Human Nature

 “The tendency of man’s heart is towards evil from his youth.”  (Genesis 8:21)

I kept a set of wooden building blocks in my office. Watching children play with those blocks I learned much about human nature. 

Watch a young child with a set of blocks, and notice that there is a destructive side of human nature.  A tower built with the blocks is there to be knocked down.  The child will laugh, smile, and wait for you to build the tower again so that it may once again be knocked down.  Notice the child’s delight as the blocks are scattered helter-skelter, the louder the better.

As the child gets a bit older you may notice the child getting into a cycle of stacking blocks, knocking them down, and then stacking anew.  Then comes a time when the child hesitates, stops and looks.  This represents a subtle shift, an internal tension, to knock down or to let stand.  The child now allows the tower to remain erect, adding to it, wanting it to be taller and more elaborate.  You see, beginning to emerge, that there is a creative side of human nature.

Not only does the child admire the now standing tower, but the child seeks out others to notice what has been created.  There is an approval-seeking, praise-seeking side of human nature.

The child will defend their tower from destruction by siblings and other children. If asked by adults to put away the blocks, the child may request that the tower be allowed to remain standing.  There is a possessive and protective side of human nature.

There is a competitive and aggressive side of human nature.  One’s own tower is protected, but another’s tower is looked at with jealousy and envy.  Another builder is a feared rival, especially if the other is a sibling.  The child may want to destroy the tower of their rival.  Parents step in. “You want to knock down your brother’s tower, but you are not allowed to do that.” To live peaceably with others, that child must be taught social rules and constraints.  Nurture must now modify nature. It is okay to have the feelings, but it is not okay to destroy.  Human nature must be kept in check.

With time, the destructive side of human nature will become internally regulated, no longer requiring the external prohibiting parental voice.  But somewhere, deep within, there often remains an echo of that early destructive nature.  There is pleasure in the crash of a Jenga tower falling, the crash of bowling pins scattering, the crash of bumper cars colliding, the crash of bodies playing football, the crash of buildings imploding during demolition.  Fortunately, for most, the destructive side of human nature recedes into the largely unconscious background as the creative side grows and develops.

Watch two children with a set of blocks and they may discover pleasure in sharing, building, and creating cooperatively with one another.  Good news, there is a social and affiliative side to human nature.  

Dear Dr. Phil,

Maybe it’s my Covid lifestyle, or maybe it’s because I’m a retired child psychiatrist in need of a daily vicarious mental health care fix . . . whatever it is, I’ve been watching a lot of your show lately.

Actually, I’ve watched you on and off for a long time.  I often quoted (or misquoted) you to parents, telling them that it is you who says, “It is a parent’s responsibility to raise adults.”  Over the years, I found this line to be a good catalyst for many fruitful discussions.

I’ve always admired and studied your clear and direct style of communication with guests on your show.

I’ve always envied your support team and the resources available for you to pass on to your guests.

I’ve recently noticed some things you say with regularity.  I often hear you say to your guests that, “Perception is reality.”  All I need to do is flip channels back and forth between FOX News and CNN to know the truth of that statement.  In these troubled times, it is apparent that this country is divided, red and blue, living with very different perceptions and very different realities.

There is another line you frequently tell guests.  In fact, I heard you say it just today.  “There are no versions of the truth.”  I had to stop and think about it.  Truth is truth. If what you say is so, there must be a significant difference between ‘reality’ and ‘truth’.  I know that inaccurate perceptions can create false realities.  I know that the lies told by some can create false realities in others.  It may not be the ‘truth’, it may be a false reality, but to the individual it is still their ‘reality’.

Dr. Phil, help me. You are trained in forensic psychology.  You are trained to notice subtle and not so subtle cues from those that seek to deceive.  Help me know in this contentious political climate how to sort out accurate perceptions from misperceptions.  Help me to detect the truthtellers from the liars.

