Does Religion Makes Us Happier?

Does religion make people happier?

 Some researchers are so confident that religion makes people happier, and healthier, that they want it to be prescribed by doctors. In an earlier post, I debunked the health claim: the seeming benefits of religion can be attributed to social support, health behaviour, and other secular factors. Now I want to question the claim that religion makes people happier.

One of the best-known findings is that religion protects people against depression. According to a 2003 meta-analysis that combined the results of 147 different studies, religiosity explains less than 1% of the differences in vulnerability to depression. If religion has such small correlations with depression, it may not be a huge factor in happiness either.

Comparing countries

Such doubt emerges most strongly from comparisons between countries. Much of the research linking religiosity and happiness was conducted in the U.S. where more religious people are slightly happier. Researchers saw this as evidence for the universal benefits of religion (a perspective that interests evolutionary psychologists because it helps explain why religion is so common around the globe). Yet, there is no association between religiousness and happiness in either Denmark or the Netherlands.Why the difference? Religious people are in the majority in the U.S., but in a minority in Denmark and the Netherlands. Feeling part of the mainstream may be comforting whereas being in the minority is potentially stressful. Ethnic minorities around the world tend to have higher blood pressure, for example - this being a reliable index of stress.If religion contributes to happiness, then the most religious countries should be happiest. Yet, the opposite is true.According to Gallup data for 2010, the happiest nations were Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. These are among the least religious countries in the world. Also according to Gallup data, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were the second, third, and fourth least religious states, being exceeded only by Estonia in their atheism.Why are these European countries so happy? Their happiness is explainable in terms of a combination of national wealth and redistribution of resources via high taxation and a well-developed welfare state. So paying taxes makes people happy after all! It is not the actual payment of taxes that cheers citizens of course but the end result of good government which is to say a secure standard of living for everyone.In the jargon of religious studies, the European social democracies provide existential security. No one has to worry about being arbitrarily dismissed from their job and running out of money for basic necessities.The principle source of European happiness is also the main reason for their unprecedented level of atheism. As detailed in an earlier post, when countries become more affluent, and their people acquire greater material security, their religious temperature nose dives

The Psychology of Social Media that Fuels Social Change

The Psychology of Social Media that Fuels Social Change

The Egyptian crisis illustrates the psychological shift from social media

Whether or not Egyptian President Mubarak steps down as protestors demand, it's clear that Egyptian society has undergone a cataclysmic shift.  Much of this shift is due to the connectivity from new media technologies, such as Twitter and Facebook.  Malcolm Gladwell has gotten a lot of flak for writing that social media isn't really powerful enough to create real social change.  As I (and many others) argued, that is patently wrong.  Egypt and Tunisia are excellent examples of why. 

Social change isn't about the tools and it isn't about how the relative "strength" of weak ties compared to other social movements.    (Note:  It's important to point out here that, contrary to popular interpretation, "strength" related to weak ties is not a descriptor of emotional engagement or attachment between ties like it sounds.  In the context of weak ties, strength means the powerful impact on the distribution of information of having connections across different networks.) But social change IS about weak ties, because social change comes from the psychological impact of having those ties at all. It's about the psychological shift that comes from 1) the awareness of other individual's actions, 2) the ability to have a public voice, and 3) the belief that your actions can make a difference, in large part because you are aware that others are speaking up, taking action and that their actions have impact.  Twitter and Facebook are not the power, they are two of the current tools that facilitate that power. 

The story began with Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian fruit vendor who committed suicide by lighting himself on fire in a tragic public statement of desperation.  But Bouazizi had a Facebook friend that was a journalist for Al Jazeera.  The journalist was a weak tie, connecting Bouazizi to a much larger network.  The reaction is beyond the single plight of a fruit vendor.  It is the inspiration others derive from seeing examples of his action in the face of oppression. Call it social modeling of empowerment or collective agency.  The reaction that spread was beyond the immediate empathy for Bouazizi, his family and community; it was the widespread resonance with the core frustration, injustice, and sense of helplessness that drove the fruit vendor's action.  Social media allowed those core emotions to reach others and achieve critical mass so that others felt empowered to take other actions.

In a recent article,  put the power of social media rather succinctly:

"To just to address this ridiculous non-argument, Gladwell said sending out a tweet is not the same as the entire civil rights movement of the 1960s," Stone said. "Yea, right, no shit. ... No one ever said that. ... What we're saying is no matter what the situation, you need to communicate with others to do activism and have your voice be heard, whether it's telephones during the fall of the Berlin Wall or social media in the Middle East."

Social media makes a communication system that connects us with more and more redundancy.  That means it's hard to shut down for long, no matter who tries.  It is the connection that supports communication--not the specific tools--that fuel the psychological shift toward collective agency that inspired so many to take action.

Neanderthink: The Appeal of the Bad Boy

 

Bad boys will always be with us because they have good genes to spare.

Attraction can make enemies of the brain and the heart. Take Karen, a successful, good-looking 32-year-old woman who wondered why it always took her several months to find out that a guy she liked was a player (or worse). She would become powerfully attracted to certain men, and know instantly upon meeting them that there were sparks.

What she didn't realize, in spite of her friends' chorus of warnings, was that she was attracted to "bad boys." All she knew was that she was drawn to men with a certain swagger and stride. For all their boldness and bravado, she invariably later felt mistreated. "Am I doomed to just love bastards?" she asked me after one too many took command and then took his leave.

Conversely, nice-guy Adam, 40, a businessman, took classes on "picking up chicks," most of which emphasized acting strong and dominant. He tried hard to find the right degree of badness—usually to frustrating effect, because he came across as rude. "I was giving women the neg, which I guess backfired. Maybe women are crazy," he complained after trying out his techniques at several bars.

What's the appeal of the bad boy who gets the girl? Like the peacock's tail, excitement and cockiness can be costly for men, inviting opposition from other men. But such traits are also likely to win him social cachet by advertising that he has fitness to burn. So the answer may be that the scoundrel gets the girl—but not for long. His roguish behavior wins out: Either he moves on, hawking his testosterone-rich genetic wares on the romantic market, or she gets exasperated with his impulsiveness and pulls away.

James Dean, Elvis, 50 Cent—every decade offers an iconic bad boy who gets the girl. The rock stars, the dudes with the smoldering eyes at the bar, the strong, silent types. The template can morph, but the assessment is the same—the guy's got genes that make women weak in the knees, and the power and confidence that signal them.

In its pernicious version, bad becomes really bad, as in psychopathy. The psychopath takes advantage of people's implicit trust, and has evolved a strategy that opportunistically seeks out victims. Even when he's not physically dangerous, a compulsively fun-loving rogue, in love with his own social power, can waste a lot of time, notably a woman's reproductive time, with his unwillingness to commit to one damsel or settle down to raise a family. So, what's so good about being bad?

From a Darwinian point of view, females are the choosier sex, and males compete for their attention. The result of this competition is that men have evolved strategies such as seeking alpha status.

The more likely a relationship is to be fleeting, the more likely a woman is to seek a man with high quality genes. Evolutionary psychologists define "good genes" for men as high-testosterone-fueled masculinity, symmetry, height, and, believe it or not, parasite resistance. Men who are blessed with these qualities tend to be confident and dominant. And able to get away with roguish behavior.

It's not all a positive for them, since they are also more prone to taking risks and getting into fights and accidents. Still, they offer a primal appeal that would have been advantageous in the ancestral setting—fighting skills, passion, lust for the damsel.

"Women intuitively get attracted to brave acts of altruism more than to altruism per se," says Daniel Kruger of the University of Michigan, principal author of a study on "dads and cads." "A distinction between long-term and short-term relationships is important for understanding women's partner choices." A love of boldness helps women find strong males as mates. Secretly they harbor the fantasy of turning their genetically gifted cads into loving dads who stick around long-term, long enough to help raise the kids. Think Warren Beatty and Keith Richards; fairy tales sometimes come true.

But wait; don't all women want a kind, understanding guy? Of course; it's just that nice isn't a high-caliber turn-on in the short term, unlike bravado. Says Kruger, "Women want their emotions activated." And audacity grabs attention, even if only in the service of marshaling good genes.

A clue to female psychology emerges in a study examining the cheesy best sellers that set millions of women on a Harlequin high. The male protagonists are invariably studs on steeds that morph into devoted dads by novel's end. That is, the women get the best of both worlds.
When women want it all—great genes, and a reliable breadwinner—the odds of finding satisfaction grow slim. It's human nature to want it all; what man doesn't want a gorgeous young woman who is equally devoted to having sex and washing his car? But it's a slightly elusive proposition, because in reality we have forced choices.

Trade-offs are the stuff of economics, evolution, and, of course, sex. We rarely get it all, or if we do, it won't be for long. That's not so bad, since romantic goals and appreciation evolve as we age. Women, for example, can cavort with cads at little cost when they're young, but may later need to tighten up their standards for what constitutes a good relationship when they feel the urge to raise a family.

Some men grow up and want a family, too. But some stay boys forever. And there are those women who, in their infatuation with cads, endlessly pursue a challenge, telling themselves, "I have to get that guy, he's the only one I want."

Such a scenario sets bad boys up with an open opportunity to take advantage of the best years of a woman's life. But, on some level, she's getting what she wants as well. Her behavior is likely to get her "sexy sons." That is, she may not get the guy for long. But she will pass the good genes into eternity.

The Good, the Bad, and the Rest

Good guys are bewildered by the propensity of women to fall for the bad boys. And good women are indeed drawn to bad boys despite their emotional and sometimes physical unavailability. How, then, to make the mating game work with minimal pain?

• For Good Guys: Take heart; most women will want a good guy with good prospects (a stable job and lifestyle) eventually. Don't try to "act bad," since you'll come across as rude, a rube, or worse. Instead, work on being independent and assertive, and allowing spontaneity into your repartee. Discover your connection with someone in visceral, not just cerebral, ways.
• For Bad Boys: You don't need my advice—unless you want to have a great long-term relationship. Then you must learn to open up to the joys of committing—and they do exist.
• For Women: Know what you really want, and accept the trade-off between your hot date and your simmering mate. Neither is right or wrong for you as long as you know what you're getting into. If you feel endangered or irritated by a man's compulsive and impulsive behaviors, get out immediately.