12 - Empathy and Fundamentalism

On Empathy and Fundamentalism

The following is based on an account I wrote to a professor of psychology, and dwells on two topics: one relates to efforts for inculcating an empathetic attitude in children and the other to religious fundamentalism. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Thus far, I read only the abstract of the article, but as I read it, I gained the feeling that the right kind of teacher-group (equally, parent-children) interaction would be far more effective in inculcating empathy in children than any kind of gadgets.  For example, asking one kid in a group setting about the meaning of what was said by another, and dissecting the whys, whats, etc, of that statement, while the colleagues listen actively.  This way, youngsters would learn to focus on the actual meaning of what was being said rather than jumping to the first conclusion that pops to one’s mind, in which case each is likely to reach a different conclusion that doesn’t have much in common with the speaker’s actual intentions – since we interpret the world based on info bases in our own brains, which are different for each person; the situation also being made worse by semantics, each word or expression having multiple or shades of meanings.  This kind of exercises would lead to forming in children the habit of focusing on what is being said, which in most cases would also involve asking clarifying questions about “what is meant.”  Of course, meaning would involve feelings and emotions, which are integral to communication.  Understanding another person as fully as possible is the essence of empathy.  What is required therefore are classroom interactions that would help make this kind of thinking an ingrained habit in children, or an “attitude,” so to speak! 

I’m also more optimistic on the religious front, on which you seem to be depressed, with justification, I admit.  This is particularly true given what we see on current news.  But if we understand the underlying factors of the issue that is seemingly complex, potential prospects don’t lend to despair; for on the one hand, we do have a realistic understanding of the nature of the problem (see the second part of the post titled “2 – “Education and Fundamentalism”) and on the other, we know the path to a lasting solution, which is implicit in my writings in general, given the nature of the problem just cited (see also below).  What is really despairing, for me at least, is the lack of action on the part of the world academics/educators, who are in fact blocking the path to progress, even if unwittingly – see the boxed account on the short post titled "7 – Two Methods of Science."  (Please read the writings again – I’m attaching the full set as PDF docs to help, as they will be easier to read than a webpage; they can also be selectively emailed to colleagues, if you desire so.  But the webpage articles in general would have some additional details that are missing in the PDF docs, given the limits imposed by the latter's page size; PDF docs would nevertheless cover the topics in adequate detail and thus have not been compromised.)

There are at least two more ways towards understanding the nature of the problem and the path to a solution, besides what is in the specific pieces cited here.  One is through the outcomes of implementing the “attitude” program mentioned above, supplemented with the theoretical basics of both communication and associated psychology, second part of the program, which has been elaborated in numerous locations in the writings, in particular the post titled "4 – Reason for Sending My Writings."  Equipped with both an attitude to inquire into what one hears or reads about and tools to analyze it, a generation versed with the program will not be so submissive and swallow any nonsense thrown at it in its social environment.  We know how inquisitive children are and how, as they grow up, that innate characteristic is hammered into submission by societal norms and convention; this is particularly true in view of the naturally increasing burdens of living.  Individuals in current societies are not thus equipped and it is easy to conform them into societal straight-jackets.  I believe that a generation equipped with the right attitude and tools to go with it will fare much better.  It is also heartening that people’s perceptions in general have much improved over the decades.  But sadly, current generations are more on the rebellious side than are equipped with an understanding of the nature of the world to be able to formulate a balanced philosophy of life.  This, again, is an outcome of flawed education – see the footnote of my email, which became the attached PDF doc labelled “11 – Cover Note.” 

A second way to understand the situation is to look at it through the lens of “Social Judgement Theory,” with its latitudes of “rejection,” “non-commitment,” and “acceptance.”  Given that we make sense of the world based on the information bases in our brains, is it any wonder that the Moslem fundamentalists, for example, whose knowledge is based solely on what they have rote-learnt from centuries old religious texts, are unable to think with any sense of rationality about issues in our fast-changing, complex world?  The situation is further aggravated by the distortions that have happened to the “religious” teachings on which they rely so heavily.  The result is that their perceptions of “religion” have little realistic basis – see the second part of the post “2 – Education and Fundamentalism,” referred to above. 

[Parenthetically, it would be interesting for you to know that I have a solid religious background.  It is tradition in the Maldives that children are taught to read the Koran (rote-learning, without understanding the meaning, as the book is in Arabic) and associated prayers.  Fortunately, I was sent to Egypt to study religion at Al-Azhar (check Wikipedia) given that I did well in school.  I was a good student in Egypt as well and progressed rather quickly, and, although I rebelled and built a science foundation and studied architecture in another university (Ain Shams) in Cairo, I do have a very good grounding in both Arabic and Islam.  Thus when I speak of Islamic fundamentalism, I have solid and authentic knowledge of what I’m talking about.] 

Given this state of affairs – the fact that their whole information base is centuries old, and a distorted one at that – we have to look at the situation through their eyes, call it empathy if you will, and interpret what we see on the daily media about their behaviour in that light.  This is the same as viewing the behaviour of a wild animal in the light of “its nature,” or, for that matter, viewing behaviour of your forefathers when they went about subjugating the rest of the world to their domination – in case of north America, wiping a continent of its people and calling it home.  (This example is not meant to embarrass you, but only to drive the point home.)  Those who go about genocides have a parallel mindset: for them, their victims are not human.  An example to similar effect was described by Alain de Botton in Consolations of Philosophy about the way Spaniards looked at the natives of what is now Latin America – subhuman, even if not entirely non-human.  (Later examples of such mindsets include: the Nazi treatment of the Jews, the Serbian treatment of Bosnian Moslems, and the mindset underlying the Rwandan genocide.) 

Thus if what we see on the media are manifestations of the mindset of religious fundamentalists, and if we want to improve the situation, the solution leaps forth – change their mindset!  This can be achieved by the proposals of my writings – in fact as a by-product of their original purpose, namely, enabling and enhancing effective societal interaction processes or communication.  At least it is the first of two parts to a viable solution.  (This first part aims at the next generation while the second part aims at active adults.)  The second part was alluded to in the first of three boxed accounts at the end of the post titled "1 – Introduction."  I don't want to go into the details of it for now, in part because not everything is clear in my own mind and also that such understanding would call for a deep knowledge of the tenets and history of Islam, which I don't think you have.  But there is an aspect that you will understand – the psychology associated with their behaviour, which plays a central and pivotal role in transforming ordinary Moslems into diehard fanatics.  (I believe that this is about the same kind of process thru which unrelenting socio-psychological pressures transform susceptible but otherwise normal people into schizophrenics – or those with equivalent social pathologies.)  

In all, we do have a clear understanding of not only the nature the problem but the path to a viable and lasting solution.  But as I mentioned above, it is your colleagues, world academics/educators, who form the obstacle blocking forward movement.  Unlike a few academics/educators like you, the majority of them are not even interested in thinking about the problem, let alone striving to achieve a solution; they are largely content to be engrossed in their mundane daily routines or pet projects!***  Just last night, a full professor in the education department of your own university requested removal of his name from my mailing list.  After crossing out his name and address on my mailing list and while informing of the fact, I wrote the following in the reply email: “It’s a pity that a full professor of education like you has no interest in an education-related problem that has devastating impacts on humanity at large, which includes Canadians”; emphasis added.  

Luckily, I anticipated this tendency at the outset, for it was part of the reason why I cast such a wide net – sending my writings to some 35,000 academics/educators in 103 universities in 22 nations.  [A second part of the reason relates to the logic of networks: if one wants to propagate an idea to a large number of people and in a hurry, one needs to seed widespread nodes and and their gatekeepers with the idea.  A third part of the reason has to do with stealing of one’s ideas by others and claiming them to be theirs and depriving one of the credit one deserves; I saw this vital for two reasons: i) the global positive potential of the ideas of my writings, and ii) my first-hand experience of it while in Hawaii after graduate studies – a professor at a UHM department plagiarized original ideas of my masters thesis, claiming them to be his own; my response (in 1992) was to make copies of the thesis and send them to libraries that would carry material related to the development of small island states (focus of my thesis): two at the UHM, one in ANU in Australia, and one at the University of South Pacific in Fiji – so that people would be aware of where the ideas originated.]  

Notwithstanding the downsides, I’m happy to report that, although most recipients of my writings were not responsive for one reason or another, there are quite a number of people, mostly senior – again, as I expected – who are in fact interested, from all over the world: USA, France, Germany, Canada, Britain, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and others, and to my surprise, from nations to which I was unable to send emails, including Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, South Korea, and Vietnam.  So may be we’ll get somewhere after all!  I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
***  They don't seem to be interested in the "big picture," where their own professions fit in the larger scheme of things – typical of the inductive, as opposed to deductive, mindset.  That is to say, by a little amateurish speculation, that the vast majority of people can handle only limited issues; they don't have the capability to handle complex issues with a large number of variables to create coherent synthesis – which in turn relates to their modes of thinking and propensities for information processing, or linear thinking vs multidimensional thinking, all of which would vary over time, and significantly so for some people, depending on the kind of use to which one puts one's brain; this latter is a finding of recent neurological research, from which had emerged the generic mantra "use it or loose it."  But given this reality, it won't be quite correct to say that most of those people are just "not interested," period; it would be more accurate to say that they don't have what it takes "to get it," and because they “don’t get it,” that they also would not be commensurately interested.  We've an old saying in the Maldives, "You can't squeeze from something what isn’t in it."  I had been at the receiving end of this philosophy when I was a student of architecture some 40 years ago: our then head of department reputedly would, in his final-year design classes, pass those who he thought were working hard enough although they many not have the talent, but he'd put a hard squeeze on those who he thought had potential but were not delivering.  Perhaps this is also true for graduate programs, so that those who had "worked hard" would crawl up the "status ladder," though they my not have what it takes to live up to the expectations of their positions – thus there are professors and there are professors, or as claims another adage of ours, "Five fingers are not equal," or to hijack George Orwell, "Some are more equal than others."  If this is true, it is natural that those who are "not so equal" and who would form the bulk of the lot, are likely to drag down progress, and society, along the lines suggested by Francis Galton, who coined the term "regression" in statistics science – "towards mediocrity"; "stagnation" is another word descriptive of the phenomenon.  The minority who "do get" would therefore have a moral responsibility thrust upon them that is far beyond their fair share of the burden.  But then, who said the world is fair?