Here’s an article on the neurological foundations of fundamentalist thinking (via AL Daily). Is it saying something interesting, or is it just crudely reductionist?
It’s based on the convergent/divergent distinction, where convergent thinking involves working towards a solution using familiar problem-solving methods – a doctor, say, reaching a diagnosis by checking through the symptoms – while divergent thinking requires a creative break from the usual methods, the ability to, as the phrase goes, think outside the box. Crudely, it’s the difference between intelligence and creativity.
It’s been established that people with frontal lobe damage perform poorly in tests for divergent thinking. They’re fine as long as they stick to familiar patterns, but find it difficult to change in response to altered circumstances. The application to fundamentalist thinking is fairly obvious:
Do extremism and an unconditional adherence to religious dogma result from a failure of a portion of the frontal lobe to fully develop or, if fully developed, to activate? Studies suggest that faithful adherence to a single reasoning strategy on tests such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test means that parts of the frontal lobes are inactive, have failed to fully develop, or have even been damaged. Thus, unqualified disdain for divergent beliefs,for personal interpretation, and for creative theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution, may indeed have, at least a partial, biological explanation: a reduced utilization of that section of the brain which has played such a vital role in humanity’s creative advances—the frontal lobes. By unconditionally obeying religious tenets—or any dogma—some people may be relying on the phylo-genetically older, more posterior portions of the brain that store knowledge and enable consistent or stable behaviors and, unknowingly, circumventing the portion which has been gifted to humans alone through evolution.
So – fundamentalists have poorly functioning frontal lobes? It doesn’t get much more crudely reductionist than that. On the other hand it can’t be denied that fundamentalists insist on an education that encourages rote learning and obedience, and discourages questioning. And perhaps such crude forms of indoctrination do in fact adversely affect the development of certain parts of the brain, such as the frontal lobes. Somehow, though, it’s hard to escape the feeling that this is an argument in favour of open liberal questioning cultures – an argument, of course, with which we can all concur – that’s thrown in a few neurological terms in an attempt to give it some scientific credibility. Drop the frontal lobes stuff and you’ve got the entirely uncontentious view that poor education discourages open creative thinking.
What we are suggesting is that being stuck in a doctrinal belief system which is intolerant of one’s own or another’s personal interpretation, or one which dispels science and foments intolerance of others while setting its followers apart as elite and uniquely special, is a move away from our full potential and from the kind of reasoning that has brought humanity its marvelous advances: that it is good to question the status quo, to remain open to creative new ideas, and to apply wisdom to their use. Moreover, when someone is stuck in a belief, we are suggesting that they might try to explore their capability to question and consider their own personal interpretations—to practice our evolved capacity for divergent thinking…
Children raised in environments which consistently reward convergent reasoning and strict adherence but punish divergent reasoning, could conceivably grow into adults who are prone to getting stuck in various beliefs or ideologies. Might our current preoccupation with strict religious fundamentalism be creating obstacles to resolving the complex dilemmas we face in the world today? If we continue to insist that children around the world unfailingly adhere to the tenets of religious fundamentalism which promote intolerance, are we doomed to repeat the past simply because we have nurtured a world of thinkers who will not diverge from what they are told?
Well yes. Obviously. There’s nothing here to disagree with. But I can’t quite buy the idea that, contrary to what the authors want us to believe, they’ve come up with anything other than the bleeding obvious.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment