Tikkun Magazine, September/October 2007

Neuroscience and Fundamentalism

By Kenneth M. Heilman and Russell S. Donda

SOMETHING CHANGED. Whether it happened gradually over several hundred thousand years, as noted anthropologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks suggest, or quickly in a "great leap forward," as Jared Diamond puts it, we are at least certain of this: early humans became dissatisfied with their circumstances and began to diverge from what was practiced and known. Stone implements gave way to the more easily shaped and versatile bone. Bare cave walls were brought to life with paintings. Adorning jewelry was carefully fashioned from ordinary objects previously ignored. Simple weapons, somehow now seen as insufficient, gave way to more complex and multi-piece devices. The notions to plant instead of gather, to breed captive animals rather than hunt them, took hold.

Humans have altered their environments and enhanced their well-being unlike any other life form on the planet. This unique capacity to diverge from what is, and create something which has never before existed, resides solely within the domain of humanity. The gifts of diverse artistic expression, societal development, and technological innovation all result from the ability to question—and to conceive of things beyond—the status quo. And this magnificent and advanced capability results, not unexpectedly, from an evolved and complex brain.

Clinging or adhering to a currently accepted practice, for example believing stone tools are perfectly fine, and questioning and searching for new tool solutions (in other words, to wonder if bone might make a more suitable implement) represent two very different ways of dealing with current circumstances. Adherence begets consistency or stability; questioning, searching, and discovering innovative alternatives, which is creativity, leads to change.

Certainly, human acts of consistency or creativity require a highly elaborate and functional brain. If stone was an adequate tool material, we at least had the good sense to continue using it after the first try. Still, there is something special about the desire for novel alternatives. No other being with which we share the planet demonstrates the human capacity to continuously spawn newness. It is the height of evolution and stems from some of the most evolved and sophisticated parts of the brain.

The implication that adherence behavior could involve a more primitive or phylogenetically older portion of the brain should not be an altogether startling notion. After all, given the most basic understanding, we would expect that early humans eventually became unstuck from various conditions because of an increasingly evolved reasoning power. Our capacity for creativity expanded and so we conceived of new and often better ways to do things.

Could this same logic begin to offer some insight into why, today, some people seem unwilling to break free from certain beliefs or ideologies which are contrary to sound science, or worse, lead to terrible acts of inhumanity? Especially when those beliefs stem from an unconditional adherence to religious fundamentalism? While there have been many reasons offered about why people differ in their interpretation of authoritative texts like the Koran and Bible, most seem based on environmental/educational influences. But perhaps there is another explanation worth exploring.

A common thread that may weave its way through fundamentalist extremism was perhaps aptly expressed by three so-called reformed fundamentalists during the American Public Media special, "The Power of Fundamentalism." Representing each of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they implied they were taught to believe as they were told, and that personal interpretation and imagination were to be marginalized. Deviation and creativity were unacceptable.

If this is the case, how is it that one person can find it utterly intolerable to believe anything other than a given interpretation of religious doctrine, while another appears comfortable with adding his or her own meaning to the same literature? It is conceivable that the mystery underlying these distinct approaches arises from a not often considered, yet key difference in brain function.

A Difference in Reasoning

A NUMBER OF THE BEHAVIORS WE EMPLOY ARE EITHER GENETICALLY programmed or imprinted at an early stage of development by observing the behavior of parents, relatives and others. Many are controlled by motor know-how or procedural memories, and many of these procedural motor memories are so well established they can be performed even without conscious awareness (e.g., chewing, drinking, and even driving a car). More complex problems, however, might not be resolvable by these routine procedural memories. In this case, declarative memories, formed throughout our lives as we acquire additional knowledge from multiple sources, are often activated to address them (e.g., preparing a meal, fixing a car, or organizing a family vacation).

Still, such learned strategies are often insufficient for dealing with many of the issues and problems that frequently confront us. Fortunately, the sophistication of the human brain provides us with capacity to move beyond indexed memories: We can reason. In its two major forms, convergent and divergent, reasoning is the most essential means of solving the problems that confront us.

Convergent reasoning involves an assembly of known information and results in a solution within the realm of what is already known. Most problem solving occurs this way. It is instilled, for example, in medical school students. If a physician sees a person in the emergency room that has a fever and is comatose, they are taught that there are two possible disorders that might give these signs: an infection or a heat stroke. If this patient is found to have a stiff neck, the physician considers the possibility that the patient's fever and unconsciousness are related to an infection of the central nervous system, such as meningitis. To obtain further converging evidence the resident doctor may perform a spinal tap; if the analyzed spinal fluid reveals certain indicators there is now sufficient converging evidence to make a diagnosis of meningitis and to start antibiotic therapy.

