Racism, Prejudice and other Generalizations

HS #29  2017.12.5

Racism, Prejudice and other Generalizations

I recently heard a news story explaining that affluent African Americans might be subjected to more racism than those with less means.  To illustrate the point, they told of an African American lawyer/retired colonel who moved into a gated community in Virginia. When met by the neighbors, he was repeatedly asked if he was a former professional athlete. He responded straight-faced that he was a pimp.

This brief account brings up many issues, but I’d like to concentrate on just one.

One component of intelligence is the ability to make generalizations.  We all do it  - humans and other intelligent animals.  Dogs get excited when their owners jingle their car keys or go to a certain drawer. They have learned that such actions are often followed by a walk or treat. Psychologists call is conditioning.

A child bitten by a snarling dog needs instruction in how to generalize. Ideally, they are taught that not all dogs are dangerous, but snarling ones should be avoided.   If not instructed, they will likely learn the lesson eventually from their own experience.  It was Ben Franklin who said, “Experience is a teacher; fools will learn from no other.”

I am acutely aware of our tendency to generalize each time I ride my bike to work – at the Holland DU campus. I cross 16^th Street, US 31, Waverly Avenue, and the exits of several parking lots. As any Holland bicyclist or pedestrian will attest, it’s dangerous to pass from the right in front of a stopped car that is turning to the right. Why? Because Holland drivers encounter few pedestrians, so many look only for cars coming from their left. If the way from the left is clear, off they go.

Several points follow.   First of all, we all make generalizations - constantly – and most of them are unconscious and generally correct. Every time you sit in a chair you are generalizing from past experience that it will not collapse.  Making these generalizations is crucial to learning and living.

Second, our generalizations are sometimes faulty since they are based on limited experience and we have selective memories, and, of course, the world changes.  Moreover, we sometimes just form the wrong conclusions. My father liked to say, “All Indians walk in single file - at least the one I saw did.”

Third, we form prejudices precisely because of our ability to generalize.  “Prejudice” means a pre-judging, and we pre-judge new acquaintances and situations by generalizing from past experiences.

 

Fourth, it seems to me (now I’m generalizing from MY experience) that although prejudices can be wrong and dangerous, they are not formed with malicious intent. Instead, intent has nothing to do with it.  As with other generalizations, prejudices are formed passively from our own experiences or unconsciously picked up from others.

Thus, I disagree with the lyrics that Oscar Hammerstein penned to a South Pacific song about prejudice, “they have to be carefully taught [to hate].”  Nope. Nothing careful about it – it’s too bad that it doesn’t take that much effort.

I remember as a child that when we traveled to Grand Rapids on family vacations from the rural Midwest, mom instructed us to lock our car doors as we passed through certain sections of the city. Looking out the window, I saw black people.  So without anything being explicitly stated, a prejudice was unintentionally passed on to me.

As I’ve grown, I’ve learned that some of the prejudices I formed and picked up as a child were incorrect. Generalizing from those mistakes, I expect that some prejudices I presently hold are also wrong. (Notice the irony – I may change current prejudices precisely because of my ability to generalize.)  Thus I remain open to changing my mind.

But altering one’s generalizations requires more than keeping an open mind. It requires learning from new experiences. And this most effectively happens when we are free to inquire and reflect, and to ask probing, honest questions. But asking candid questions, even when done with good intentions, often offends.   

 So kudos for those who risk being derided as simple, naïve, or misinformed by taking chances and being vulnerable. And those who are offended by naive questions, toughen up!  How else will we come to realize that some of our prejudices are wrong? Therefore, I commend those gated Virginians who asked honest questions with an openness to learn, and I hope that the African American lawyer starts giving honest replies.

Making Choices

HS #28 2017.11.7

Making Choices

Mae West once remarked, “When forced to choose between two evils, I pick the one I haven’t done before.“ Yogi Berra advised,  “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

Humor aside, how do we choose?  It’s worth thinking about. After all, our choices determine the trajectory of our lives.

We deliberate over major decisions, but minor ones are often more significant. When counseling high school students who are choosing a college, I point out that it’s the choice of friends, activities, and use of time that often make or break their college years.

Some decisions involve choosing along a continuum, e.g., how much to spend on a house. Others are between two alternatives with no middle ground, such as a couple deciding whether or not to have a child. The mathematical term for situations requiring distinct alternatives is “bifurcation.” 

“Bifurcation” comes from “bi” meaning “two” and “furcate” meaning “fork.” My Welsh corgi, Elvis, received an honorary doctorate degree from Hope College (hood and citation included) for helping with the research on our paper, “Do Dogs Know Bifurcations?” Elvis was paddling by my side while I was standing in Lake Michigan. When I threw a tennis ball parallel to the shore, Elvis wanted to retrieve it as quickly as possible.  If thrown nearby, Elvis swam straight to the ball. If farther away, he cleverly first swam to shore, ran along the beach, and then swam back out to the ball.

