks. Why are those the rules?

We should probably wrap this up, but one last thing that I want to say is that I am not just concerned about what these books reveal about their subjects and how that harms them, but I’m also dubious about the purpose of them at all. These are books that are intended to expose the “real” autism or shed a light on the plight and what I wonder is who this level of awareness serves. It seems to me that, as long as the actual issues that they’re talking about have stigma attached to them, we’re not helping autistic people by talking about them in this way. We’re helping carers, because people will sympathize with them. If using a diaper is still stigmatized, then talking about an autistic person who uses a diaper is only going to make people sympathize with the person who might have to help them with it, as opposed to helping people accept that some people just happen to use diapers.

Until the actual autistic needs and behaviors are accepted, I don’t see any purpose to this kind of awareness beyond narratives that peddle in tragedy and the lionization of non-autistic people.

That’s it exactly. I don’t know a catchy phrase for it. But they put it out there, you see how the public eats it up and it’s permission to be the victim. So that’s why it’s going to sell. And I bet there are a lot of…I have no idea what the statistics would be, but there’s no way in the world that Dad and I are the only two who let it play out this way. There have to be a ton of people like this, but those stories just aren’t as exciting.

I’ve become associated with a lot of great parents through Twitter, and I know they’re out there. Unfortunately, part of what makes them great parents is that they don’t dominate the conversation, so you don’t see them.

So you’re going to write a story. You know, when you write that story, you’re going to expose yourself to more criticism.

Yeah.

And I’m not going to lie. I think about that. And I wish it wouldn’t happen. But I have to say, in this case, you’ve taken it upon yourself to help someone that can’t really speak for themselves and I’m so fucking proud.

It’s not that they can’t speak or communicate, it’s just that I am lucky enough to have slipped into a platform that…you know, I might have a higher profile career if I weren’t autistic, but it’s still more than a lot of great autistic writers and bloggers are afforded. And I’m just…I don’t know…what is any of this for if the next Sarah has to live all of this the exact same way?

OK. And I just want you to know that I’m proud.

I’m wondering if it’s going to seem incredibly self-serving if we end on my mommy being proud of me.

Well, you can decide whether you want to put that in or not. But I’m not just throwing that in. I am.

----

Originally published at Medium
Share:

Elizabeth Bartmess Interviewed on autchat, Autistic Community, and Autism in Fiction

Elizabeth Bartmess runs the autistics-and-cousins autchat discussions on Twitter, and also writes and critiques autism-themed fiction. We talked with Bartmess about why autchat matters, sometimes in surprising ways, and also about why "'Autistic character learns empathy' is the character arc I most wish would go away."

image: photo of a white person with short light brown hair and glasses, smiling
Elizabeth Bartmess
[image: photo of a white person with short
light brown hair and glasses, smiling.]
Thinking Person's Guide to Autism: Tell us about autchat. What is it, exactly? 

Elizabeth Bartmess: Autchat is a Twitter hashtag by and for autistic people and "autistic cousins"—people who have similar experiences due to other disabilities like hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, ADHD, etc. We welcome people whether they are formally diagnosed, self-diagnosed, or wondering whether they might be autistic or similar.

We have weekly hour-long chats on our experiences, with topics such as  accommodations, burnout, and sexuality. During a chat, the moderator asks 4-5 questions and participants answer them. We post the questions online ahead of time for people who need more time to think, and people can chime in with answers any time during the week. Outside of chats, people may also use the hashtag to ask questions or post information of interest. We save transcripts of the chats to our website, to help keep a record of our collective knowledge.

The chats are Sundays 4pm Eastern, and the website has information on how to participate. We ask people who are neither autistic nor autistic cousins to refrain from posting on the tag, but everyone is welcome to read along or to check out the archives.

TPGA: How did autchat come into being? Was it a collaboration or a solo project?

Bartmess: Autchat came out of the autistic community on Twitter in February 2015. I'd been on Twitter for about a year then, and had met a lot of other autistic people and been having great conversations with them. Twitter is a very ephemeral medium, though—you have a conversation, it scrolls off your timeline, and you stop thinking about it. And if it's just between you and someone else, people who don't follow both of you won't see the conversation on their timelines. So I asked whether other people would mind if we started tagging some of these conversations so other people could find them by searching for the tag.

A number of people were interested. We came up with the #autchat tag, decided to try weekly chats, and collaborated on planning. The primary people involved back then were me, @AskCisco (who had been thinking along similar lines), @Ask_anAspergirl, and @erabrand, who also did our website. For a while, Cisco also ran a second autchat session on Sundays, where we revisited previous topics.

