One for all or all for one?

Do we relate more easily to individual people in need than to groups?

Jonah Lehrer suggests that we find it much easier to relate to individuals in need than to groups of people because of the 'identifiable victim effect'. He cites the Chilean miners as an example - a group of people who fail to interest most of us as much as a single famine victim.

Lehrer also mentions a paper which 'tested recent claims that analytical processing might undermine support for identified victims by suppressing emotional responses'. It found that ' Less-analytic processors donated more to a single identified victim than to requests describing statistical victims or a combination of both; more-analytic processors showed no differences.'

In other words, less analytical people are more likely to give to an individual or to a campaign using images of a single person.

While this may be true for some people in some instances, charitable giving appears to be much more complex - and more interesting - than this. It's true that charities know the value of showing a cute animal or big-eyed starving child with flies crawling on it (because animals are individuals too in this instance). But charitable responses to major disasters like the tsunami or the current situation in Pakistan appear to contradict the identifiable victim response. For example, the British people have given considerable and unexpected amounts to relief in Pakistan - does this make us more analytical than other nations? It could be said that people who give to large groups far away have a stronger emotional response or more empathy as it extends to more than one individual.

The type of victim is relevant too. For example, a homeless person on the street is an individual, sometimes familiar and living in the potential giver's neighbourhood. But for many passers-by, when they are begged at there's a judgmental/analytical process which happens. Is the beggar just going to spend the money on alcohol? Does s/he deserve our hard-earned money? Is s/he a helpless victim who had no part in their own downfall? Women begging on the street with babies are clearly trying to create an emotional response but some people may not respond to this, even wondering if it is really that woman's child, perhaps recalling some media story about begging rings and scams. Any individual doesn't do it for us, it must be the right individual.

The concept of the deserving poor comes into play and perhaps over-rides the individuality of the beggar and prevents identification; it's an idea that's been around since the 16th century. This is where sad puppies and starving children score - they are clearly innocent victims. But at some level, there is always an analytical process going on before we connect emotionally and decide whether we are being played and whether to act on generous feelings.

There's also media coverage. The Chilean miners are currently being ousted from the headlines by cricket scandals and footballers' private lives. What's more, the miners are alive and apparently in no immediate danger. There's no daily drama or death toll to tug our heart strings.

Time is a factor, too. A long-drawn out situation that appears insoluble is less attractive than a sudden, unforeseen natural disaster with shock value or something that appears to need a quick(ish) fix where it's easier to feel a difference is being made.

In addition, Lehrer says that we don't identify with statistics but I think that numbers do have an effect sometimes. Perhaps part of the problem is that the miners are neither one small child trapped down a well nor are there millions of them in imminent danger. There are too many of them and not enough.

It's true that millions of children around the world are daily at risk from preventable disease and hunger and yet people give money to the local donkey sanctuary because they saw a picture of a poorly donkey in the local paper but this is as much about marketing as generosity and empathy. Some research by Richard Wiseman found that the colour of a charity donation box and the wording on it affect how likely people are to give, for example. Using the word 'disaster' is good marketing, too.

There's possibly also a peer pressure effect. If everyone in your office is putting money into a collection tin, then resisting is going to be harder than if the tin is just in a shop or you get a mail shot at home. Telethons tap into something similar - look how much money everyone is giving, don't you want to be part of this virtuous group too? In such situations, what the collection is for becomes secondary, whether it's to sponsor a single child or for a major disaster.

For some people, charity is a religous duty, neither an emotional/empathic nor an analytical response.

There is a fair bit of research showing that women are more charitable than men, so gender is another factor (so are older people and Northerners in the UK).

One research paper looks at the gender difference in more detail. It calls the ability to identify or empathize with others 'the inclusion of others in the self'. It also looks at moral identity - the importance of being fair, kind, just, generous etc to self-identity. What it found was that men with stronger moral identity were more likely to give to individuals or to an in-group (local charities, for example) whereas women were more likely to give to an out-group (eg overseas charities) as their moral indentity increased. In other words, these women are responding to large groups more than men. Does this mean men are less analytical?

So it looks like charitable giving and relating to people in need isn't just about individuals versus groups but is much more complex - which is hardly surprising given that human instincts and motives for doing anything are complex. And just to confuse matters further, one of the biggest charities in the UK in terms of giving is the National Trust, which doesn't help humans at all.

Religion On My Mind

The Telegraph has a story today about how the human brain is hard-wired to believe in God.

This isn't news. However, George Pitcher, the Telegraph's religion editor and an Anglican priest at St Bride's Fleet Street, is claiming that research on the subject has 'made religious faith feel normal for once' and that it shows religion 'makes us perform better'.

He is overlooking a few inconvenient facts. He mentions Professor Bruce Hood's research but can't have read it very thoroughly. Hood, and other writers like Pascal Boyer, Marc Hauser, Paul Bloom and Matt Ridley, have made it very clear that religion is a side-effect of the brain's evolution.

You could equally well say that we have evolved the ability to read and write, to find flowers pretty, to believe in horoscopes and ghosts, to be vulnerable to malaria and to be heroin addicts. All of these are side-effects. Not all side-effects are beneficial; picking one that suits your argument is lazy. As is ignoring the bad effects of religion or blaming them on some other cause.

There is no evidence that the brain has evolved to believe in the Christian god in particular, so believers can't use this factlet to justify their own belief as the only right one any more than a belief in Zeus, Ra or Thor. And even if we had evolved to believe in a certain god, that doesn't prove that he or she exists any more than believing that horoscopes are true makes them so. It's wishful thinking.

Hood and others like him are not 'promoting' religion as Pitcher suggests. They are investigating why this particular evolutionary spandrel has proved so tenacious.

As we all have common ancestors, why do some of us not believe in any god or other superstition? This is a question that needs to be answered by scientists and by believers using a mis-reading of evolution to bolster their faith.

Spirituality - The Emperor's New Clothes

The word 'spirituality' is very much in fashion but is used in such a nebulous way to mean so many things that it has become virtually emptied of meaning. It has also become something of a sacred cow, not to be questioned.

A Pew Survey in 2008 and a Newsweek survey in 2009 both found that Americans are increasingly identifying as spiritual rather than religious. Newsweek states that, of the people surveyed: Nearly half (48 percent) described themselves as both 'religious and spiritual' while another 30 per cent said they were 'spiritual but not religious'. A Mori poll in the UK in 2003 found that 24% of people considered themselves spiritual but did not belong to a religion.


There seem to be four main flavours of spirituality:


The first is used by religious people almost interchangeably with 'religion' and 'belief'.


The second covers people who have a faith but a more personal relationship with their deity, away from hierarchical, structured religion, formal worship and dogma. Some people's faith, whether they use the word 'spiritual' or not, is so loosely defined that it would barely be recognised as faith at all by the orthodox. One such believer writes in the Guardian that 'what I believe is that God is the ultimate aesthetic object, ultimate beauty, glory and power, and that the vision of God embodies the quintessence of every aesthetic experience and every sensual pleasure'. Hers is a very rarified conception and it's not clear why anyone would put themselves in a category and then go to great lengths to explain how different they are from everyone else in that category. Safety in numbers, perhaps.


The third is a secular, mostly New Age flavour that is personalized, pluralistic, mystical. This can take a particular form - for example, Native American spirituality - or it can be just be a sense of connection with the universe, that there is 'something out there', a belief in the supernatural in the broadest sense. Words like 'energy', 'quantum' and 'natural' crop up a lot. For example, the all-embracing pick and mix nature of this spirituality is illustrated by the Spiritual Forums, which welcome discussion on the Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, Complementary Therapies and Esoteric subjects from Astral Projection to Zen, Angels and Yoga.


Although this alternative spirituality is New Agey, it is not new. Followers of Swedenborg and his brand of spirituality have been around since the 18th century and, although less fashionable now, they still exist. Madame Blavatsky was another precursor of New Age spirituality.


Finally, there is spirituality-lite, a kind of life-style accessory involving scented candles, pictures of sunsets, having once read a book by Deepak Chopra and the buying of alternative medicine by people who probably went to India at some point or would like to.


What they all have in common is that they focus on something other than the purely physical. They often take a critical view of materialism although the last two flavours involve buying a lot of accessories.





Maslow's hierarchy of needs identifies five layers of human requirement. The first is the most basic, satisfying physical survival needs for food, water, sex, sleep and so on. The second is for safety, the third for relationships. The top two needs, once these basics have been achieved, are for esteem/self-esteem and self-actualisation. Spirituality seems to fall into these two categories, particularly the last (although deeply religious people might possibly put it into the relationship category). Anyone struggling to survive is not going to be pondering the meaning of life and their connection with the universe or admiring a dream catcher they picked up in the local garden centre while listening to whale music.


Is spirituality just an indulgence, a modern fad, or does it have benefits?


The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) have a leaflet called Spirituality and Mental Health which looks at the potential benefits. It states that: In healthcare, spirituality is identified with experiencing a deep-seated sense of meaning and purpose in life, together with a sense of belonging. It is about acceptance, integration and wholeness. It also says that Evidence for the benefits for mental health of belonging to a faith community, holding religious or spiritual beliefs, and engaging in associated practices, is now substantial. The Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group (SIG) has over 2000 members.


The leaflet has a long list of spiritual practices, including belonging to a faith tradition, acts of compassion, reading scripture, yoga, meditation, appreciation of the arts and engaging in creative activities, including artistic pursuits, cookery, gardening etc, group or team sports.


Spiritual practices, they say, include being self-reflective and honest, developing greater empathy for others, achieving a peaceful state of mind, wisdom, equanimity, patience and joy.


While a lot of the things on the lists are desirable both in life and in therapy, many of them are not what most people would consider spiritual. Is sport a spiritual activity? It appears that the RCP are using this catch-all term to cover pretty much anything that improves quality of life.


Their claim that there is substantial evidence for the benefits of faith and belonging to a faith community is undoubtedly true for some people. But faith can also bring a whole lot of unwanted baggage such as guilt, prejudice, pressure to conform and conflict, especially for people whose lifestyle or identity is not mainstream. Faith communities can be supportive, a vital social safety net but some communities are very focussed on ritual, dogma, formal worship and other distinctly non-spiritual elements. So it seems that this leaflet is being over-general and optimistic, the word 'spiritual' bland to the point of uselessness.


The NHS has also recognised the need for using spirituality as part of 'holistic' and 'humane' treatment. Its guidelines for staff state that Recognising a person's spiritual dimension is one of the most vital aspects of care and recovery in mental health. While treating the whole person rather than regarding them as a set of symptoms is laudable, the guidelines are over-stating the case for spirituality and potentially putting a burden onto already over-loaded and under-funded medical staff.

The guide defines spirituality as (among other things), a life-force, what makes us unique, a sense of connectedness with other people, nature, animals, sport, our life-pilgrimage and quest, what gives our life meaning. Again, the vague, hippyish, touchy-feely catch-all. And, again, sport features on the list.

Although the guide gives an unsurprisingly prominent place to religion as an aspect of spirituality, its aim is to include everyone. However, there is no recognition that some people may not want to use that term to define the part of their lives concerned with relationships, enjoying nature, art and so on, perhaps because it has religious or New Age connotations or perhaps because it is just inappropriate. Human spirituality is, for the NHS, a given. The Scottish version of the NHS guide begins with the quotation: we are not human beings seeking spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings seeking what it means to be human.

The promotion of spirituality either by people who claim to have it or by organisations that think everyone should want it, is not entirely benign.

It is sometimes a way for an individual to make themselves feel a bit 'special', a self-aggrandizing term that they cannot define or explain but which must not be challenged or even questioned. There is potential for misunderstanding between the different interpretations of the word and, although the 'right' to spirituality is assumed, different groups could well see their version as superior. A deeply religious person is unlikely to value Native American spirituality even if they pay lip service to tolerance. It is potentially yet another way of creating the Us and Them divide so well exploited by religions. My spirituality is more spiritual than yours.

Moreover, on the basis of the NHS and BPS definitions, if you are not spiritual at all, you are lacking. Anyone rejecting the need for this vapid labelling could be seen as somehow less than fully human, lacking in 'wholeness' - and this is the worrying element (that and the fact that tax-payers' money is being spent).

One survey contradicts the findings that spirituality is essential for wholeness and a healthy emotional or mental life. Profiles of the Godless questioned nearly 6000 individuals and looks in depth at atheists, agnostics and spiritual people, comparing them with believers. The distinctive element of this research is that it breaks down the category that many surveys use to lump all non-religious people together.

It found that more women than men described themselves as spiritual (which touches on something I blogged about here). Interestingly, it also found that 'spirituals' (as the survey describes them) reported lower satisfaction with their lives than those with other belief labels. It reports: Those non-believers most confident in their non-belief tended to be the most emotionally healthy, relative to the 'fence sitters' (...) Therefore, having uncertainty regarding one's religious views appears to be associated with relatively greater emotional instability.


One conclusion of the survey was that being sure about what you think and believe, whether that manifests as being actively religious or atheist, is better for your mental health than being agnostic or spiritual.

While it would be satisfying to have a term to apply to that part of our lives in which we enjoy things other than meeting survival needs or satisfying material desires, spirituality is not a good candidate. A word that means too many things means nothing and, in trying to be inclusive becomes exclusive.


Why choose a term that has religious overtones and then stress that religion is not the only form of spirituality? The word also has the taint of dualism, separating body and spirit. This is an old view of the Self with wholly religious roots. There is also the marketing triad of Mind-Body-Spirit used in bookshops and places that sell spirituality accessories, which further splits the Self.


There is a difference between being a materialist (not believing in unseen powers or a separate spirit or life-force) and being materialistic (placing too much value in, or reliance on, material things). I am a materialist but not materialistic and I reject the use of spirituality, in any of its meanings, to apply to my life. Does that mean there is something a bit wrong with me? I have a hole where my spirituality should be.

Reparative therapy for homosexuality

The American Psychological Association has adopted a resolution that mental health professionals should not tell clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments following a lengthy task force report on the subject.

British bodies have yet to adopt such measures despite the fact that therapists here in the UK are making such claims and attempting to 'cure' people. An article in BMC Psychiatry found that 17% of practitioners surveyed had assisted at least one client/patient to reduce or change their homosexual feelings, most commonly (66%) by counselling.

One member of the British Psychological Society interviewed by The Guardian said: 'Although homosexual feelings are usual in people, their physical expression, and being a person's only way of having sexual relations is problematic. The physical act for male homosexuals is physically damaging and is the main reason in this country for AIDS/HIV. It is also perverse'.

The main reason people feel the need to change their sexual orientation is religion. Religious responses to homosexuality cover the whole spectrum, from tolerance to fear and loathing of the God Hates Fags variety found at Westboro Baptist Church in America. It is generally believers from the more hard-line and evangelical groups who feel the need to change themselves - or who are pressured to do so, but not exclusively so.

The treatment is often called 'reparative therapy'. Reparation means making amends (as a losing side is forced to do after a war) or repairing. Neither of which implies anything other than homosexuals are wrong or broken.

One of the apparently moderate approaches in this country is that of the True Freedom Trust. They accept that homosexuality is not a wilful choice and class it along with any other sex outside of marriage (sinful).

However, they also say that 'ongoing change in all areas of our lives is possible through the work of the Holy Spirit within. Counselling and therapy are one (sic) of the tools God uses in this process (...) although we do not see it as our aim to 'cure' homosexuality. We do not believe a sexual relationship is essential for a meaningful life. We therefore seek to foster positive attitudes to singleness in the church'.

So it doesn't matter how nature made you as long as you do nothing about it. But should you want to change, therapy is recommended. And the implication is that you should want to change if you want to stay within the faith community.

The Christian Medical Fellowship, who will be familiar to readers of my earlier posts as a group with an interesting relationship with the truth, also appear to take this moderate approach.

They admit that 'genetics may contribute in some way. But this does not mean that those individuals are unable to exercise choice.' Like the TFT, they are promoting celibacy.

For both organisations, faith trumps nature. The CMF says: 'we need to protect the individual's right to bring his or her feelings and behaviour into line with his or her religious and moral values, rather than the other way around (...) This right should be defended even when it means learning to live with sexual feelings that the individual may not value and may not wish to nurture (...) Questions about the divine intervention for the ordering of human relationships are theological and ethical issues, for which science and psychiatry have no answers'.

This last sentence would imply that God made people gay in the first place.

Even this vague stab at a moderate tone is undermined elsewhere on their site where it says that 'Homosexual acts are dangerous' and 'Monogamous homosexuals are extremely rare'. Which is much more in keeping with their general tone.

The Church Times has a section on homosexuality which appears to take a balanced view of evidence but, like other apparently moderate groups, they take refuge in the fact that there is no hard and fast scientific evidence for a single cause for homosexuality and conclude that: 'Unfortunately, this means that empirical evidence can be used rather like biblical texts to argue that homosexuality is a normal variant on the spectrum of sexual orientation, a biological abnormality, a moral/immoral choice, or whatever else.' They do not appear to understand the word 'empirical'.

In one way, these more temperate responses are more dangerous. The out and out ranters are easy to spot, caricature and contend with. It is the apparently liberal, tolerant and caring groups who are more likely to attract young people confused about their sexuality. Even though they are apparently accepting of everyone's nature and even, to a degree, of genetics, human sexuality is (once again) something inherently bestial and sinful to be conquered and quelled. Their attitude is really just a thinly veiled version of 'Love the sinner, hate the sin'.

Celibacy is unnatural (in the sense that our instinct is to reproduce, not in a judgemental sense). Enforced celibacy, or abstinence as religious groups often call it, as a condition of acceptance by a community, is not healthy either when it is practised or when it fails. It's a fix that ignores and denies human nature (again). If there were truly nothing wrong with being gay, there would be no need to promote battening down natural instincts or seeking therapy, however caring the terms used.

To return to the APA ruling, the lengthy report it is based on looks at the efficacy of therapy for 'curing' homosexuals and converting them back to the straight and narrow.

'Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation' said Judith M Glassgold, chair of the task force behind the report.

'At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex".

As well as pointing out the flawed methodology of studies purporting to show the efficacy of 'cures', the APA was also concerned about mischaracterizing homosexuality as a mental disorder. Or perhaps more accurately the re-characterizing as this was the medical position in the past. It was not until the 70s that American practitioners agreed to remove it from the list of mental disorders.

The fact that it is acceptable for practitioners in a position of trust to take on vulnerable people, make promises they cannot keep according to the evidence and, by attempting a cure in the first place, tell these vulnerable people that there is something deeply wrong with them, is shameful, especially when the clients/patients are not adults but young people forced to attend by their families.

There is a freedom of conscience and expression issue here. It is a right to believe and express any point of view that does not go as far as inciting violence. If your religion tells you that homosexuality is wrong, then that is what you may say. A practitioner may see themselves trying to cure lesbians, gays and bisexuals as an act of Christian charity.

However, when the person expressing and acting on a belief is a professional dealing with vulnerable people, there must be guidelines. Doctors are allowed a conscience clause that exempts them from acting against their religion - for example, they are allowed not to recommend a patient for an abortion or the morning after pill. But they must refer the patient immediately to another doctor who will.

Therapists who believe that homosexuality (or the physical expression of it) is wrong should be given a similar exemption and the obligation to refer should be imposed on them, rather than allowing them to offer treatment that has no evidential basis and potential risks of harm. They are supposed to be scientists, after all (at least, some of them).

The Wellcome Trust has launched a website to examine attempts at cures, which it warns may well be damaging. The site is an excellent resource for links to research and first-hand testimonies of gay people.

The National Secular Society has written to both the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Psychological Society calling on them to adopt the same position as the APA. The RCP has responded that: 'The college takes very seriously the call by the National Secular Society to issue broader guidance to our members and will look into the issue further.'

Dr Petra Boynton has also covered this subject in her very fine blog and is calling on her colleagues to petition the RCP, BPS and BMA.

Should you be interested in the Biblical teachings on homosexuality that such attitudes are based on, Romans 1:26-7 is the only place where lesbianism is condemned along with male homosexuality and Leviticus 18:22 is the most cited reference.

UPDATED 2 OCTOBER 2012: Britain's biggest professional body for psychotherapists, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, has finally ruled that reparative therapy is unethical. It has written to nearly 30,000 members that it 'opposes any psychological treatment such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or based on the premise that the client/patient should change his/her sexuality". BACP recognises World Health Organisation policy that so-called therapies can cause severe harm to mental and physical health.

The BACP guideline change follows a case in which Christian psychotherapist, Lesley Pilkington, was struck off the members' list for offering conversion therapy to an undercover journalist. Her appeal was turned down in May this year.

The other main professional body for British psychotherapists, the UK Council for Psychotherapy, issued similar guidance to members in early 2010, shortly after the Pilkington case emerged.

However,anyone can legally call themselves a psychotherapist or a counsellor. In 2007 the (Labour) government announced plans for statutory regulation to prevent this but the Department for Health has since dropped the plan.