ALL IT TAKES IS ONE…
After listening to the Radiolab podcast, entitled “Dear Hector”, and reading “The Moral Mind” by Jonah Lehrer, I understood how great the contrast is between a normal healthy brain that is wired for empathy, and one that is damaged emotionally and incapable of feeling. Lehrer describes the single most important factor in making moral decisions, as the ability to empathize. The two characters in the story, Hector, the forgiving octogenarian, and Ivan, the man who murdered Hector’s daughter, are examples of these two polarities. If our brains are wired for empathy, that then, is, or at least should be, the default position. It means, in this case, that between two people, all it took was one, Hector, to change the outcome, for the better. His inability to shake off the look of remorse on Ivan’s face, and his need to reach out and eventually forgive, all stemmed from his ability to empathize. He brought the possibility of hope and change by opening that crucial door. Lehrer helps us to understand that morality comes from a series of choices that derive in the brain in confronting the “doubt and the inner dialogue” that inevitably comes up “in making decisions and judgements” (179). This is meaningful to me, in my work with my community service partner, Parent Services Project (PSP), or with anyone for that matter. A single act of stepping outside my own boundaries, toward understanding the position of the parents and children that I work with, can make a difference in the way we interact and see one another. It offers a connection rather than a barrier. It builds trust.
In the podcast, “Our Town” by this American Life, the story demonstrates the difference between “perceptions and reality” in Albertville, Alabama, and the struggle of its citizens to accept change. Resistance towards the Latinos arriving to work in the town’s chicken processing plants meant that immigrants were blamed for the ills of the town and it’s society. The perceptions were skewed and unproven. In “The Brain is An Argument”, Lehrer emphasizes that a brain that is “intolerant of uncertainty often tricks itself into thinking the wrong thing” (203). He correlates this to voters with strong partisan affiliations, as their “brains are stubborn and impermeable” because they already “know” what they believe. Self-delusion, then, becomes the operative word. This bias toward certainty is conditioned, stressing the importance in the process of making decisions, to “resist the urge to suppress the argument” by instead listening to what “all the different brain areas” have to say. His line about “good ideas” rarely coming from a “false consensus” (218) expresses it best. Certainty is a strong lure for the brain because it provides a sense of relief, but we saw the effects of that false confidence in the townspeople of Albertville, who were absolutely convinced that Latinos were taking away their jobs, not paying taxes, and adding expense to the town’s financial burden. Despite that these accusations were disproven, laws were passed (HB56 Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act) which made it a criminal act to do anything with undocumented workers (house or hire them), including a ban on taco trucks! I think of the biases that exist in Marin County, that could be similarly directed toward the families from PSP. Local citizens/residents may feel that undocumented immigrants are a drain to the school system and its resources, or to society, or they may not understand for example, that undocumented workers do pay taxes, and yet, don’t receive benefits from those programs in return. They may resist seeing the other side of things: such as the difficulty and hardships these immigrants face in coming to this country, and becoming legal, getting driver’s licenses, etc.
The readings and podcasts referred to in this essay, illustrate that our willingness (ability) to sympathize with others, helps us to develop a moral mind, which in turn, helps us to make moral decisions. It is in the nature of our human brain to do this: to consider the feelings of others, to want to help strangers, to feel emotions, to treat others fairly, and more. Lehrer illustrates a number of examples of this inherent sympathy/morality. The story that stood out for me was the one about the monkeys who willingly chose to deprive themselves of food in order to block the pain being inflicted toward another monkey in a different cage. Their socialization, and therefore their need for attachment to others, led them to be empathetic and make a moral choice to protect the other monkey even at the risk of their own potential starvation. These concepts reinforce for me the need for even deeper consideration of others, and the willingness to go further to make an emotional connection. I am inspired to notice how often I want to default to conclusions and certainties, so that I might stand back a bit and listen to all parts of my brain. This approach with my community service partner and the families that participate can only serve to humanize and enrich our interactions. Mostly, I hope the families will know that they matter, and are cared about, and that we are all working toward a common goal: the best education for their kids.