We've now been running for over two years have have had over a hundred and sixty chats on more than eighty topics. Some other projects have also come out of people who either met through autchat or were involved in planning it, such as Autistic Flappy Hour, a podcast run by autchat co-founder @AskCisco and two other autchat regulars; and the #AutismMeans hashtag series, run by me, @FilmSpectrum, and @rsocialskills. @neurocouture, an autchat participant, has also run a number of Twitter chats on autistic burnout on the #AutBurnout tag.

TPGA: Can you tell us about some specific instances in which you've seen autchat make a difference in someone's life, or in which you've heard it helped a person through a tough spot?

Bartmess: Specific instances blur together in my mind because there have been so many of them! For some people, it's their first foray into autistic community. Many people have said it's helped them with self-understanding, self-acceptance, and coping skills. Other people have said it's helped them get through their diagnostic process, or help make sense of things after a diagnosis. I know many people make friends through the chats and develop a sense of belonging to a community. I've also seen people say autchat has helped widen their understanding of what it means to be autistic. There are also some good stories in this post that @AskCisco wrote about autchat's origins.

TPGA: What are some examples of autchat scenarios that surprised you, or widened your understanding of other autistic people's experiences?

Bartmess: I was surprised by how central stimming is for many people, both with respect to coping and with respect to social experiences and the need for acceptance. My own experiences have centered primarily on difficulty with social scripting and figuring out how to respond to social cues—not so much now but certainly up through my early thirties—and I thought that would be more universal than it was. I also wasn't expecting sensory issues to be as salient a feature of many people's experiences as they are.

Another thing that surprised me was experiences with gender and gender identity. Before becoming involved in Twitter's autistic community, and in autchat, I hadn't realized how common it was for autistic people to be trans and/or nonbinary, or gender non-conforming.

TPGA: Are there any autchat topics you haven't broached yet? If not, why?

Bartmess: I have a list of almost twenty topics that have been suggested that we haven't covered yet (two of which I've thought of while answering these questions!), so the most common reason to not cover topics is just that I haven't gotten around to them yet.

There are some topics I would particularly like to cover, but haven't attempted. The biggest one is chronic interpersonal trauma, specifically abuse and bullying. I write most of the questions for the the weekly chats, and I try to write them so that participants can come up with useful things to take away. I don't know how to do that for chronic interpersonal trauma, in part because what we need often doesn't exist. There's very little effective treatment for chronic trauma specifically, and the treatments that have been developed are not widely available and don't take into account autistic and similarly neurodivergent people's specific needs and vulnerabilities, even though we experience abuse and bullying at high rates.  My worry is that because what our community really needs—effective and widely available treatment and support—largely aren't available to us, we'll wind up at the same place we started from at the end of the chat, and possibly in more distress.

There are also some topics I would like to run where I don't have the relevant personal experience to write good questions. We've had topic requests for co-occurring conditions like eating disorders, personality disorders, plurality, and psychosis. I'd also like to have a chat on race and ethnicity and how that affects experiences of being autistic or similar. I've been looking for volunteers to do these for a while, but have not had any success yet.

I'd also like to have a chat on autistic cousins and autistic communities. Communities formed by autistic people can be quite strong and sometimes also insular. That can be hard on neurodivergent people who have a lot in common with autistic people, but who are not necessarily invited to autistic communities and activities and may not feel comfortable joining in even when they are. I haven't had that chat yet because autchat's participants are almost always autistic, and the chat would need to primarily involve autistic cousins speaking and autistic participants listening. I don't have the cross-community connections to network for that and am not very good at reaching out. (I am open to collaboration, though. If someone who is reading this is a disabled person who shares significant similarities in experience with autistic people and would like to develop a Twitter chat or chats on this, either for autchat or as a separate chat, DM the mod account on Twitter at @autchatmod or email autchatmod@gmail.com.)

TPGA: How do you think people who aren't themselves autistic can benefit from reading the autchat archives?

Bartmess: Some of the benefits for non-autistic people are the same as for autistic people: A better sense of autistic people's similarities to and differences from non-autistic people, and a better sense of autistic people's similarities to and differences from each other (as the saying goes, if you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person). Autistic cousins may get some of the same benefits that autistic people do, by seeing experiences they personally identify with, or ideas for new coping skills.

I think many people who read the archives, whether they are autistic or not, will be surprised by the range of topics and the many ways those issues affect our lives. For example, many people don't know that sleep difficulties, or differences in pain perception and expression, or difficulty eating, are common for autistic people, even if we know those are issues for ourselves personally, or for an autistic person we know. Popular representations of autism often focus on a limited number of topics, and have a narrow scope even for those topics.