Divergent reasoning, on the other hand, enables a person to arrive at a previously unknown solution (at least unknown to the person who is doing the reasoning). When a person is confronted with a problem and decides that the existing information is insufficient to develop a satisfactory solution, he or she may diverge from the information and imagine, or reason about, new possibilities. William James, who first put forth the concept of divergent reasoning, stated:

  Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another
  in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt
  cross-cuts and transitions from one idea to another ... unheard of
  combinations of elements, the subtlest associations of analogy ... we
  seem suddenly introduced into a seething caldron of ideas ... where
  partnerships can be joined or loosened ... treadmill routine is
  unknown and the unexpected is the only law.

The human capability for divergent reasoning results in a nearly limitless range of creative outcomes, from entirely personal to world changing. Surely humanity's earliest innovations were life altering, as were the many that followed. Recall our eventual acceptance (against initially unyielding church doctrine) of Copernicus's unfathomable idea that the Sun, and not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system, or Einstein's affront to the known laws of physics with his concept that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. But even more mundane activities, like resolving an unacceptable marital situation by seeking conduct on the part of one of the partners that was previously not considered, discovering a treatment solution for a heretofore incurable disease, creating a work of distinctive art, finding an alternative to war in a tense geopolitical situation, a chef's creation of a new recipe, carefully arranging flowers in vase, or making up a bedtime story, are examples of creative acts resulting from the ability to diverge from current circumstances and consider or enact new possibilities. Certainly, both convergent and divergent reasoning serve to enhance our well being. But it is an individual's ability to diverge from what is familiar and move beyond the known into a new understanding which is the essence of creativity, and that which gives rise to advancement. In the words of Frank Zappa, "Without deviation from the norm, 'progress' is not possible." Whether a person chooses to question and think on his or her own or remains unconditionally adherent to religious dogma, might relate to how specific areas of the brain are utilized—or not.

A Difference in the Brain

BASED ON WORK PERFORMED ALMOST FIFTY YEARS AGO, neurologist Derek Denny-Brown of Harvard demonstrated that animals and people with a frontal lobe injury display an odd, but fascinating, behavior: Even when not appropriate, they touch or grasp things and then have trouble letting go. Termed physically "adherent," such brain-injured subjects are incapable of letting go or disengaging from the adhered-to object. In 1966, Oliver Zangwell of Cambridge expanded Denny-Brown's observations by showing that frontal lobe damage or dysfunction was clearly associated with a disruption in divergent reasoning.

In 1984, Brenda Milner of the Montreal Neurological Institute showed that patients who had surgical removal of parts of the frontal lobe (for the treatment of medically intractable epilepsy) were impaired at divergent reasoning as assessed by the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. In this test subjects are required to sort a deck of cards according to a shared feature such as shape, color, size, or number. The subjects are not informed of the sorting principle (e.g., shape) but must try to decipher the correct strategy based on the responses of the examiner after each sort. Throughout this test, however, the sorting principles change (e.g., from shape to color, color to number, etc.) and the subject must again switch strategies based on the examiner's responses.

The impairment displayed by Milner's patients was not related to the performance of the initial sort, but rather to their inability to diverge from a successful sorting strategy even when provided with the information that this strategy was no longer correct. These patients were locked in a "mental adherence" and could not let go—they were stuck.

While the ability to figure out the first sorting criterion is an example of convergent reasoning, the ability to switch strategies would seem an example of divergent reasoning (think of the earlier mentioned remark by William James: "Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt cross-cuts and transitions from one idea to another ...").

Active areas of the brain have an increased blood flow that can be observed using newly discovered brain functional imaging technology. Using this technology, Berman and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health studied normal subjects performing the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Carlsson and colleagues at Lund University studied subjects while they were performing another divergent reasoning test (similar to tests in which subjects are asked to provide alternative uses for an ordinary brick). Subjects performing both tests demonstrated an increase in frontal activity. In addition, Carlsson and colleagues showed that individuals who produced the most creative responses had more frontal lobe activation than those who adhered to the normal uses of a brick.

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 maybe relying on the phylogenetically 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.

Where is the Genius?

WE MAY FIND OURSELVES PUZZLING OVER A SEEMING INCONGRUITY HERE. People who unconditionally adhere to doctrine can have a high intelligence quotient (IQ), and can certainly be as "smart" as the next person. But if a vital portion of their brain is not being utilized, as we have suggested, how can this be?

A creative individual applying divergent reasoning to address a problem benefits from his or her acquired knowledge and skills. Many psychologists view the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills for problem solving as a measure of IQ. (IQ tests do not typically assess divergent thinking—they measure learned knowledge and the ability to store information.) On the face of it, this sounds entirely logical. People with very high IQs have been labeled as geniuses, and the implication is that geniuses are creative. But that is not necessarily the case.

Multiple studies that have examined the relationship between IQ and creativity demonstrate that they are only moderately related. Certainly, creative endeavors require knowledge and skills, and so creative people have to be sufficiently intelligent to acquire this knowledge. But several studies have suggested that an IQ threshold might exist. In his book Origins of Genius, Dean Simonton reviews the evidence that, once an IQ of approximately 120 is reached, it longer predicts a person's creative abilities.