Therefore Elvis had to choose between two distinctly different strategies: Head straight to the ball, or swim all the way to the beach. No advantage to swimming just part way to shore.

I once wrote a short story that captures the dilemma of choosing between such alternatives.  A prisoner of war alone in his cell finds a hidden message instructing him to use Morse code to pass information about himself and the war through the wall to an unseen wounded comrade confined to bed in the next cell. The prisoner faces a real dilemma since he realizes that the message might be a trick of the enemy to gain information. If bona fide, he should do everything possible to comfort and encourage a despondent prisoner. But if not, he should keep totally mum. To tease a fellow prisoner with just a little information would be worse than nothing. So it’s a bifurcation – only the two extremes make sense. The decision is forced upon him.

In “The Will to Believe” the philosopher William James described “Genuine Options” as situations in life where momentous bifurcated decisions about beliefs are forced upon us. In particular, a Genuine Option is a situation where i) either alternative is plausible, ii) the decision must be made, and iii) the choice is about something of significance.

James continued by acknowledging that we humans operate by more than our reason. Our emotions and yearnings are also involved in our choices. Therefore when confronted with a genuine option about what to believe, we have the freedom to believe what seems in our best interest – what we long for.

How interesting.  If this is how we can choose, if this is how we DO choose, then our choices are more about what we want to be true than what we are convinced are true.   A former senior seminar student of mine captured James’ idea with a simple and elegant observation, “The mind believes what the heart desires.”

James’s argument is compelling, but I’m not fully convinced.  Do we – can we - intentionally choose our beliefs, or do we instead passively believe what we have been persuaded of?

When discussing this with others, I hold a table knife between my fingers and promise to give $100 to anyone who believes the knife will stay suspended when I release it.  Everyone WANTS to believe the knife won’t fall, but can they will themselves to believe?

Interestingly, even the Heidelberg Catechism waffles on this question. Giving answer to “What is true faith?” we first read, “I accept as true . . . “ which suggests an intentional decision, but then followed by “it is a firm confidence” which suggests that the mind has been passively convinced. 

C.S. Lewis thought we could and should choose our beliefs. He described various religions as being like rooms in a house. He proposed that choosing one of those religions (even the wrong one) is better than living perpetually in the hallway. In other words, make a decision. 

What do you think?  Make a choice.

Let God Lead the Dance

HS #27 2017.10.3

Let God Lead the Dance

Recently I received an email from a person with whom I had had a conversation seven years ago concerning faith, belief, and the existence of God. He detailed that several years ago he had converted from an agnostic/materialistic worldview to orthodox Catholicism partially as a result of a supernatural experience, and found his new faith more intellectually satisfying. He then asked where my religious-philosophical-spiritual journey had taken me.

As I was finishing my response, I thought I might also share it via this column.

The most significant revelation I've had in recent years was when I was hiking along a beach boardwalk with my welsh corgi on a fine September afternoon.   I made a pillow of dried pines needles and lay there, looking up through the green boughs to the blue sky as my dog lay at my head and the breeze carried the pine scent over me. I felt immensely grateful and didn't know what to do with my gratitude. I wanted to  formulate a prayer to God - thanking him for the moment, but I felt embarrassed - similar to how I’d feel if I had rubbed a lucky rabbits foot. 

Then the image/phrase "Let God lead the dance" came to mind.

The idea is this: I don't know whether there is a personal God. If there isn't, I don’t want to live by a false belief. But if there is, I don't want to shut off acknowledging, experiencing, and relating to God. Then I realized if this WAS a gift of God, it was a subtle gift, and God shouldn't mind if I respond in kind. Thus just the feeling of gratitude itself seemed an appropriately subtle but genuine response to the gift. 

Moreover, I realized I could apply the idea more generally. I will let God lead the dance. If I hear God speak to me audibly, I will respond in kind. If God taps me on the shoulder, I will turn around. If God communicates with me through the words or life of another person, I will interact with that person. Thus while not closing off the possibility of interaction with God, I am not forcing the issue either. God - if there is a God behind these things - is the one in control. 

Although contrary to a perspective of God who waits for us to decide when to offer praise and petition, there is also biblical support for this alternate view.

Moses spent forty years in Egypt and then forty years tending sheep before God decided to interact with him supernaturally via the burning bush. When he did, Moses responded.

Elijah waited isolated in the wilderness for three years when hunted by King Ahab. Then God spoke to him in a barely audible voice, and Elijah took action. 