TPGA: You are also a fiction writer, and a contributor to Disability in Kid Lit. What are some stereotypical autistic character arcs you wish would go away?

Bartmess: "Autistic character learns empathy" is the character arc I most wish would go away. There's a common and inaccurate belief that autistic people don't have empathy. While some autistic people do describe being lower in empathy than neurotypical people, it's very common for us to have painfully high levels of empathy. It sometimes looks like we have less empathy because we have difficulty intuiting how a given person wants us to express that empathy, and asking outright can sometimes make people angry. It's also hard to enact empathy when we're overstimulated or anxious or overwhelmed, and our energy is so taken up by the immediate situation that we have nothing left to give.

These are both situations where empathy and understanding from other people can help us get to a position where we can return that empathy and understanding. But it's common for us instead to hear that we're not empathic enough, and if we really cared about other people, we'd do what they want. Hearing that—whether in real life or in fiction—is frustrating, not just because it's inaccurate but because it means nobody gets what they what! And that belief—the belief that we lack empathy—is also sometimes used as justification for treating us badly.

Another character arc I would like to go away is one where we learn to "push through" or learn to tolerate things that, in real life, are either not good ideas for us to try to push through, or are not actually things it is possible for us to learn to tolerate. This is a variation on a larger theme where character growth is shown as becoming more neurotypical. That's depressing to read because, while autistic people continue to learn skills throughout our lifetimes, we don't become neurotypical; what looks like becoming more neurotypical / less autistic is often compliance with expectations that we act neurotypical regardless of the cost, and the cost can be very high.

A third character arc I'd like to go away is actually not a character arc at all—it's the absence of one, where an autistic secondary character is included in a story so that neurotypical characters can show they're good people, or included to provide conflict for other characters to work through (often in the form of being embarrassing to other characters in front of their friends).

When I wrote that article you linked to in the question I was thinking of things not to do—and I think if I wrote it again I'd focus more on arcs I would like to see, or like to see more of. (I still like that article and I'm glad I wrote it, but I wish I'd included more positive things.)

One thing I'm struck by in fiction is the rarity of autism-related arcs that are very common in real life. For example, realizing you are autistic, or being diagnosed, as a teen or adult, and re-evaluating your life in light of that. Fiction often shows us as already diagnosed (and in fact I can only think of one major exception in kid lit—Rogue, by Lynn Lachmann-Miller, an autistic author, although there are some books that never identify us as autistic at all).

Another real-life arc is joining autistic community; many books have one autistic person and that's it, although there are some great exceptions, especially by autistic authors. Other real-life arcs include learning to better advocate for your needs and improving your self-care skills, and learning coping skills for things that don't show up in fiction much, like autistic inertia and other aspects of executive dysfunction, or motor issues.

All of those arcs involve the opposite of becoming more neurotypical, and in real life they often involve becoming more visibly autistic. So they don't necessarily look like character growth to people who haven't lived them, or who aren't on close terms with people who have. But they're some of the most important and helpful character growth we can have.

And, of course, autistic people go through character growth that isn't specifically about being autistic, and I'd love to see more of those arcs, too.

TPGA: Who is your favorite autistic character in literature, and why? What resources would you recommend for people who want good portrayals of autistic characters?

My favorite autistic character is Oscar from Anne Ursu's middle grade book The Real Boy, for many reasons. He has domains of competence and difficulty, and he has adventures that are not specifically or exclusively about being autistic—while still being portrayed as autistic throughout—and winds up being a hero. The book is very good at portraying his internal experiences, and some of his difficulties with social cognition are quite close to ones I had when I was younger.

My favorite resources for good portrayals of autistic characters are Disability in Kid Lit (which includes reviews of both good and less good portrayals), and Ada Hoffman's Autistic Book Party, which has a stronger focus on fiction for adults, particularly science fiction and fantasy. It includes novels, as well as many recommended short stories that are available for free online.
Share:

Science vs. Religion: It's all in our heads

Credit: © IMG_191 / Fotolia  

Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence
to explain the world around us dates back centuries.


If I understand the research in this report and in other studies posted here, the seeming conflict between faith and science resides in each of us due in part to the structures of our brains combined with how each individual's brain is genetically constructed combined with the fact that of the twenty or so "modes" of our brain, only one can grab the attention of our conscious and aware self at a time.