This relationship between IQ and something we could now call creative intelligence (CI), implies a point of view contrary to our long held belief about the importance of IQ in human advancement: It may not deserve all the credit; indeed, the flourishing of our species may also be the result of CI.

Such a revelation asks that we begin to reframe our formerly accepted opinions about intelligence and what being "smart may really encompass. In his best selling book, Emotional Intelligence, author Daniel Goleman introduces something he refers to as "emotional intelligence" (EQ) and claims that it is perhaps more important for our personal success and happiness than IQ. CI is different than IQ and EQ. And perhaps every bit as important.

The Future of Genius

WE WOULD NEVER ARGUE THAT ADHERING TO LEARNED principles is not of great value to humanity. Likewise, we cannot say that all answers to humanity's woes lie in simply being creative. They do not. Convergent reasoning can be an effective way to approach the problems that often confront us. Certainly, the wisdom to be found in consistent or unchanging behaviors, rituals, and other social norms can play a vital, stabilizing role in society. If something familiar is working for us, we should not necessarily abandon it. Nor would we ever say that to have religious beliefs is unimportant. The practice of religion and a belief in the divine can be a deeply significant and profound source of meaning in our lives.

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.

This will not be easy for many adults who have unconditionally adhered to dogma their entire lives. However, there is mounting evidence that the brain and reasoning processes have a certain plasticity and can be altered throughout life. But no brain is as plastic as that of the child's.

Albert Einstein, one of the most creative individuals of the last century said, "It is amazing that our educational system doesn't destroy all curiosity." Might a child's capacity for CI be potentially threatened by virtue of the environment in which they are immersed?

The portions of the brain that are the slowest and latest to develop are often the most complex; it is the most complex systems that are most vulnerable to developmental abnormalities. In humans, this is the frontal lobes. Based on what we know about brain growth, it is possible that a child taught only to follow, and not to personally wonder about or question doctrine, will suffer from an abnormal development of the frontal lobes.

There is also evidence that stimulation induced neuronal development can occur in specific areas of the brain. Children who receive musical training at an early age have larger regions of the temporal lobe cortex, which processes sounds, when compared to those who do not receive this training. In contrast, sensory deprivation induces an opposite type of phenomenon. If a child was unable to see from one of his or her eyes because of a structural defect and then, as an adult, has this defect corrected, the vision in this eye will often remain useless. This is because the portions of the brain to which this eye projects did not, or could not, develop normally; because it did not, it remains incapable of properly processing incoming visual information.

With respect to convergent and divergent reasoning, should this matter? The divergent thinking ability of children who attended secular versus religious schools was studied by Dafna Hirschmann of Haifa, Israel. The result? Students who attended the secular schools had higher scores in divergent reasoning tests than those who attended religious schools.

Regrettably, most schools, in general, assess student knowledge and convergent reasoning (in other words, IQ), but they do not test the students' ability to perform divergent reasoning and think creatively. Unfortunately, Einstein's concern about our educational system may be appropriate.

The relative importance of schooling, parental nurturing, and hereditary factors on both IQ and CI remain unclear. It is possible that the under-utilization of the frontal lobes, or an increased susceptibility to such under-utilization, might be, in part, hereditary. Of course, there have been very creative people who were brought up in rigid ideological or fundamentalist environments. But these people seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

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?

In his recent, influential book, The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida says it is the emergence of a "creative class" that will be necessary to drive innovation and America's competitiveness. The winner of lastyear's Nobel Prize for economics, Edmund Phelps, stresses the importance of creativity and the value of an innovative economy. Are these really new notions? Given stability and wisdom from which they can proceed, has it not always been the creative who have then advanced humanity? This precious capacity for creativity is gifted to humans alone. Yet, when we find ourselves mired in dogma and beliefs of intolerance and elitism, we may very well be misusing that gift and failing our full potential. Questioning and wondering about what we presently know has been, and remains, vital to us all; enhancing global humanity's well being lies in properly using the genius of creativity. Surely, the next Copernican idea awaits us.

The Genius Beyond Unconditional Fundamentalism is based on a book about creative intelligence now being planned by the authors.

Kenneth M. Heilman, M.D. is the James E Rooks, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Neurology and Program Director at the University of Florida. He is author, co-author, or editor of 11 books and more than 500 chapters and research articles that deal with brain-behavior relationship in health and disease.

Russell S. Donda has devoted more than a decade to interpreting and expanding the research of scientists in order to bring applied knowledge to the world. He has spearheaded the advancement of numerous, novel concepts and is named as an inventor on more than a dozen patents and applications.

Source Citation

Donda, Russell S. and Heilman, Kenneth M. 2007. Neuroscience and Fundamentalism. Tikkun 22(5): 54.