Classical Values :: Bigotry is destiny? (Why we cling to our guns....)

June 03, 2008

Bigotry is destiny? (Why we cling to our guns....)

Is there a "neurobiological antagonism to difference"?

Mike Godwin explained the mechanism behind this theory:

....after we reach a certain age (12, about the age of sexual maturity), our brains look at the world for confirmations of their perceptual frameworks, and so cope less well with "difference" -- data that challenge our perceptions. In the comments period I said I thought this view was a little pessimistic -- after all, don't scientists, who learned all the old scientific theories first, come up with new and different theories? He allowed as how human beings probably have other means of adapting to new conditions. I think a complete theory would include an explanation of how it is, even though our brains lose the plasticity of early childhood, we can continue to learn new things and even adopt new world views into old age.

I've lived long enough that I have seen many inflexible people become more flexible with age, and many flexible people become more rigid and more inflexible with age.

But right there, I caught myself making what might be seen as an assumption -- that change or the resistance to change over time are in some way age-related phenomena. Perhaps it's more proper to say "over time" instead of "with age." Or is that a distinction without a difference? In view of our inherent mortality, is it possible to separate time from age? If I change my mind about something after many years of reflection, is it really fair to assert that I am a victim of a biological process, or that I am somehow an "exception" to some "norm" of built-in biological, um, "conservatism"? (Sorry, but I don't know what words to use here, and the quotes are my way of questioning my verbal ability to come up with viable premises.)

I think we fear change, and this is as natural as fear of the unknown (which is what change is). Even animals fear the unknown; my dog will bark at the sound of an unfamiliar car engine in the neighbor's driveway, but she knows the "right" sounds.

Looking to the past, and learning from experiences is thus a natural defense against this fear. Coco's memory of what a familiar car engine sounds like is, I admit, superior to mine, and it's not that I can't hear; I just don't tune in and listen carefully enough to sear it into my memory as she does. Perhaps who comes and goes next door is not as important to me as it is to her. She is a dog, with different instincts. OTOH, it is entirely possible that I am aware of the familiar sounds on a biological level (what I might call a "gut" level), and that I have uncanny feelings of which I am not fully conscious.

Feelings? Is that the right word? If you hear something and are unfamiliar with the sound, is that really a feeling? Or is it just that an observation is being made, but the mind is not paying attention to it? A minor incident in a hospital drove home that this occurs, and that what we call "feelings" may be entirely rational thought processes that we are unable to articulate:

Once I was in an elevator going up, and a group of people got on, with looks on their faces which suggested that they intended to go down. So sure was I that they wanted to go down (and were making a mistake) that I thought I should warn them, but I stopped myself, for I had no way to be sure that they wanted to go down and it wasn't my job to anticipate the needs of total strangers. Sure enough, as soon as the door closed and the elevator started going up, they groaned! So I was right, but I still can't describe precisely how people look when they get on an elevator expecting to go down. It was just something I could read on their faces, but I can't tell you how it looked.

Well, what was that? I'd call it a "feeling," but did I really feel? Or did I spot certain behavioral clues based on observation and experience of the details normal humans tend not to discuss? "Normal"? There I go, implying that people who study call body language (and who could probably explain in numbing detail exactly how people look when they want to "go down") are not normal. I guess I should just say outside of my range of expertise, and probably on the outer edge of the human Bell Curve. But what is the study of body language other than to assign terminology to things we can all see, and probably already "know" -- but which we erroneously call "feelings," "hunches" and "gut reactions"?

I guess I'm straying from the topic, which was "neurobiological antagonism to difference."

The paper that Godwin mentioned is now published in the form of a book -- "Brain and Culture: Neurobiology, Ideology, and Social Change By Bruce E. Wexler. A book which Scientific American called "a fascinating step forward in deconstructing the seemingly universal us/them mentality."

That's quite a scientific mouthful. I'm wondering whether it obfuscates the tension between biology and history, which some present as a dichotomy. In his review of the Wexler book, UCSD's Andrew Scull poked fun at this extreme view:

Some foolish folks believe that history matters, that human societies and human behaviours have developed over thousands of years largely because of the elaboration of an increasing complex set of social, cultural and material phenomena that need to be examined on their own terms. The wiser among us, however, understand that we are only animals, and as such are ruled by our biology, just as ineluctably as the ant or the rhesus monkey, and that if we want to understand human action in general, or more specialized realms like the human institution of the law, it is to our biology that we must turn. More specifically, it is mostly our brains that matter, and therefore it is to the elucidation and illumination provided by evolutionary psychobiology and contemporary neuroscience that we need to look for answers. Science, HARD science, will uncover the secret wellsprings of all our actions, and we can then leave behind once and for all the soft speculations of the social sciences and gratefully set aside the empty verbiage of the philosophers. Or perhaps, if we are a bit more charitable and ecumenical, we can incorporate some bits of the harder social sciences, such as economics, game theory and cognitive psychology, while abandoning the fuzzy notions foisted on us by soft-hearted and soft-headed anthropologists, sociologists and historians.

Very funny -- especially because if you disregard history, you lose the ability to examine what happened. And without knowing what happened, attributing "biology" to it becomes a pointless and superficial exercise. Fortunately, Scull is being sarcastic. Unfortunately, there are those who would see that passage as a dead-on analysis of what is wrong with the human condition.

While acknowledging the validity of much of Wexler's analyis of the neurological evidence, Scull thinks he takes it too far:

Wexler's claim that by early adulthood, the neuroplasticity of humans has sharply declined seems consonant with much of the available evidence. This remains true whether one focuses on such things as the increased difficulty in learning new languages or on the evidence about the growing stability of brain structure. But in his last chapters, the extrapolations that he makes from this state of affairs struck me as strained and selective. The greater rigidity of adult brains leads, he suggests, to such phenomena as a 'neurobiological antagonism to difference' (p. 212), a resistance to novelty and change, a state of misery and illness in the face of altered worlds, even a propensity 'to eliminate strange and foreign people' (p. 212). Where earlier in life, we changed our brains to match our circumstances, now we try to change the world to match our newly static internal dispositions.

Significantly, these generalizations are supported, not by the sorts of evidence that are invoked earlier in the book, but by selective snippets from history and anthropology, allied to anecdotes about the effects of losing a spouse, the dread of seeing one's children marrying those from another ethnic group or culture, or the dislocations attendant upon immigration to another country as an adult. We are invited to view the conflicts between Hutu and Tutsi and the genocide in Rwanda, the Crusades against the Moslems and against the Albigensian heretics in Languedoc, the Inquisition and a variety of other lethal encounters between disparate people and cultures, as in substantial part the product of a biologically rooted conservatism and ethnocentrism. To be sure, Wexler acknowledges 'data to support [these] assertion[s] are not as clear-cut as the data ... that support the arguments for environmental shaping of brain development' (p. 212). But it does not stop him speculating along these lines, ignoring all the counter-examples that history and our own daily experience can just as easily offer: of adults embracing and seeking out novelty; of cultures comfortably co-existing; of delight in difference. The fact that even someone with generally so subtle a perspective on the interactions between brain and culture feels impelled to advance simplistic notions of this sort is a pity. It would seem that the siren song of biological reductionism is not easily resisted, even by those who ordinarily know better.

The problem I have with seeing "conservatism and ethnocentrism" as "biologically rooted" is that words like "conservatism" have become meaningless buzzwords. I haven't read Wexler's book, but unless he is using conservatism in the strictly psychological sense, I see a problem. If by "conservatism" he means right-of-center politics, this weakens his appeal to biology. That's because a "neurobiological antagonism to difference" would necessarily be dictated to whatever "norms" and "antagonisms" were formed in early adulthood, and a tendency to stick with one's past, and to stick with what is known and to fear the unknown would vary according to individual experiences. Thus, consider a Berkeley anti-war veteran in his mid-60s, who came of age by burning his draft card, who believes war and heroism are immoral, and that cowardice is a virtue -- if there is a "neurobiological antagonism to difference" he could be expected to cling to his views just as obstinately as his political opposite could be expected to cling to his. If there is biological conservatism, if the narrowing of the mind is a product of aging, it would be illogical, unreasonable and disingenuous to conflate the process with political conservatism. I don't mean to single out right or left; even "middle-of-the-road" types should likely be expected to become more mired in moderation, and set in their middle-of-the-road ways.

And jeez! I just thought of something truly horrible.

What if libertarians also become old and stodgy ideological clingers?

From the "Book Description -- Choice Outstanding Academic Title, 2007":

In Brain and Culture, Bruce Wexler explores the social implications of the close and changing neurobiological relationship between the individual and the environment, with particular attention to the difficulties individuals face in adulthood when the environment changes beyond their ability to maintain the fit between existing internal structure and external reality. These difficulties are evident in bereavement, the meeting of different cultures, the experience of immigrants (in which children of immigrant families are more successful than their parents at the necessary internal transformations), and the phenomenon of interethnic violence. Integrating recent neurobiological research with major experimental findings in cognitive and developmental psychology--with illuminating references to psychoanalysis, literature, anthropology, history, and politics--Wexler presents a wealth of detail to support his arguments. The groundbreaking connections he makes allow for reconceptualization of the effect of cultural change on the brain and provide a new biological base from which to consider such social issues as "culture wars" and ethnic violence.

"Culture wars"? Egad!

Gadzooks!

What am I supposed to read into that after so many years of culture war immersion? What role are my biological conservatism and my "neurobiological antagonism to difference" supposed to play?

I worry that superficial analysts will read their own biases into Wexler's work, and miss the point that we all tend to grow more "conservative" as we age, simply because we fear change, and fear the unknown.

I'm thinking that perhaps "narrow mindedness" might have a more neutral ring to it. Certainly it's less inflammatory than "biologically bigoted." I'd hate to think that bigotry is destiny, to be followed only by death.

What about my inner child? Is there no way to escape his apparent neurobiological fate? Can neurobiological antagonism to difference be opposed through a conscious process, and defeated by appropriate exercises? Or would the brain eventually fall into a new rigidity, this time taking the form of mindlessly inflexible neurobiological opposition to mindless neurobiological opposition to change?

I'd hate to fall victim to neurobiological antagonism to my own neurobiological antagonism to difference.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all!

I like Glenn's take on bigotry, and while I am glad he doesn't attribute it to "neurobiological antagonism to difference," I'm still curious about something.

If bigotry is biology, then how can it be called "evil" by people who don't believe it evil?

posted by Eric on 06.03.08 at 10:23 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6774

Comments

Apparently you have to know someone to post on Godwin's site and I'm not worthy so I thought I'd post my thoughts here:

our brains lose the plasticity of early childhood

This is just rampant romanticism.

Childhood brains are not flexible they are information consumers at the mercy of every teacher and dogma delivery vehicle around them.

Humans do not stop learning after early childhood.

If you want to study a phenomenon you must first be willing to objectively observe that phenomenon with an open mind.

Portraying young children as flexible and thus good and adults as frozen and thus bad is simply a subjective lens of prejudice. It's nonsense.

paul a'barge · June 3, 2008 03:25 PM

A book which Scientific American called "a fascinating step forward...

Good lord. Scientific American is a propaganda organ for the leftist agenda. The periodical is so scientifically worthless it's on a par with 9-11 Truthers.

Please.

paul a'barge · June 3, 2008 03:43 PM

oh eric.
here is another good book you should read.
the cultural origins of human cognition--tomasello

"Humans do not stop learning after early childhood."
Yes, but certainly there are different kinds of learning and different neurobiological stages of capacity for learning, based on selective advantage for raising slowgrowing high-investment singleton (ie, non-litter) reps in the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Advantage)
The ontogeny of homosapiens sapiens, is quite simply, important.

And, there is no tension between biology and history.
History is the field lab for evolutionary biology and theoretical population genetics.
;)

matoko_cavalli_sforza · June 3, 2008 04:22 PM

This post, cher eric, seems highly representative of the general antagonism of the republican party towards science.
Not a good idea.

matoko_cavalli_sforza · June 3, 2008 04:33 PM

Well, if you are on an elevator goin up, wouldn't it be obvious that almost anybody getting on the elevator beyond the lobby would be going down, their needs in the building being complete? Perhaps I believe this because I've never worked in a tall building before where intra-level trips were necessary. An excellent post though.

Sean · June 3, 2008 04:48 PM

"This post, cher eric, seems highly representative of the general antagonism of the republican party towards science.
Not a good idea."

Funny, I thought the general antagonism towards science was from those who chase the Alar scares, and refuse to support nuclear power, and call those who ask for scientific proof (as opposed to models) of Global Warming (TM), and who want to impose the Precautionary Principle on every new advance in technology, and oppose using DDT to prevent millions of deaths. That is the 'Progressives' and the Democratic Party.

Oh. You meant to castigate those who don't agree with *your* views. Nevermind.

Anyway, it appears that biological selection (not having a mind to have a goal in) has selected almost every species to be 'conservative' in the sense that "if I make it through today and the world doesn't change much on me, then I'll make it through tomorrow" makes sense. Thus, all humans are 'conservative' at least a bit in that sense.

Next, humans are one of the species that are generalists, rather than specialists, so it makes sense that we've been naturally selected (i.e. evolved) to learn enough to function and survive in some pretty different environments, so long as we learn them well enough and they don't change on us too radically. What a surprise.

Nature, not being a conscious being, and natural selection thus end up with human beings who are quite capable of learning some amazing things and amazing amounts of things but have a base in a kind of personal 'conservativism' that allows them to function daily without having to learn lots of new (and possibly useless stuff) all the time.

Of course young people learn a lot. A lot of what they learn is relatively useless because *they don't yet have a good template for deciding what is useful* so they just learn a lot.