Recent research (below in related stories) shows differences between conservative and liberal thought processes; conservatives tending to more dominant amygdala reactions and liberals tending to more frontal lobe responses.  (This is my extremely simplistic explanation of our immensely complex brains.)  The importance of this is that political views are as much genetically controlled as based on logical conclusion.

Now we get into the conflict between science and religion.

The latest research seems to say that this, too, is genetic in origin.  Or, perhaps, may be genetically controlled.

As some brain scientists theorize, free will is an illusion; we're all creatures of our genes even on the highest levels.

This research and the debate surrounding it is central to the work we do as writers.  We deal in human action and emotion at all levels.  Understanding the source of behavior and attitude only makes us more adept and realistic in character and story.

Here's the report with a link to the study in the attribution.
*  *  *  *  * 


Conflict between science, religion lies in our brains

". . .the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.  
[R]eligious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social
inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions."

The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains, researchers at Case Western Reserve University and Babson College have found.  Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.
To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.
"When there's a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd," said Tony Jack, who led the research. "But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

Jack is an associate professor of philosophy at Case Western Reserve and research director of the university's Inamori International Center of Ethics and Excellence, which helped sponsor the research.

"A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.

"Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic," he said.

In a series of eight experiments, the researchers found the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.

That finding offers a new explanation for past research showing women tend to hold more religious or spiritual worldviews than men. The gap may be because women have a stronger tendency toward empathetic concern than men.

Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths -- not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.

Brain structure
The research is based on the hypothesis that the human brain has two opposing domains in constant tension. In earlier research, Jack 's Brain, Mind & Consciousness lab used functional magnetic resonance imaging to show the brain has an analytical network of neurons that enables us to think critically and a social network that enables us to empathize. When presented with a physics problem or ethical dilemma, a healthy brain fires up the appropriate network while suppressing the other.

"Because of the tension between networks, pushing aside a naturalistic world view enables you to delve deeper into the social/emotional side," Jack explained. "And that may be the key to why beliefs in the supernatural exist throughout the history of cultures. It appeals to an essentially nonmaterial way of understanding the world and our place in it."

Friedman said, "Having empathy doesn't mean you necessarily have anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely social/moral insight."

"These findings," Friedman continued, "are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant, according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral."

Experiments and results
The researchers examined the relationship between belief in God or a universal spirit with measures of analytic thinking and moral concern in eight different experiments, each involving 159 to 527 adults. Consistently through all eight, the more religious the person, the more moral concern they showed. But no cause and effect was established.

They found that both spiritual belief and empathic concern were positively associated with frequency of prayer, meditations and other spiritual or religious practices, but neither were predicted by church dinners or other social contact associated with religious affiliation.

While others theorize that mentalizing -- interpreting human behavior in terms of intentional mental states such as needs, desires or purposes -- has a positive association with belief, the researchers found none.

". . .analytic thinking discourages acceptance of spiritual or religious beliefs."

Like other studies, these experiments showed that analytic thinking discourages acceptance of spiritual or religious beliefs. But the statistical analysis of data pooled from all eight experiments indicates empathy is more important to religious belief than analytic thinking is for disbelief.

So why can the conflict between science and religion become so strong?

"Because the networks suppress each other, they may create two extremes," Boyatzis said. "Recognizing that this is how the brain operates, maybe we can create more reason and balance in the national conversations involving science and religion."

Using both networks


"Many of history's most famous scientists were spiritual or religious."

The researchers say humans are built to engage and explore using both networks.  "Far from always conflicting with science, under the right circumstances religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and insight," Jack said. "Many of history's most famous scientists were spiritual or religious. Those noted individuals were intellectually sophisticated enough to see that there is no need for religion and science to come into conflict."

They refer to Baruch Aba Shalev's book 100 years of Nobel Prizes, which found that, from 1901 to 2000,

  • 654 Nobel laureates, or nearly 90 percent, belonged to one of 28 religions. The remaining 
  • 10.5 percent were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.

"You can be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.

The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical thinking -- at the wrong time -- can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of religious differences to persecute or fight wars.

"Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion," Jack said. "Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm."

The researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.

Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules:

  1. "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. 
  2. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

To dig deeper into belief, the researchers are planning studies to learn if individuals who increase their empathy then increase their religious or spiritual belief, or vice versa.

Related stories:
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:
Attitude & Politics
The Brain - Is it Nurture? Or Nature?
Story Source: Materials provided by Case Western Reserve University. Anthony Ian Jack, Jared Parker Friedman, Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis, Scott Nolan Taylor. Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern. PLOS ONE, 2016.

Share: