“How does God become real to people when God is understood to be invisible and immaterial, as God is within the Christian tradition?” So begins one of several fascinating scholarly articles regarding the psychology of spiritual experience by a Stanford anthropologist by the name of Tanya Luhrmann.

Many of Luhrmann’s ideas about this question come from her ethnographic study of a Vineyard church in Chicago in which she involved herself in two years of Sunday morning services, a weekly Bible study housegroup, conferences, retreats, and casual conversations. Importantly, Luhrmann notes that individuals she observed in her research seemed to differ in their ability to “experience God.” For instance, members of the congregation acknowledged that:

“. . . each person would experience God in their own way and develop their own pattern of learning to recognize him: some through warm tingling; others through goose bumps; others still through images or impressions or scriptural phrases.”

Yet, others in Luhrmann’s research noted that they had a difficult time with spiritual experience. One person commented that “I don’t have these supernatural experiences that make me fall to my knees.”

Why do some seem more able to experience God than others?

Continue reading →

I just finished the most remarkable book: “Into That Darkness,” by Gitta Sereny. This book is organized around 70 hours of interviews that the author conducted with Franz Stangl, a leader in the Third Reich who worked at the T4 euthanasia program in Berlin and who commanded the Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps. He was the only Commandant of a camp brought to trial, and ultimately was sentenced to a life sentence in prison.

First, a little background information I learned while reading the book. When most people think about the most horrific aspects of Nazism, they typically think of the concentration camps in which millions of Jews, Roma, political prisoners, and others worked and died. The primary purpose of concentration camps was work, however, and many fortunate individuals survived. Far less attention is given to the Nazi extermination camps, of which there only were four (or five, depending on whether one counts Birkenau, connected with Auschwitz). These camps were built exclusively to kill people, and very few survived. Stangl was the Commandant of two of these, overseeing the deaths of approximately 1,000,000.

There appear to be many reasons why Stangl was involved in such horrors. I was struck by how Stangl appeared to go along with the Nazi plan out of fear of punishment. At every “advancement” in the system, Stangl seemed to speak of his fear for his survival (or his family’s). At the same time, Stangl appeared to be motivated to be effective in carrying out his work, and hoped for promotions. Much of this seemed to be gradual, the “foot-in-the-door” process that often leads people to changes in beliefs and behavior. For instance, a key development in Stangl’s slow moral erosion came when he signed a card signifying that he gave up his allegiance to the Catholic Church (but not to God). Ultimately, it seemed that Stangl started to rationalize his behavior, such as when he said he thought it was okay to euthanize Jews because a Catholic scholar said that the Church didn’t necessarily disagree, that there always has been a debate about euthanasia. Another example of Stangl’s rationalization occurred when he emphasized that he only was the overseer of the camp and that he never was directly involved in killing anyone. He began to operate on two different levels, one with his buddies and at home with his wife and children, and another when he conducted his operations. In fact, Stangl even lost the ability to recognize the Jewish children as people. Generally, he didn’t think of the individuals he killed, but rather the effectiveness of the operations.

Interestingly, much of Stangl’s psychology appeared to be designed by higher authorities. It seemed that many involved in the euthanasia program were given more authority because they were desensitized to suffering at that location. As another example, I was struck by one passage that suggests that the Jews were humiliated publicly in front of the Nazis so that the Nazis would come to dehumanize them.

I long have thought that it might have been easier to overcome the horrors of World War 2, that perhaps if more individuals had resisted, none of this would have happened. However, in reading this book, I started to realize that many individuals involved really seemed to be quite powerless. At least they felt that way. For example, Stangl once commented that:

“If I had sacrificed myself. . . if I had made public what I felt, and had died. . . it would have made no difference. Not an iota. It would all have gone on just the same, as if it and I had never happened.”

In thinking more about this, it seemed that there were several likely candidates for making a significant difference in these crimes. First, those who harbored individuals at risk obviously helped them, although this didn’t change much of the grand scope of what transpired. Second, in this book, a strong case is made that the Pope may have been able to substantially influence the course of events if he had taken a strong, public stand (obviously, he failed in doing so). In fact, Hitler stopped the euthanasia program immediately after a sermon condemning the program was delivered in Rome. Finally, I was interested in the relationship between Stangl and his wife. She is interviewed for the book as well and, when asked hypothetically what she thought might have happened if she had presented an ultimatum to the Commandant to either continue to go along with the Nazis or she and her kids would leave, she thought that he would have stopped (although, significantly, later she said this wasn’t true, perhaps as a rationalization for her failure to do more).

In the end, though, reading this book really left me shaking my head. One particular passage mystifies me. In this passage, one of the guards at Treblinka states:

“A mother jumps down with her baby and calmly looks into a pointing gun-barrel – a moment later we hear the guard who shot them boast to his fellows that he managed to ‘do’ them both with one shot through both their heads.”

I believe that there were social-psychological factors involved in the Holocaust, but ultimately, I think these events speak to the evil that exists in humanity, perhaps even in every individual. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” Or, as Origen once stated, “The power of choosing between good and evil is within the reach of all.”

Awe is one of the most often used – but misunderstood – concepts in the Bible. The word translated is not always “awe” itself, but given how I conceptualize awe, it is apparent that awe is a thread runs through the entire Biblical narrative. For example, there are 53 references to “awe,” 92 to “amazing,” 22 to “astonish,” 38 to “reverence,” and 109 to “wonder.” Related words such as “fear,” “afraid,” and “tremble” also are frequently mentioned in the Bible, and sometimes – but not always – refer to awe experiences.

Continue reading →

According to the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), there are nearly 400 different psychological disorders. Some of these disorders fit the definition of “disease,” a problem that impairs functioning and that mostly stems from biological causes.  Common examples include bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Other “disorders” impair functioning but are determined by a more diverse array of causes, some of which are psychological and social / cultural in nature. In this sense, these conditions are not true “diseases.” Examples include anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, and substance use disorders.

The distinction between “diseases” and “disorders” helps to suggest appropriate treatments. In general, diseases require biological intervention. Research suggests, for example, that medication is very successful in helping individuals to manage symptoms that accompany bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Although it may encourage them to take their medication regularly, manage stress effectively, and help with emotional struggles, research shows that psychotherapy generally does not help people overcome the symptoms of these diseases without biological intervention.

Biological treatments also may help people with disorders in some cases. For example, in one of the largest and most rigorous studies ever conducted on the treatment of clinical depression, researchers in the late 1980s found that antidepressant medication helped manage the symptoms of severe depression (which I would define as involving significant suicidal thinking, that often recurs, or that is chronic) more than other treatment options, at least during the time span in which individuals were taking the medicine.

Continue reading →

Anxiety disorders are the most commonly experienced psychological disorder in the world. In the United States, for example, approximately 18% of adults between the ages of 18 and 54 – approximately 40 million people – experience an anxiety disorder in a given year. Many of these individuals take medication (often times an antidepressant medication) to help with their condition.

Anxiety disorders generally involve a pattern in which an individual possesses a fear that either significantly interferes with their daily life or is endured in their daily life with significant distress. The mental health profession formally considers generalized anxiety disorder, phobias of various kinds (including agoraphobia and social phobia), obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, acute stress disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder to be anxiety disorders. Other mental illnesses often involve the experience of significant anxiety as well, including hypochondriasis, eating disorders, depression, substance use disorders, and several personality disorders such as avoidant personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder.

One of the best ways to conceptualize the psychology of anxiety disorders is through an understanding of classical conditioning principles. In general, in the acquisition phase of classical conditioning, an individual learns to associate a response (conditioned response) to a previously neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus). This learning occurs because that previously neutral stimulus was associated with a stimulus (unconditioned stimulus) that automatically triggered a response (unconditioned response). Often times, this process may be very adaptive, as it helps to prepare individuals for potentially harmful stimuli. Many individuals with anxiety disorders, however, have generalized a conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus to the point where it impairs their functioning in daily life.

For example, when I used to work at the Veteran’s Hospital in Minneapolis, I worked with veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Often times, they reported being in combat situations (unconditioned stimulus) that naturally elicited fear (unconditioned response). Certain stimuli often were associated with these situations, including loud noises or particular smells (conditioned stimuli) which, by themselves, became able to elicit fear as well (unconditioned responses). Although this might be helpful during times of war to help soldiers prepare for threat, many people generalize the process well beyond combat situations, often times years afterward. Many of my patients, for instance, would experience flashbacks if they encountered loud noises or smelled gunpowder. Many became hypersensitive to threatening situations. Naturally, this also led many to avoid situations that had the potential to evoke these kinds of fear responses. These symptoms often times significantly impaired their daily lives.

Thankfully, much of what can be learned can be unlearned as well. In classical conditioning, the extinction phase refers to a process in which individuals learn to distinguish between the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus. This is possible because the conditioned stimulus may be presented repeatedly without the unconditioned stimulus. For instance, if a soldier showed a post-traumatic response to the smell of gunpowder, they might be encouraged to smell gunpowder repeatedly outside of a combat situation. The individual would be expected to show a strong fear response initially, but eventually, they likely would learn that the gunpowder is not associated any more with danger, leading their fear to gunpowder to decrease.

For many people who struggle with anxiety, what they most fear is the experience of fear itself. I have had times in my life where this has been true for me and, though different from a classically conditioned response, I find behavioral exposure helpful for this as well. During times where I become sensitized to being anxious, I slow myself down and focus on the sensations of anxiety. For instance, I allow myself to experience a feeling of tenseness in my stomach or chest, quickened breathing, or a jumpy heart. When I do this, the experience of anxiety tends to fade, often after I realize that, though I don’t really prefer the sensation, it’s actually not that bad.

Clinical trials have shown that these applications of behavioral exposure very effectively treat various kinds of anxiety disorders. For instance, exposure is more effective than medication or other forms of psychotherapy. Furthermore, behavioral exposure seems to be an effective treatment even when the cause of an anxiety problem cannot be traced to the acquisition phase of classical conditioning.

One of the primary reasons why behavioral exposure works so effectively with anxiety disorders is that it counteracts the natural tendency people have to avoid what they fear. This kind of treatment conveys to people that they are capable of confronting their fear and, typically, provides an experience that supports this new, empowering belief.

Like all human behavior, anxiety responses cannot be understood through a single process; they are complex and multi-faceted. For example, some people who go through traumatic experiences will not develop post-traumatic stress disorder, perhaps because they are not as biologically predisposed to negative emotion, because of coping and social resources they possess that make them more resilient, because of lifestyle factors that minimize the effects of stress, or because of a “what if” negative thinking pattern. Some people who go through exposure therapy may not improve as much as others for these reasons as well. Yet, classical conditioning provides a framework for conceptualizing anxiety disorders that provides a significant contribution to understanding and treatment. Effectively applied, it might mean that many people who suffer from anxiety disorders, or who take medication to help them to cope, may be able to overcome their difficulties through natural processes.

Why do we do what we do? Why are we the way we are? What makes us different from each other? These kinds of questions naturally intrigue us. Historically, they have been approached through one of two perspectives. First, the nature perspective suggests that human behavior is driven mostly by biology (evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and hormones). In contrast, the nurture perspective suggests that behavior is driven mostly by the psychosocial environment (for example, how we were raised, our peers, the situations we are in at present).

Interestingly, almost everyone in our culture seems to believe that nurture is more powerful than nature. More than likely, this is because it is easier to observe the effects of nurture in our lives and because it feels more empowering to believe that nurture has more of an effect, perhaps because it seems more controllable.

Continue reading →

Consciousness is a mystery. Nobody really understands the mechanisms that explain how non-conscious beings somehow became conscious. Nobody really understands what influences our consciousness. Why is it, for example, that when some people read something, they are entirely focused on what they are reading and enjoy the process so much that time seems to “fly by,” while others can read the exact same material and find that their attention drifts and they feel that time “drags?” Although most equate the desire for an “altered state of consciousness” with the desire for illegal chemical substances, I can’t help but notice that almost everyone seeks altered states of consciousness regularly in their everyday lives – for example, being “addicted” to activities such as running, gambling, worship, reading, Facebook, sex, and television. Why is it that most people seek altered states of consciousness in some form so frequently? How is it that the addictions we pursue determine the quality of our lives?

To help answer some of these questions, I long have been intrigued by a psychological state called “flow.” The idea of flow was first advanced by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced “Chick-SENT-Me-High”). Csikszentmihalyi has studied many different kinds of people (for example, artists, athletes, martial artists, musicians, rock climbers, various kinds of spiritual practitioners) and found that the best experiences of life often come with certain characteristics, including a loss of self-consciousness, the quick passage of time, high enjoyment, and sometimes exceptional performance. According to Csikszentmihalyi, flow tends to occur when there is an intersection of high perceived challenge and high perceived competence. This combination of high perceived challenge and high perceived competence seems most likely to occur when an individual is pursuing something that they find particularly meaningful or interesting. In contrast, boredom results when perceived competence is greater than perceived challenge and anxiety results when perceived challenge is greater than perceived competence. For more information on “flow,” check out Csikszentmihalyi’s TED talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html

For example, then, the student who is able to read a reflection such as this with great concentration and enjoyment likely is able to do so because it challenges them to do something that they find meaningful or interesting that they also believe they are capable of doing. However, the student who has a difficult time reading a reflection such as this because they are bored may find that it does not challenge them enough, make enough use of their perceived skill, or connect with what they find meaningful or interesting. Finally, the student who finds material such as this anxiety-provoking may find that it challenges them beyond a level of their perceived competence for whatever reason.

To me, flow theory suggests that all of us have a certain need for “optimal experience.” Of course, this kind of desired state can be pursued in ways that are personally fulfilling and socially productive or in ways that are not. The person who is able to follow a passion at work, for instance, is likely to excel in many ways; for instance, they are likely to enjoy themselves as they work and achieve much as they continually challenge themselves and develop greater abilities. In contrast, people who have a more difficult time finding flow in healthy ways may find themselves drawn to unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfactory, ways to alter their consciousness.

As Csikszentmihalyi writes in one of Psychology’s most prestigious journals, American Psychologist, in an article entitled “If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy?:”

“When a person finds few meaningful opportunities for action in the environment, he or she will often resort to finding flow in activities that are destructive, addictive, or at the very least wasteful. . . Juvenile crime is rarely a direct consequence of deprivation but rather is caused by boredom or the frustration teenagers experience when other opportunities for flow are blocked. Vandalism, gang fights, promiscuous sex, and experimenting with psychotropic drugs might provide flow at first, but such experiences are rarely enjoyable for long.”

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a colleague who worked with people struggling with powerful problems with addiction. I asked him what he found to be most helpful in this kind of work and he remarked that, ultimately, people who overcome addiction problems typically exchange one addiction for another. One might say that this does not reflect true change, but he added that we all have addictions; the question is what kind of addiction we have and the results these addictions have on our lives.

In this context, it is interesting to note how often society does not encourage individuals to follow their interests, challenge themselves, or develop their abilities. Often times, individuals are encouraged, rather, to seek external markers of success such as wealth, status, or other markers of achievement (such as college degrees), but to do so while putting forth as little effort as possible. Rather than finding optimal experience in the ordinary tasks of everyday life (such as work), individuals are encouraged to find it in leisure-time pursuits that typically are too passive to really result in such a state or that lead to self-destruction.

All of this suggests that rather than seeking happiness through some external marker, or hoping to find happiness at some later date, true happiness that fulfills and that produces good fruit must be experienced in the present. As Csikszentmihalyi notes, “the [only] prerequisite for happiness is the ability to get fully involved in life.”

As the world has become smaller, people increasingly have recognized the wide variety of ways in which individuals differ. Most focus on the content of differences in how people think, feel, and act. However, it equally is true that people differ in how they think. That is, even if two people agree about some issue, vast differences in how they think about that issue often are evident.

From a philosophical perspective, “epistemology” concerns how people think about what is true. From a psychological perspective, what may be of most interest is that people differ in how they approach this task, however. For example, as discussed by Laird Edman, professor of Psychology at Northwestern College in Iowa, many psychologists who study personal epistemology believe that individuals develop thinking skills in a roughly stage-like fashion. At the lowest level, individuals view knowledge as certain and absolute; these people believe that single correct answers exist for all questions. As a result, such individuals often defer to authorities who they presume know the truth. At a middle level, people recognize that uncertainty is part of the knowing process. However, conclusions often are not reached because it seems that “all truth is relative.” At the highest level, people recognize that uncertainty is part of knowledge, but based on the best evidence and reason they can muster, they reach tentative conclusions. They are capable of understanding and respecting others’ views while still holding firmly to what they believe.

Continue reading →

If I were to guess what topic most interested people about human behavior, I would say it would have something to do with “evil.” I long have been struck by the observation that people are fascinated with what constitutes evil and what explains evil. This can be seen in people’s curiosities about mass murderers such as Jeffrey Dahmer.

For better or worse, I share many of these interests. In fact, in recent years, I have become, at times, almost obsessed with what is perhaps the best example of mass evil ever committed – the Holocaust of World War II – during which over 10,000,000 people (Jews, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and mentally ill) were murdered. I have read many books detailing first-person accounts of what the Holocaust really was like, both from the perspective of victims, of which there are many more accounts (my “favorite” is “Night,” by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel), and from the perspective of perpetrators. At some point, I decided that I wanted to teach a course related to the topic. To learn more, I applied, and was accepted, to be a part of a small, intense, week-long seminar at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. in January, 2011. I also have interviewed several concentration camp survivors in the past year, and have brought several to Normandale to speak on campus. Along with my friend and colleague, Dr. Jay Anderson, I will be teaching a course in the Psychology of the Holocaust during Spring semester, 2012, which will include a Spring Break tour of Holocaust sites in and around Berlin, Prague, Krakow (including Auschwitz), and Budapest.

In all of this, I have struggled with the meaning of “evil.” Phil Zimbardo, lead scientist of the “Stanford Prison Study” provides a comprehensive definition in his book “The Lucifer Effect:”

Continue reading →

Human beings long have been on a quest for happiness. This often is expressed in
religious, philosophical, and psychological thought. Perhaps this is why so many people
are interested in these disciplines, as they may further individuals‟ personal quests for
happiness.

As the world has become more interconnected, the quest for happiness increasingly is
approached through study of different cultures. This is one of the reasons why I like to
travel and read about different customs across the world. I have read two books
specifically geared toward trying to understand what enables some places in the world to
produce people with more happiness. Although life circumstances such as location
generally appear only to play a minimal role in causing happiness, these still are
instructive.

Continue reading →