Dr. Phil, I hope you will use your influential platform to help the country sort out accurate from inaccurate perceptions, truth from lies. Please share your psychological and forensic perspective in this time of national crisis. There are few who can reach and teach as many as you. 

It is my perception, or misperception, that democracy’s future is at stake.

 

Sincerely,

 

Gary H. Boxer, M.D.

Darwin's Theory

“Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.”  (Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, atheist—1872-1970)

There was a time when the findings of science, especially physics and astronomy, seemed to demonstrate an orderly and predictable universe.  Just as a clock cannot make itself, a world governed by mathematical rules and laws cannot have made itself. The findings of science were interpreted as affirmation of a creator, God.

However, as science evolved, especially biology, religious tenets were called into question. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, became a catalyst for debate, suspicion, and even animosity, between science and religion.

Darwin’s theory presents a serious challenge to religious dogma. Species have evolved one from another, changing or dying over time, in a fashion different from the account in Genesis. Evolution happens in time measured by millions of years, in contrast to the literal biblical dating of creation. Humans have evolved from earlier pre-human species, the human species evolving in continuity with the animal kingdom, not special, and not in God’s image.

Hardest to reconcile with religious tenet is that evolution is a random, unguided process that occurs without aim or purpose.  The arbitrary process of evolution does not require the guidance of a higher power.

Authors Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, collectively called The Four Horsemen of Atheism, build their case for atheism upon evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the origin of species, including man, without invoking a need for God.  Furthermore, unlike religion, science is premised on testable hypothesis and is open to revision.  These authors go a step further, arguing that religion, unlike science, is based on irrational superstitions that are harmful to society. They believe that religious belief should be actively confronted and refuted.

Evolutionary theorist, Stephen Jay Gould, disagreed.  He felt that science and religion could peacefully and respectfully coexist. Shortly before his death he wrote that science and religion asked different questions using different tools and should be considered separate domains of inquiry, what he called “non-overlapping magisteria”.  Gould maintained that questions of purpose, meaning, and values were best addressed in the domain of religious inquiry.

I recently taught an introductory philosophy class to a group of medical students. We talked about evolutionary theory and its challenge to religion.  In this class there were several Hindu students who, unlike those of us raised in Western religious tradition, did not see any conflict between science and their religion.  In fact, they believed that science must be fully accepted and integrated into religious belief.  For them, science is a reality that exists within a greater Reality. It is a truth that exists within a greater Truth that they call Brahman.

Gone Fishin'

 “Rivers and the inhabitants of the water element were made for wise men to contemplate, and fools to pass by without consideration.”  (Izaak Walton, 1593--1683)

The Complete Angler or The Contemplative Man’s Recreation was written 367 years ago by Izaak Walton.  This classic of English literature is a testimonial to the joy of fishing. It is an encyclopedic compilation of fishing lore and fishing tips, with a few recipes thrown in for good measure.  It is also a book filled with philosophic wisdom and speculation.  Walton writes about the life well lived, asking if life should be lived in contemplation or in action.  He decides that fishing offers its enthusiasts the best of both.

Walton’s book was his response to the uncertainty and upheaval in England during the time of Oliver Cromwell.  Walton’s fictional angler, Piscator, lives peacefully and contentedly.  Walton portrays life enjoyed apolitically, pastorally, and simply in the pursuit of fishing.

Unlike Walton I lack fishing skill and experience, but I share his enthusiasm for the sport.  I didn’t start fishing until I was in my forties.  Having begun the sport so late, I never acquired the skills or instincts of those raised with rod and reel in hand.  Unlike lifelong fishermen, I have but a few stories of exotic places visited or of great fish stalked, hooked, and landed.

But from my few years of fishing, I have learned some helpful lessons.  You can’t catch fish if your line’s not in the water.  You have to find the fish, they don’t usually find you. Keep your lures clean and your equipment in good repair. Don’t overthink it, keep it simple.  Remember to look up once-in-a-while to take in the scenery, enjoy the weather, and count your blessings.

I’m still learning many of the subtleties of fishing like choosing the correct lure for the right fish at the right depth.  I’m learning a new kind of reading, reading the visible patterns on the water’s surface in order to understand what lies below. I’m still learning how to locate fish without using an electronic fish-finder which I consider to be cheating, as I am sure Izaak Walton would too. 

The calm and quiet of fishing contrasts with the pressure and turmoil of most day-to-day demands. Fish, and there are no responsibilities or worries. Catch a fish and there are no forms to fill out, no bills to pay.  In those hours of fishing, those times of re-creation, the problems of the world cease to matter. I forget about politics. I forget about the pandemic.  I forget about all the appalling news, for a while.

I love to fish because it is irrelevant to life’s grown-up concerns. When I fish, I am young, curious and wondering, loving the lakes and rivers, loving the challenge and unpredictability of fishing.

House needs fixin’.  Bills need payin’.  Masks need wearin’.  People need social distancin’.  Democracy needs savin’.  And I’ve gone fishin’.

Free Will

 “I have no choice but to continue to believe in free will.”  (William James,1842—1910)

In the seventeenth century the philosopher Baruch Spinoza concluded that we live enslaved, “in human bondage,” to our emotions and that there is no such thing as free will.  Today’s scientists tell us that our thoughts and behaviors are no more than the enactment of neurochemical processes occurring within our brains.  Freedom to choose and to act is an illusion.  There is no such thing as free will.  Yet, like William James, I can’t help but believe in free will.

Certainly, for some, there is no free will.  A newborn infant cannot choose and act freely. Someone with a severe intellectual deficit cannot do so, nor can someone with advanced dementia.  There are some individuals that our society says are not responsible for their behavior, because they do not have the capacity to choose otherwise.

I always found it ironic when defiant and misbehaving kids were labelled ‘willful’.  These kids don’t choose their actions.  They act impulsively, reflexively, responding emotionally with anger, fear, and frustration.  Their behavior is not from thought and reason.  They don’t choose, they react. These kids would be much more accurately called ‘will-less’.

In my life, there is much for which I had no choice.  I did not choose when and where I was born. I did not choose what genes I inherited nor how I was parented.  My early teachers were luck of the draw, I didn’t choose them.  Nor did I choose the circumstances that surround my life in these troubled times.  As for mortality, I have no choice.

What then is free will as I understand it to be?  It is not something we are born with.  It is a capacity that is acquired, to a greater or lesser degree.  We are freed from ‘human bondage’ when we learn to respond other than to the immediacy of our emotions.  Free will begins with the development of self-control.  It begins when we acquire the power to moderate and restrain our emotions.  In the course of healthy development, we progress from impulsive to reasoning, from reflexive to reflective.

Free will starts when we use self-control to stop . . .  and to think . . . and to reason . . . and to imagine possibilities . . . and to choose . . . and then to act in accord with our choice.  That is free will.

My son and I have had a few debates on this subject.  He strongly believes that there is no such thing as free will and I have not been able to convince him otherwise.  If he reads this, it’s not that he had any choice. He was determined to do so.

 

My Top-10

In an otherwise forgettable biography of Freud, I read that European intellectuals thought Top-10 Lists were “vulgar, predictable, and American.”  Who am I to argue? In no particular order, here’s my vulgar, predictable, and American Top-10 List: the ten books that, through the years, most influenced and guided my thinking.

1.      The Growth of Biological Thought, by Ernst Mayer – written by a renown evolutionary theorist, this book, which I read early in my residency, was my introduction to the interface of science and philosophy.

2.      Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas R. Hofstadter – written by a scholar of cognitive science, this book is an entertaining and challenging rollercoaster journey of thinking about thinking.

3.      Powers of Ten, by Philip Morrison and Phylis Morrison and the office of Charles and Ray Eames – the book took me through a visual journey of the universe from the smallest known particles to the vast reaches of space, as viewed from many perspectives, through many lenses.

4.      Existential Psychotherapy, by Irvin D. Yalom – written by a psychotherapist and novelist, this textbook reads like a novel, and from it I derived much of my approach to psychotherapy.

5.      The Writings of William James, edited by John J. McDermott – James’s approachable writings on the philosophic topics of Pragmatism and Pluralism continue to inform my journey into the worlds of both science and religion.

6.      Man’s Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl – written by a holocaust survivor and a psychotherapist, this book is a poignant affirmation of free will and the human capacity to rise above adversity.

7.      I and Thou, by Martin Buber – this short and difficult to read book distinguishes between the day to day indifference of the ‘it’ world and the authentic love, humanity, and dialogue that occurs when another becomes not an ‘it’, but a ‘Thou’.

8.      The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong – written by an ex-nun, with encyclopedic knowledge of the world’s religions, this book affirms my conviction that the quest to experience God is a worthy endeavor.

9.      The Blessing of a Skinned Knee:  Raising Self-Reliant Children, by Wendy Mogel – written by a child psychologist, this book articulates the importance of attending to children’s character and providing them with a moral compass. This book was often my guide when I taught parent guidance.

10.  Thinking Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman – written by a Nobel Prize winner, among many topics this book explores the tendency of humans use cognitive shortcuts to create explanations and narratives, while overlooking, denying, or forgetting facts and statistics that refute our explanations.

I just finished rereading Thinking Fast and Slow. I learned a lot, some of which I hope to write about soon.  I am excited by what I’ve learned and I’m glad to know that it’s still possible to teach an old (Boxer) dog new tricks!

God?

 “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.  It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science . . . It was the experience of mystery –even if mixed with fear—that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate . . . it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.”  (Albert Einstein, 1879—1955) 

I am an agnostic. I seek to know God, but God is elusive. I distrust those who claim to know for sure, whether it be the certainty of the fundamentalist or the certainty of the atheist.  What I know definitively is that I don’t know. Fortunately, in the milieu in which I was raised, there was acceptance of question, debate, and doubt. 

My parents were not religious. Nevertheless, I attended a Conservative Jewish Sunday school.  I was taught history, holidays, and life cycles.  I was taught prayer, but I was not taught about God.  Maybe for my teachers, some who had numbers tattooed on their arms, it was just too soon and too painful to talk about God.  Still, I was curious. 

I remember the philosophical talks I had in grade school with my friend Paul.  We figured that there must be something in the universe that is as far beyond our comprehension as we humans are above an amoeba’s.  And that’s what we call God. 

As a young teenager, I often went to services hoping through prayer to have an experience of God, but it didn’t happen.  Then one Shabbat morning, a friend called asking if I wanted to play football.  With little second thought, I chose football over prayer, and that religiously observant phase of my life abruptly ended. 

Some years later I tried a new tactic, the lottery.  I bargained with God.  “God, if I win the lottery I will follow your commandments, AND I will give half of my winnings to charity.”  I was offering God the chance for a win-win-win.  I win. Charity wins. God wins. I didn’t win. 

In college I took Intro to Philosophy and learned what the philosophers had to say on the subject.  However, the god of the philosophers was so abstract that God ceased to be relevant.  What I was seeking was not an abstraction called "god," but a personal, caring god. 

My seeking, my questioning, and my un-answering has continued well into my adult years. So now what do I the agnostic say when my children ask if I believe in God? I say that I am open to the possibility that the world is more than just matter and energy.  I am open to the possibility of God. I am even open to the possibility that we experience “God moments.” fleeting glimpses of God’s presence in our lives. 

For me, God remains a mystery.  Perhaps God is Mystery. Despite a lifetime of doubting, I continue seeking. Like Einstein, I too am a deeply religious man.