I'm not saying that every relationship with God need involve something unique and supernatural. I AM saying that if God exists and wants to have a relationship with someone, then God can find a way – possibly depending on the personality of the individual. 

When the atheist mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked how he would respond if God chided him for his non-belief, Russell said he'd reply, "Not enough evidence." 

Makes sense to me. Some people believe things easily. Others, like Russell, do not. Russell spent fifteen years writing a three-volume work that provided a logical foundation for the truth of mathematics. Several hundred pages into the second volume, he finally proved that 1+1=2. If God wanted a relationship with Bertrand, God knew that He'd have to do more than usual. 

C.S. Lewis captures the subtle action of God in "A Horse and his Boy" of the Chronicles of Narnia. A child has rare and brief encounters (often frightening) with a lion throughout his early life. Only later does the lion, Aslan (the Christ figure), reveal himself fully to the young boy, and disclose that he has been working behind the scenes throughout the boy’s life. 

Again, this picture is that God is able and willing to lead the dance - revealing himself to whomever he wants whenever he wants. Indeed, the Apostle Paul, who had his own dramatic encounter with God at God's choosing, explains all of this in Romans 9. That chapter screams: God is the one in control. 

So if there is a personal God, I will let God be the one in control - let God lead the dance, and I, remaining open, will respond in kind.

Why Believe Science? Part II

HS #26  2017.9.5

Why Believe Science, Part II

Welcome back. I’ve been waiting all month to continue our discussion of “Why believe science.”

Recall that Francis Bacon ushered in the scientific age by proposing that we come to the natural world with an open mind, form simple coherent hypotheses, and then relentlessly test these hypotheses with experiments – changing our theory accordingly.  

It seems like a reasonable approach. But do you notice what this approach doesn’t accomplish?

Bacon would likely have fully agreed with the 20^th century philosopher Karl Popper who noticed that even the scientific method does not prove anything true. Let me explain.

Suppose I give you a penny and ask you to determine by flipping it whether it is a two-headed penny. If it lands heads each time, you will become increasingly confident that it is two headed. But you will never know for sure - unless you happen to get a tail. Similarly, given a scientific theory, each experiment is designed to prove the theory false. If numerous experiments fail to show that the theory is false, just as with the coin, we become increasingly confident that it may be true. But we never know for sure. In this sense science is open-ended in its search for truth.

Examples of this abound in the history of science. Maybe the most famous concerns gravity. Isaac Newton was the first to realize that the circular motion of planets and the “straight down” motion of a falling apple were both manifestations of the same thing - gravity.  Newton developed the mathematics necessary to understand and predict the behavior of both. He was a genius of the highest order.

But he was wrong. While his equations gave accurate descriptions of just about everything, it faltered just a tiny bit with the orbit of the planet Mercury. Not much, but just enough to leave astronomers wondering.

Three centuries later Albert Einstein solved the problem. His General Theory of Relativity (Essentially: Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move) not only explained Mercury’s orbit, Einstein also predicted that light from a distant star should bend a little as it passes the sun. In 1919, prepared in the midst of a world war, the scientific community eagerly awaited the results of measurements taken during a solar eclipse. When his prediction was verified, the name “Albert Einstein” became a household word. Today his theory is used to provide the accuracy needed for the GPS system in your car.

So is Einstein’s theory true?  No scientist would be silly enough to say so. It’s closer to the truth than the previous theories, but no one knows whether it too may be modified as new experiments are done. Indeed, Einstein himself continued working on it his entire life.

While I was at Iowa State University, there was an engineering professor who tested any machine claimed to have perpetual motion. Such a machine would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is probably the most solidly tested claim in all of science. But his point was that science proves nothing true. So he would check (for a fee of $50).

Indeed, we’ll never know whether there even is a final true answer. Consider the numbers, ½, 1/3, ¼, 1/5 . . .  0.  These fractions are all getting closer and closer to 0. So we can think of 0 as the culmination or the Truth towards which the others are converging. However, if 0 weren’t there, then the others would still be getting increasingly close to each other. Similarly it might be that even though each advancing scientific theory gives predictions increasingly close to the previous theory, there may be no fully true answer to be found.

What’s the bottom line?  Here is an important one for me.  Humans are proud and stubborn. That’s true of scientists as much as anyone else. However, there is a sort of self-correcting humility built into the scientific method. The inherent skepticism, the test by experimentation, the required reproducibility by other scientists, the commendation for proving established beliefs wrong, and the inherent inability to consider any answer as final – these taken together can make one confident that the findings of science are (perhaps haltingly) converging to truth about our natural world.

Churchhill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Similarly, although it is painstakingly slow and labor intensive, the scientific method has given us a window to discover the truth about the natural world – our home.