Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
--But in the name of all that is holy () go easy on poor June with the science! She's a shrink, not a physicist!)
But June's thinking that neuropathways are recreated (or inhibited) all the time, over time. As well, June's thinking memes = anthropologically evolutionary. (Yes? No?)
(At least that's what she thought she and Montana were discussing that day over a bottle of Chardonney when, well, you know...)
--But in the name of all that is holy () go easy on poor June with the science! She's a shrink, not a physicist!)
But June's thinking that neuropathways are recreated (or inhibited) all the time, over time. As well, June's thinking memes = anthropologically evolutionary. (Yes? No?)
(At least that's what she thought she and Montana were discussing that day over a bottle of Chardonney when, well, you know...)
I think you're absolutely right in the sense of both anthropologic evolution as well as neural pathways. I'll take it easy on you with the science. So let me try to make it simple.
Not to put her on the pedestal again, but let's take esselcue's sister. Let's say that the VMAT2 gene is the gene responsible for religious belief and that in her sister the gene is "turned on". Think of this in the same manner that her sister has the gene for blue eyes that is "turned on". We have an active reason for the biological makeup of something physical in both cases. It would mean that her neural pathways are more inclined to develop in a manner that would lead her to believe in something like religion; not that she would necessarily be a religious zealot but that the experiences in her life and her exposure to different ideas would cling more heartily to the ideas of religion rather than irreligion.
Now, what I was getting at in the Dawkinsian and Darwinian sense is that this gene was propagated throughout human evolution for different reasons. In the beginning, as man was first coming on the scene, it would have been necessary to listen to members of the tribe, parents, etc... on things that required the same sort of "belief" that religion does and NOT that religion is the sole result of the VMAT2 gene. In other words, the emergence of religion is something that, in the Totem and Taboo sense took advantage of the neural pathways that the VMAT2 gene provides.
Now, I think back to this book someone recommended for me called Totem and Taboo and I remember reading about numerous different aboriginal tribes that had these totems and taboos. So many of them are nonsensical and fail to really serve a purpose yet people followed them for a numerous variety of reasons. Again, the memetical nature of their beliefs, totems, and taboos were propagated for a reason (which Freud was very perceptive in explaining from a psychological standpoint) that ultimately falls on the genetic disposition of the neural pathways provided from the VMAT2 gene (which there is some skepticism of). Does that make sense?
I'm, for the most part, with Stephen Jay Gould on this issue in that of Spandrel's
anthropologic evolution as well as neural pathways.
Now, I think back to this book someone recommended for me called Totem and Taboo
^ You mean someone recommended that you read Freud!? (Now who in their right mind would have done that!? )
Here's what June is thinking as regards those "neural pathways:" Just as the herion addict that was sitting in group today will, over time, develop new cognitive pathways the longer he stays off the drug, (along with the fact that the addictive neural pathways will gradually fade out, over time) so too, June is thinking that the closest she's gunna get in this "genetic" religious debate is in thinking that culturally and socially individuals are predisposed to certain cultural, religious mindsets. Those mindsets are reinforced enviornmentally, (upbringing and parental reinforcement) such that in only that way, the individual becomes "biologically predisposed" to "religion." (And yet it's still a nature/nurture agruement, with nurture being the predominant factor nearly every time, or the vast majority of time.)
However, that still does not account for the fact that I am willing to bet that you could give any die-hard atheist on this forum a psychedelic drug, and the next thing you know, "presto!" even my dear, sweet man, Montana will be professing to have (potentially) undergone a profound experience of the "sacred." So how does one account for the fact that those who have no prior inclination whatsoever towards "religious experience" report having had them? (Is it just the LSD, or is it illiciting something in the individual, whereby the "active ingredient" - the drug - is merely "waking up" that which potentially exists?)
^ You mean someone recommended that you read Freud!? (Now who in their right mind would have done that!? )
Here's what June is thinking as regards those "neural pathways:" Just as the herion addict that was sitting in group today will, over time, develop new cognitive pathways the longer he stays off the drug, (along with the fact that the addictive neural pathways will gradually fade out, over time) so too, June is thinking that the closest she's gunna get in this "genetic" religious debate is in thinking that culturally and socially individuals are predisposed to certain cultural, religious mindsets. Those mindsets are reinforced enviornmentally, (upbringing and parental reinforcement) such that in only that way, the individual becomes "biologically predisposed" to "religion." (And yet it's still a nature/nurture agruement, with nurture being the predominant factor nearly every time, or the vast majority of time.)
However, that still does not account for the fact that I am willing to bet that you could give any die-hard atheist on this forum a psychedelic drug, and the next thing you know, "presto!" even my dear, sweet man, Montana will be professing to have (potentially) undergone a profound experience of the "sacred." So how does one account for the fact that those who have no prior inclination whatsoever towards "religious experience" report having had them? (Is it just the LSD, or is it illiciting something in the individual, whereby the "active ingredient" - the drug - is merely "waking up" that which potentially exists?)
-Are we still on topic here?
(Not good for June to be asking that, now is it!)
It's interesting that you should mention that. Did you know that the VMAT2 gene is also responsible for dopamine and seratonin reuptake inhibitors? In patients that use cocaine, nicotine, and other drugs, it directly affects some of the predispositionary fundamentals that the VMAT2 gene provides.
I could completely understand how I or Montana could take something like LSD and experience a "spiritual" happening.
Again, I think you're absolutely right about parental upbringing, exposure, etc... But there are many Atheists who are brought up within religious households who become Atheists and there are many that are brought up in non-religious households who are believers. To me, it's much more than one single dimension that "causes" belief or disbelief. We can say that ultimately genetic factors increase certain societal factors or a "latching" to certain memetic properties.
The paradox seems to be met at this:
Genetics causes memetics (the spread, variety, and heredity of ideas) which are socially reinforced from others with similar genetic and memetic predispositions. The psychology behind it seems to explain the memetic "latching" in the conscious sense but is also a result of genetic predisposition.
Let's say you have a person who suffers very badly from depression as a result of a genetic predisposition to neurochemical imbalances. The thoughts and ideas that go through this person's mind seem to latch in a very negative way. Is it possible that once the chemical imbalance is "fixed" along with introducing new "neural pathways" with therapy can ultimately help a person? I think so. And from everything I understand with chronic depression it seems that the best therapy is a combination of cognitive therapy and medication.
The MMPI does not test for religious personality types.
TheThematic Apperception Test does not test for religious personality.
The Myers Brigges Type Indicator (MBTI) does not test for relgious personality. (Even though it was influenced by Carl Jung.)
The Rorschach does not test for religious personality.
All of the above mentioned are standardized personality tests. They do not possess an index for "religious personality." Nor, when administered correctly, can they prove that person(alities) possess more of a tendency to reject organized religion. They do not test for that.
Sorry.
Non-standardized, online "personality tests" (which possess no standard of validity) may appear to "test" for "religious personality types."
--At least that is what this psychotherapist has learned.
From experience.
I could not post the internet document, but I did copy it on a DM. It also repeated the traits I received on a larger test I took at work. This is just internet stuff, but I think the test from work did hit the nail on it head for me, and helped me and others work better with eachother.
The religious issue was a small part of the whole, but just seemed to be one other trait that was right.
I also belong to the INTJ forum and asked them the same question. It is not a forum as big as CD, but thus far not one has listing a religion or desire to be religious. I have to think something is at work there. It might be a fun research project. I will keep track of the forum stats to see how it looks after a month or two.
Religion (propensity towards vs. away from) as being a personalilty index trait? --Nope
Religion as being a possible biogenetic trait? --According to Harvard guy, quite possibly...
P.S. June can just feel it coming on: a segue into another Academy Award Winning post by Troop on memes!
