Quick Fix and White Lies

Some overweight people eat too much, and could use some help stopping eating. Nowadays you can get a pill that fills your stomach, so you feel sated. Why do we feel that there’s something wrong with this idea, or perhaps something wrong with a world in which this kind of idea thrives? Gianpaolo writes “Am I the only one preferring to go after the causes rather than the symptoms?”

What are the causes of overeating? One of the problems is that some people don’t have an effective STOP signal. So taking a pill that triggers a STOP signal could introduce an effective control mechanism [footnote]. The pill acts as a proxy for food. The brain receives a message that it interprets as “stomach full of food” – this interpretation is untrue but helps to produce a good outcome – what we sometimes call a white lie.

One reason we might be uneasy about a mechanism that is based on a white lie is that it may not be sustainable. How long is it going to take the brain to learn that the message is untrue, to distrust and ignore it? Are there situations where the brain needs to distinguish between the proxy and the real thing? What happens when the pill stops working?

From a system engineering perspective, this unease corresponds to a principle that information flows or control flows ought to be true. There are countless systems where this principle has been breached – usually to force some subsystem to do something it wasn’t originally designed for. Systems engineers are wary of the complications that can ensue from proxies and automated white lies – but also appreciate how such mechanisms provide a powerful way to solve problems quickly.

But sometimes it’s okay to have a mechanism that works for a while, even if it isn’t going to work for ever. If people are committed to changing their lifestyle – whether this involves over-eating or smoking or any other bad habit – then there may be nothing wrong with a pill that helps them through the transitional period.

Thus it seems we may sometimes combine a “quick fix” with longer term change. But there is a strong risk that some people will just take the quick fix - or even a long succession of quick fixes. and fail to do anything else. And (perhaps as a consequence of this) there are many people who object to “quick fix” solutions on principle. For example, brief therapies (such as hypnotherapy and NLP) are scorned by practitioners of psychotherapy, who hold that deep problems require lengthy intervention.

It is certainly true that some deep and messy problems require deep and lengthy and costly intervention. And it is also true that some people (especially politicians) are too easily seduced by quick fix solutions that create more problems than they solve. So it is wise to be cautious of relying on the quick fix. But the principled objection to the quick fix goes beyond sensible caution, to an outright refusal to consider its merits in any circumstances. So where does this aversion to the quick fix come from?

One possible answer can be found in Albert Borgmann’s analysis of technology; the quick fix belongs to a technologically distorted view of the world, which Borgmann calls the Device Paradigm. According to Borgmann, we expect technology to deliver things to us quickly, safely, conveniently, and ubiquitously; technology presents us with a series of devices that disconnect us from the real world of cause and effect. (The quick fix pill sets up a fantasy that the pill is all you need.) Borgmann’s answer to this is something he calls Focal Things and Practices: engaging (or reengaging) deeply with chosen aspects of the world.

Ultimately, the objection to the quick fix pill is an ethical one - not just the belief that people ought to be able to control their own behaviour without the need for pills, but the belief that there is some positive value in engaging with the world in certain ways. I feel sorry for people that need (or think they need) the stomach-filling pill, because it seems to take something away from what makes us human.

[Footnote] In terms of Donella Meadows’ “Places to Intervene in a System”, this mechanism appears to qualify either as Negative Feedback (Level 8) or Material Flow producing Information Flow (Level 6/5).

Power of Prayer 2

In his Holiday Thoughts, Robin Wilton questions the point of intercession.

Many people talk about prayer as if it is some species of communication device - transmitting requests of various kinds to the Almighty. Some people apparently prefer to send these requests through an intermediary, such as a saint or other holy figure. The intermediary may perhaps perform various functions within a communication system, including filtering out inappropriate or insincere requests, and reinforcing appropriate and authentic ones. In other words, the intercession has some purpose within the design of some supernatural system of prayer.

Prayers may be said for oneself or others, including figures of authority. It is customary within some religious traditions to send prayers on behalf of temporal and spiritual leaders - including Presidents, Prime Ministers, Princes, and Popes. This seems to be another form of intercession - at least if we imagine that these people have the power to alter our (temporal and/or spiritual) world for the better.

In an earlier post, however, I stated an alternative view of the Power of Prayer. On this view, the purpose of prayer is not to influence the will of the Almighty, but to align ourselves to the will of the Almighty. We need to understand prayer in terms of its effect on the person praying. Prayer is not a technical instrument (Heidegger: Einrichtung), but a focal practice (Borgmann).

How does intercession fit into this view of Prayer? By invoking additional persons, the prayer extends the boundaries of the System - not just an isolated individual in a private relationship with the Almighty, but a human being in a shared and socially grounded relationship with a religious institution (such as a Church). Such prayers create bridges (above all, in the mind of the person praying) between the mundane world of politics and the spiritual world of saints and souls.

No doubt lots of Americans are praying for George Bush, and a rather smaller number of Brits praying for Tony Blair. Both men have made a public show of their own religious faith, and presumably spend some time praying themselves, so it's hard to imagine what effect such additional prayers might be supposed to have on the two men themselves. But if you include Bush and Blair in your prayers, this might help you focus your prayers (and your own energies) on the needs of the real world, rather than some vague Narnia.

 

Wikipedia: Device Paradigm