As we age (hopefully gaining experience) we *have* a template (for better or worse) against which we measure the cost/benefit of acquiring new knowledge. The set points differ for individuals. This should surprise no one who thinks about it.

Thus, as individuals, we tend to do that which we think works for us, despite the apparent availability of new, perhaps better, knowledge/information. I suppose you could call that biological conservatism.

JorgXMcKie · June 3, 2008 05:22 PM

"This post, cher eric, seems highly representative of the general antagonism of the republican party towards science.
Not a good idea."

Of course young people learn a lot. A lot of what they learn is relatively useless because *they don't yet have a good template for deciding what is useful* so they just learn a lot.

JorgXMcKie · June 3, 2008 05:24 PM

"the general antagonism towards science"

hahaha

try, 8 years of the bioluddite council, ESCR vetoes, the anti-bell curve "No child left behind"--Phds for everyone!, the execrably stupid terri's law circus, executive support for IDT in science classes....zomg!

sure the other side has anti-science tendancies too...but they haven't held the executive for 8 years, and only the legislative for 2.
and there is nothing, nothing quite so anti-science as IDT.
like i said, you picked the wrong side in this battle.

matoko_cavalli_sforza · June 4, 2008 08:05 AM

matoko (cute reference with the name, BTW). "...nothing, nothing, quite so anti-science as IDT." That is ridiculous. How about believing that the oil companies reduce the price of gas before an election to favor Republicans, at a cost of a half-billion bucks a week to themselves? You can sit and do the math on the back of a napkin with almost no research. I am not an IDT guy, but its effect on day-to-day life is negligible. Your opposition to it may be evidence-based, but your assigning it major importance is purely cultural. There's plenty of blame to go around - selective choosing of facts sin't an argument.

Relating this to the main point, the finger points outward from the social scientists at us, the forces of evil bigotry and us-them thinking. Yet compare the tempered, pondering us-them tone of Eric's writing to the sharp divisions of Mr. Cavelli-Sforza's. You might look up the (well-documented) psychological defense of projection.

BTW, from Scull's quote: "...Crusades against the Moslems..." The Crusades were by the Moslems against the West for 950 out of 1000 years. The Romanians remember, even if much of the rest of the world no believes the opposite.

Assistant Village Idiot · June 4, 2008 08:47 AM

Idiot

I AM discussing the cultural aspect of the republican war on science.

And of course bigottry is biological.
Tomaselle, that i linked, he says that the concept of "other" arises very early in young children.
Prejudice against others outside our consanguinous tribe is hardwired. Religions and governments just extend consanguinous membership benefits to a wider memetic tribe.

Simple physiology of the aging process dictates that we learn more slowly and forget more often as we age.

matoko_cavalli_sforza · June 4, 2008 09:09 AM

Do you know what Eric?
I am a classical values person.
I am a pythagorean and a neo-platonist.
"number is the ruler of forms and ideas and the cause of gods and demons."

i am also a transhumanist.
transhumanists are the ultimate libertarians, in that we plan to achieve control of our own genotypes.

It would seem that IDT and the republican war on science are diametrically opposed to classical values.... while the Presidents Council on Bioethics is diametrically opposed to libertarianism.

;)

Anonymous · June 4, 2008 09:53 AM

If bigotry is biology, then how can it be called "evil" by people who don't believe it evil?

dur, all biology is "evil".
the selfish genes code for only 3 things.
survival, reproduction, and death.

matoko_cavalli_sforza · June 4, 2008 02:55 PM

Matoko, you miss my point (and perhaps it is I who was not clear). I was not referring to Republican/conservative culture and anti-science; I was referring to your disliking one type of non-science rather than another as being driven by your culture, not practical reality. Belief in IDT has not prevented many from becoming accomplished scientists - thus your meaning of "anti-science" must be something other than willingness and ability to learn and use it. You made an enormous claim, and I don't see that you can defend it. I have offered in response a more leftist anti-science favorite with far more practical effect. I could add others: fear of GM foods; belief that the body has "toxins" which must be washed/dieted out. You have provided some evidence for a modest claim, but make a whopper of an assertion, that there is nothing, nothing, as anti-science as IDT.

I have decided that what I thought was a cute name reference to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza may actually be your own name, and you one of his descendants. That would grant you some scientific credibility in my eyes, but would not in any way remove the possibility that your measure of left vs. right anti-science is driven by a fairly typical prejudice of academics, rather than the data at hand.

Tomasello is certainly a credible source, but I have found him wrong enough in linguistics to be wary of his conclusions elsewhere, though I confess I have not read the work you cite.

Assistant Village Idiot · June 4, 2008 08:12 PM