I just read this, I will get the book, I think I already read the review on it, and you must be psychic as I just read another fantastic post from Troop.
It is my theory that because humans are herd animals they are more programmed to be religious than not religious.
The paradox is that for some religions it is required to totally isolate yourself for awhile in order to receive a religious message or spiritual vision.
I could not post the internet document, but I did copy it on a DM. It also repeated the traits I received on a larger test I took at work. This is just internet stuff, but I think the test from work did hit the nail on it head for me, and helped me and others work better with eachother.
The religious issue was a small part of the whole, but just seemed to be one other trait that was right.
I also belong to the INTJ forum and asked them the same question. It is not a forum as big as CD, but thus far not one has listing a religion or desire to be religious. I have to think something is at work there. It might be a fun research project. I will keep track of the forum stats to see how it looks after a month or two.
I understand June's point that these tests do not measure religious leanings per se. You could probably argue that the "T" instead of the "F" measurement implies a tendency to make decisions based on logic rather than gut or emotional responses. So perhaps there are more atheists in the T category. I have taken a couple of them and I'm INFJ. But here I sit, an agnostic (I grant you I am probably more malleable this way because of my touchy-feely "F"-ness. ) Then again, the "N" implies a type of global thinking pattern that contrasts with the "S" which is more concrete and detail-oriented. So "N" people would incline to philosophical ponderings (but not necessarily religion!).
That seems to me an entirely different question than "Do we have a gene for religion or nonreligion?" I heard a talk by Lionel Tiger (love his name) arguing that we do have a genetic predispositon for religious leanings. (Maybe it kicks in with our responses to drugs, etc) This could have given us an edge in survival in some way, perhaps as an exaptation, or even an adaptation. And needless to say, gene effects are far more complex than we used to think, and the brain and CNS have much more ability to model and remodel based on input than we ever knew. (Lamarckism is BACK! ) So it's all a dance, the borders are fuzzy and undefinable, and we are lucky enough to be able to sit here and ponder this stuff!
June,
I know you have a lot of doubt and possibility some frustrations on personality type and religion having any connection, but after two weeks on the Myers-Briggs IN_ _ and INTJ’s forums I have a small data sample which looks like personality or DNA controls what we think on religion.
I started one poll and one thread on M-B personality forums looking at religious choice and Myers-Briggs personality types. I actually looked at the INTJ type by itself in one group and IN__ __ in the other group. These are the groups which are listed as the most likely to reject religion or the existence of a god.
The question was simple and straight forward.
One was “A poll to see what religions INTJ’s follow” posted in a forum of only INTJ personalities.
The other was a post looking at IN__ __ personality types and Religious views in general. (Not a poll but just a thread.)
In the Poll with a small sample we showed 54.2% Atheist, and 20.8% Agnostic or Deist, and 16.6% Protestant. The Buddhist and Hindu section had 4% each.
The choices in the poll were: Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Deist, Hindu, Islam, Jewish, Protestant, Or Don’t Know. The INTJ Forum has only 3509 members at this point which I think is related to the small percentage of INTJ’s in the general population.
The other thread allowed discussion and after 631 views and 60 posts the results showed 74% of the IN_ _ personality types were agnostic, Atheist, or Deist while 12% followed some other form of religion.
I understand this is a very unscientific poll, but the data seems to point to a trend with personality type link to religion or nonreligious views related to the IN _ _ and the INTJ’s in particular. In both the poll and the post it looks like the personality types had a 73% to 75% non religious view. This when compared to the national average in the US with the highest reading being 27% or the world with 44%. These results seems to support a correlation between personality type and non religious views.
My next question would be is personality type tied to genetics, and if so is all this struggle over religion and god or no god just part of our genes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) go easy on poor June with the science! She's a shrink, not a physicist!)
(Now who in their right mind would have done that!? )
It is my theory that because humans are herd animals they are more programmed to be religious than not religious.
