On resolutions and goals and the benefits of "flying spaghetti monsters" and their ilk
This also got me thinking about inaugural invocations and benedictions and Congressional opening prayers and the like:
..."The rituals that religions have been encouraging for thousands of years seem to be a kind of anaerobic workout for self-control." ....
The religious people scored relatively high in conscientiousness and self-control, whereas the spiritual people tended to score relatively low.
"Thinking about the oneness of humanity and the unity of nature doesn't seem to be related to self-control," Dr. McCullough said. "The self-control effect seems to come from being engaged in religious institutions and behaviors."
Does this mean that nonbelievers like me should start going to church? Even if you don't believe in a supernatural god, you could try improving your self-control by at least going along with the rituals of organized religion.
But that probably wouldn't work either, Dr. McCullough told me, because personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress people or make social connections. The intrinsically religious people have higher self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not....
"People can have sacred values that aren't religious values," he said...
But
"Sacred values come prefabricated for religious believers," Dr. McCullough said. "The belief that God has preferences for how you behave and the goals you set for yourself has to be the granddaddy of all psychological devices for encouraging people to follow through with their goals. That may help to explain why belief in God has been so persistent through the ages."
more @
For Good Self-Control, Try Getting Religious About It, December 30 New York Times.





I'd be interested in seeing the study replicated with a European sample.
December 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very interesting point, not the least of which because I have always been fascinated by cross-culture similarities and differences.
December 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh - more (dubious) fuel for those who already believe that our essential nature is evil and anarchic, kept in check only by regularly prostrating ourselves before a savior and declaring ourselves unworthy. No thanks.
December 30, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
ArtApp - I meant the NYT article and the study, not your post.
December 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is in the DNA, a social control mechanism. The problem I always have is imputing intent and motive. I do not believe these TV preachers think they are praying to their gods.
I just don't. I do not believe that w is praying to his gods.
It is all a show.
December 30, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but they do pray to their gods. The little pictures of Franklin folded in their pockets...
December 31, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really self-control if true believers are simply obeying their omniscient and omnipresent god? Temptations are easier to resist when you think someone is watching and/or judging.
December 30, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not approve this message.
December 30, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Art, it seems a convenient delineation that divides spiritual from religious persons into such black and white a camps.
Most are likely a combination of the two identified impetuses (spirituality / religiosity). Then add emotional and experiential differences for yet more complexity. That way, the attempt to "figure out" church attendees really gets amusing.
More on this later, or earlier.
December 31, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course, and sociology always does this by its very nature, as it's trying to categorize things.
But even with taking the black/white division at face value, don't you also have the "chicken or the egg" problem--regular churchgoers could be churchgoers because they are more disciplined- type people? (I admit I didn't check out more detail about the study to see whether this was accounted for.)
Also, one thing I find interesting is the reaction of some comments here in that the take it as an attempt to say "churchgoers good, non-churchgoers bad." I don't see it as a good/bad thing, as self-control or discipline can be used for both good and ill. While Tierney twists the story that way because of his end-of-the-year resolution theme for the article, that's not where one eventually ends up with this. I.E., someone who is a true believing churchgoer may turn out to be a very disciplined and goal-oriented president for the good, but many an Islamist jihadi believing that suicide bombing is an allowed tactic also could be pretty damn disciplined at achieving goals.
December 31, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
regular churchgoers
But I only show up for the pussy...
December 31, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strikes me that if you were talking mainline Protestant, that could getcha hellfire damnation. However, if you are attending to one of the many sects which stress being fruitful and multiplying, you could be earning extra pearly gates entry vouchers...many types of goals, many types of discipline, fur sure... :-)
January 2, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
mainline Protestant
Hmm. Lemme see. I mostly lean towards Catholic if I'm *looking for the worship experience, on account of the Irish girls.
OTOH, my most recent affiliation was nominally Methodist, if you want to call Cecil Williams a Methodist.
Now, I have to say that the Glide Memorial Pussy is about as exotic and sex positive as you are likely to find in any church in America, even if they don't have the perpetually self-renewing thing reserved to Catholic girls on account of confessing and whatnot.
Oh no--I've said too much
*....losing my religion...
January 3, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink