Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Haidt Pantheon Books, 2012One has likely heard that, for the sake of decorum, religion and politics should never be topics of conversation with strangers. Even amongst friends or even when it is known that others hold opposing political or religious views, why is it that discussion of religion and politics leads to visceral-level acrimony and that one's views are right and the other's views are wrong? Professor Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia examines the psychological basis of our "righteous minds" without resorting to any of the pejorative labeling that is usually found in a book on politics and religion and eschews a purely comparative approach. Haidt proposes the intriguing hypothesis that our visceral reaction to competing ideologies is a subconscious, rather than leaned, reaction that evolved over human evolution to innate senses of suffering, fairness, cheating and disease, and that moral foundations facilitated intra-group cooperation which in turn conferred survival advantages over other groups. These psychological mechanisms are genetic in origin and not necessarily amenable to rational and voluntary control - this is in part the reason debating one's ideological opposite more often leads to frustration rather than understanding. Haidt also suggests that morality is based on six "psychological systems" or foundations (Moral Foundations Theory), similar to the hypothesized adaptive mental modules which evolved to solve specific problems of survival in the human ancestral environment.While decorum pleads for more civility, it would be better, as Haidt suggests, dragging the issue of partisan politics out into the open in order to understand it and work around our righteous minds. Haidt suggests a few methods by which the level of rhetoric in American politics can be reduced, such that the political parties can at least be cordial as they have been in the past and work together to solve truly pressing social problems.There are a number of fascinating points raised in the current book, but most intriguing is the one that morality, ideology and religion are products of group selection, as adaptations that increased individual cooperation and suppressed selfishness, thereby increasing individual loyalty to the group. That morality, political ideology and religion buttress group survival is probably highly intuitive. However, given the contemporary focus on the individual as the source of adaptations, to the exclusion of all else, to suggest that adaptations such as religion and political ideology arose to enhance survival of groups is heresy or, as Haidt recounts, "foolishness". While previous rejection of group selection itself was due in part to conceptual issues, one could also point out the prevailing individualist social sentiment, "selfish gene" mentality and unrelenting hostility against those who supported the view that group selection did indeed apply to humans and not just to insects. Haidt gives a lengthy and convincing defense of group selection, his main point being that humans can pursue self- interest at the same time they promote self-interest within a group setting - humans are "90 percent chimp, 10 percent bees". One can readily observe in the news and entertainment mediate that religion is a frequent target of derision, even within the scientific community - Haidt points to the strident contempt that the "New Atheists" hold for religion. They claim that religion is purely a by-product of an adaptive psychological trait and as a mere by-product religion serves no useful purpose. However, the religious "sense" has somehow managed to persist in the human psyche. One explanation by the New Atheists of how religion propagated itself is that it is a "parasite" or "virus" which latches onto a susceptible host and induces the host to "infect" others. As a "virus" or "parasite" that is merely interested in its own survival, religion causes people to perform behaviors that do not increase their own reproductive fitness and may even be detrimental to survival, but religion spreads nonetheless. …

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

List of Plates.Preface.Introduction.1. Distinguishing Religion and Spirituality: Findings from Kendal.2. Testing the Spiritual Revolution Claim in Kendal.3. Evidence for a Spiritual Revolution: Britain and USA.4. Bringing the Sacred to Life: Explaining Secularization and Sacralization.5. Looking to the Future.Appendices.References.Index.

The spiritual revolution : why religion is giving way tospirituality

Previous research has established how childhood attachment extends into adult romantic attachment and attachment to God. Other research has shown that individuals' styles of attachment to God are differentially associated with three types of spiritual coping methods, self-directing, deferring, and collaborative. Hernandez, Salerno, & Bottoms (2010) sought to extend this body of research by investigating the relationship between God attachment, spiritual coping, and alcohol use. A "novel link" was established between God attachment and alcohol use (p. 106). Research on spiritual coping methods has identified three spiritual coping styles associated with people's relational state with God: self-directing, a self-reliant coping and problem-solving style that works independently of God; deferring, where the responsibility of problem-solving rests on God alone; and collaborative, a problem-solving style that views God and person as cooperative partners in coping and problem-solving. Moreover, a person's God attachment has been differentially associated with these coping methods. Hernandez, Salerno, & Bottoms (2010) sought to extend research on attachment and coping by being the first to study "the effects of God attachment and spiritual coping on alcohol use" (p. 99). They hypothesized that spiritual coping styles would mediate the effect of God attachment on alcohol use. Specifically, they predicted that insecure God attachment style, compared to secure God attachment style, would use "collaborative and deferring style coping styles less and self-directing coping style more," which would then result in increased alcohol use (p. 100). For the study, 429 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students from the University of Illinois at Chicago participated for course credit. The sample's (60% female) religious orientation was 46% Catholic, 43% Christian, 6% Hindu, 3% Muslim, 2% Jewish, 0.4% Greek Orthodox, and 0.4% Sikh. Five measures were utilized to test their hypotheses. The Attachment to God Scale was used to measure participants' "perceived emotional attachment to God" (p. 101). The Religious Problem-Solving Scale was used to measure participants' "religious problem solving tendencies," broken down into three spiritual coping styles: self-directing, deferring, and collaborative (p. 101). The Alcohol-Related Coping Scale was used to measure participants' "social, coping, and enhancement motives for drinking alcohol" (p. 101). The Alcohol Frequency Scale was used to measure participants' general alcohol use. Finally, participants' religious characteristics, such as religious orientation and level of religious involvement, were measured. To test the data, the researchers first implemented a series of one-way between-subjects ANOVA with God attachment style as the independent variable and spiritual coping styles, alcohol-related coping, and general alcohol use as dependent variables. This was followed by mediation analyses to test if the "effect of God attachment on alcohol use and alcohol coping was mediated by spiritual coping styles" (p. 102). Related to spiritual coping, there was a significant main effect of God attachment on spiritual coping, F(2,226) = 26.88, p

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion

As the COVID-19 pandemic lingers, the possibility of 'pandemic fatigue' has raised worldwide concerns. Here, we examine whether there was a gradual reduction in adherence to protective behaviours against COVID-19 from March through December 2020, as hypothesized in expectations of fatigue. We considered self-report behaviours from representative samples of the populations of 14 countries (N = 238,797), as well as mobility and policy data for 124 countries. Our results show that changes in adherence were empirically meaningful and geographically widespread. While a low-cost and habituating behaviour (mask wearing) exhibited a linear rise in adherence, high-cost and sensitizing behaviours (physical distancing) declined, but this decline decelerated over time, with small rebounds seen in later months. Reductions in adherence to physical distancing showed little difference across societal groups, but were less intense in countries with high interpersonal trust. Alternative underlying mechanisms and policy implications are discussed.

/pdf/a-worldwide-assessment-of-changes-in-adherence-to-covid-19-mcj27z7b1b.pdf

A worldwide assessment of changes in adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviours and hypothesized pandemic fatigue.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is a global, exogenous shock, impacting individuals’ decision making and behavior allowing researchers to test theories of personality by exploring how traits, in conjunction with individual and societal differences, affect compliance and cooperation. Study 1 used Google mobility data and nation-level personality data from 31 countries, both before and after region-specific legislative interventions, finding that agreeable nations are most consistently compliant with mobility restrictions. Study 2 (N = 105,857) replicated these findings using individual-level data, showing that several personality traits predict sheltering in place behavior, but extraverts are especially likely to remain mobile. Overall, our analyses reveal robust relationships between traits and regulatory compliance (mobility behavior), both before and after region-specific legislative interventions, and the global declaration of the pandemic. Further, we find significant effects on reasons for leaving home, as well as age and gender differences, particularly relating to female agreeableness for previous and future social mobility behaviors. These sex differences, however, are only visible for those living in households with two or more people, suggesting that such findings may be driven by division of labor.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550620952572

Can Psychological Traits Explain Mobility Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Religious people are more trusted than nonreligious people. Although most theorists attribute these perceptions to the beliefs of religious targets, religious individuals also differ in behavioral ways that might cue trust. We examined whether perceivers might trust religious targets more because they heuristically associate religion with slow life-history strategies. In three experiments, we found that religious targets are viewed as slow life-history strategists and that these findings are not the result of a universally positive halo effect; that the effect of target religion on trust is significantly mediated by the target’s life-history traits (i.e., perceived reproductive strategy); and that when perceivers have direct information about a target’s reproductive strategy, their ratings of trust are driven primarily by his or her reproductive strategy, rather than religion. These effects operate over and above targets’ belief in moralizing gods and offer a novel theoretical perspective on religion and ...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797617753606

Religious People Are Trusted Because They Are Viewed as Slow Life-History Strategists.

Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God

Religion has often been conceptualized as a collection of beliefs, practices, and proscriptions that lift people’s thoughts and behaviors out of the metaphorical gutter of sex and selfishness towar...

Is Nothing Sacred? Religion, Sex, and Reproductive Strategies:

Many religions emphasize the importance of sexual morality. This article argues mating strategies are central to understanding religion. I highlight the reproductive-religiosity model, which suggests that religious behavior is partly motivated by preferences for restricted mating strategies. I then discuss how religion can lead to reproductive benefits. Specifically, religions can make parenting a relatively safer strategy by increasing paternal certainty, which drives men toward parental investment, and alloparenting, which reduces offspring mortality rates. Next, I discuss the social implications of reproductive-religiosity, including mate selection and trust. Finally, I discuss the potential role of mating strategies in the evolution and cultural evolution of religion and discuss future directions for developing an approach to religion rooted in mating interests.

Jordan W. Moon

Papers

Can Psychological Traits Explain Mobility Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Religious People Are Trusted Because They Are Viewed as Slow Life-History Strategists.

Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God

Is Nothing Sacred? Religion, Sex, and Reproductive Strategies:

Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior