.jpg)
Anyone familiar with the Catholic faith will know that this kind of behaviour is held in high regard. It's not just Catholics either. Fanatical adherents to most of the popular faiths can be found indulging in similar painful rituals - AC Grayling has a nice round-up.
As some members of his close entourage in Poland and in the Vatican were able to hear with their own ears, John Paul flagellated himself. In his armoire, amid all the vestments and hanging on a hanger, was a belt which he used as a whip and which he always brought to Castel Gandolfo
So why do they do it? Here's the conventional sociological explanation (provided by Grayling):
Studies of self-inflicted suffering in religious observance suggest that it has two main purposes. One is the hope of rooting out sexual desire or some other physical appetite, thereby achieving purity and self-mastery, and thus merit. The other, much the main purpose, is to induce an ecstatic or transcendent state often interpreted by believers as contact with the divine.
But behavioural psychology and economics suggest a rather different explanation. Some of these I've written about before (e.g. self-punishment and costly-signalling). But I think the current front runner is something called a credibility enhancing display, or CRED.
Joe Henrich, of the Centre for Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture at the University of British Columbia wrote a very nice paper on this last year (thanks to Michael Blume for sending it to me!)
CREDs are all about communicating ideas, especially ideas that we have no way of verifying. We're much more likely to accept these kinds of ideas if we see someone acting as if they truly believe what they're telling us. If they walk the walk, as well as talk the talk.
So, if I wanted to convince you that tofu is a miracle food, you'd be much more likely to believe me if you knew that I actually ate tofu myself (despite the taste - sorry tofu fans). It makes what I'm saying more credible.
What Henrich does is to build a model that incorporates these ideas. He compares two competing beliefs that are equal in all ways except that one of the beliefs is associated with a ritual that is costly but which also enhances credibility.
The results suggest that a belief that carries no tangible benefit but only a cost can outcompete a cost-free belief, so long as as the cost is linked to a 'credibility enhancing display'.
So, if I say that God likes people to eat fine food, and you say that God likes people to whip themselves, then your version can (if the conditions are right) become more popular.
Henrich goes on to suggest that if you put this idea about CREDs together with other ideas about cultural group selection, maybe you could have a situation where practices that are costly to the individual, but beneficial to the group, could evolve. Religion might be an example of this.
So how does this help understand what's going on with the Pope and other self-flagellators? A cynic might say that he's simply trying to convince others of the sincerity of his beliefs.
By the CRED idea runs deeper than this. It acts at a subconscious level. The beliefs that get passed on are the ones that have the showiest, most costly signals.
From this perspective, it looks like the Pope was infected by a particularly virulent meme. A meme that ruthlessly self-propagates, despite the damage done to the host.
Henrich, J. (2009). The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30 (4), 244-260 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.
10 Comments:
I really like Henrich's work. He's got some great ideas. I do have one major objection, though. How can you not like tofu?! Clearly, you haven't had it prepared properly. Just like chicken, you don't just eat it as it comes from the shop but need to fry it to get the crunchy, delicious taste and texture.
First let me correct the assertion tha "what is going on" with the pope is not correct. "It indeed was going on" with Pope John Paul II, who died without a word of this comming from him in true humility in front of the creator, not for consumption to public oppinion. This of course changes the conclussion arrived bby the writer.
Further, self flagelation is a personal expression of loving God more that oneself, thus renouncing to thoughts, feelings, activities, etc., that might offend our Creator. This is a deep love beyond scientific expalination. Attempts give it a scientific is similar to a little child trying to explain his/her parents beaviour in terms of hiss/hers child games.
Luis Gamas
Luis does raise an interesting point in some cases flagellation does take place in private. A CRED is not very effective if no-one else witnesses it. Not unless we think that the flagellant is actually also the intended audience. Perhaps, the flagellation is meant to convince the flagellant, themselves, of the truth of the related belief. But, does that work? One can talk about sunk costs and the way they do help to motivate people but is the overall effect adaptive here? I am not sure.
Luis' second point is, of course, a paradigmatic example of the way that religions defend their core claims using the socially constructed category of the sacred. His phrases - "renouncing thoughts", "beyond scientific explanation" - make this very clear. Also quite clear is the resultant cognitive dissonance in simultaneously claiming to have insight and claiming that such insight is impossible. The way it is managed here is the typical way, by claiming that science provides humans with a special way of knowing that has limitations other ways of knowing do not. Given that science is not constituted by a set of methods but is better represented by a set of attitudes, this strategy fails, of course.
In this case there is no intended audience. This is comming out after Pope John Paul II is dead. This is comming out to lay witness to his relationship with God, and to help/encourage those who are willing to go beyond our human limits and embrace thmselves into loving God. No arms twisted.
Religion comes from latin Re-ligare (http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew1/D1-EtymologyOfReligion.html) which means to rebind. Science come frome Scienta, meaning knowledge).
Two diffrent actions: one is to rebind, the other is to know.
One does not require knowledge, the other does.
One requires a re bond in the spiritual dimension. The other requires a bond to the physical world.
Religious re bonding requires faith in the spiritual world, the other doe not even require rejecting the spiritual dimension.
Sacred means to make Holy (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_S/origin_of_the_word_sacred.htm). I have not heard (yet) that any scientific belief is Holy. However al Sacred things are re-ligious. Thus pertain to the domain of re-bonding to the sacred.
What can be more Scared that God himself? What can be more worth of love thatn God himself?
For a deeply religious man as Pope John Paul II was, what could have been more important than loving God?
In his humble silence on his relationship with God he demonstrated this.
It is unfortunate that we are in a stage on the "public conscience cloud" development where we belive that anything that comes out in the media is true beyond doub and something that does not agree in general term with this "conscience" is immediately rejected. Thus making "The Cloud" "The" reference of our believes".
One has to go beyond this "public conscience cloud" to find what is really true and the rock where we can find true refuge to this barage of quick information we live in.
Certainly Pope John Paul II found Rock and maintained the course for him and for all mankind.
The interesting thing about CREDs is that (unlike costly signals) you'd expect them to occur in private. Any CRED signal has to be an unintentional by-product of the belief. If I start thinking that you're just doing it to influence me, it loses credibility.
Of course, any CRED that only occurs in total privacy won't get passed on. So the most succesful CREDs will be ones that are done in private, but leave enough traces for learners to detect them. Which fits the Pope's self mortification perfectly.
Fried tofu, by the way? But Konrad, what about the acrylamides? Anyway, now that i know you eat the stuff then prestige biased learning will mean that I'll have to have another go!
O.K. That makes sense. Now all that needs to happen is that you should happen to see me chowing into a tofuburger when I least expect it.
@ Tom
Yes, that was the very reason I found the CRED-model more convincing than the costly signalling one. By CREDs, you could convince yourself (thereby increasing your habitual behaviors) AND you could send especially credible signals to others. For example, ascetics tended to be sought out especially if they proceeded to retreat from public. Or think of Jesus advising his followers not to pray or to fast for a show, but to do it in private. CREDs have just been added to wikireligiosus (as has this post :-) ):
http://www.wikireligiosus.eu/index.php/CREDs
Best wishes!
It's nice when I read those engaging a theist on this blog. Seems like they actually CAN make a contribution to the discussion. David Mc
Michael, there are still potential problems with faking it. But what makes creds more likely as a meme transmission device is that there is no assumption that the cred signal leads to benefits to the individual doing the signalling.
However, I'm yet to be convinced that this adds to cultural group selection in the way that Heinrich suggests. We shall see!
Tom wrote:
"However, I'm yet to be convinced that this adds to cultural group selection in the way that Heinrich suggests. We shall see!"
Yeah, that's the thrill in science, isn't it!? :-)
Every new study a mixture of "okay, that was to be expected" and "wait a minute, what's that?".
As your readers showed special interest in the topics of religion(s) and demography, I think you might like my next article, which is accepted and should be out in print these next weeks. I'll send it to you as soon as possible!
Yours, Michael
Post a Comment