Spiritual Intelligence and a New Years Resolution

Fascinating though I have found the Psychology and Spirituality literature it is almost time to move on and get back to working though the Positive Psychology stuff.

So this will be the last post for a while about spirituality and psychology in general.

There has been a small flurry of activity around the concept of spiritual intelligence. Some of this is pop psychology; using the idea of people having an intelligence quotient, IQ, emotional intelligence quotient, EQ, and spiritual intelligence quotient (SQ).

SQ is distinct from IQ and EQ neurologically. IQ and EQ are primarily localised in opposite hemispheres, whereas SQ is associated with hemispheric synchronisation and whole-brain activation at the same frequency. The SQ neural frequency thus combines part-brain functions from both hemispheres into the integrated field of the whole brain, which represents the same brain state underlying meditation and the experience of presence. SQ capability is therefore hard-wired in the human brain. However, conscious exercise of attention is required to engage SQ, except when SQ occurs spontaneously. http://sqi.co/ accessed 31 December.

As far as I can tell this nonsense builds on the readily accepted myth of the left brain and right brain being the source of different kinds of thinking. As Jarrett (2012) explains one of the things that undermines the myth is the way that the two hemispheres are massively connected, another being that the neat division of left and right thinking doesn't happen, and so the claim that SQ uses the whole brain probably isn't false as such. As all thinking uses the whole brain. The idea that SQ can only be engaged consciously except when it occurs spontaneously is just funny.

There is another set of spiritual intelligence material that is coming from various faith positions and might be a way to present that material in a form more acceptable within a secular society, or to try to present material that doesn't exclude any particular faith tradition. Hyde (2004) reports that in an Australian faith school context a spiritual intelligence discourse is used by teachers in those schools, presumably rather than a discourse about teaching pupils about a particular brand of Christianity.

This scale http://noblaming.com/sq_assess.htm from a motivational speaker and life coach seems to mash up several belief systems in an attempt not to alienate people he is trying to sell product to. It is also an example of how not to create a measure.

Q6. I seek to identify with my Higher Mind, or Spirit through daily contemplation, prayer, affirmation, meditation, pattern interrupts, ritual, and/or consciously shifting my thoughts, etc. That is, I do something or several things to keep myself connected to Source or Spirit.

Seldom, if ever

Sometimes

Half the time

Most of the time

Always

So if I do one of those actions for another reason then I ought to say Seldom, if ever. It is also an attempt to be as all encompassing as possible.

While ridiculing pop psychology, and being suspicious of the way that faith groups try to infiltrate education, are both useful in their own terms I want to concentrate on the more academic work on spiritual intelligence.

Howard Gardner was responsible for the notion of multiple intelligences as an attack on the traditional IQ literature within Psychology. Gardner (2000) briefly reviews his own work on multiple intelligences, he currently lists eight types of intelligence, linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and an eighth intelligence based on noticing patterns in flora and fauna in the wild. Gardener is unconvinced by the arguments about spiritual intelligence, suggesting aspects of it fit with other areas already identified, and conceding that there may be an existential intelligence, particularly about finding meaning. Gardner is also not that interested in creating different psychometric scales for each of these types of intelligence.

Many of those who are pursuing the notion of spiritual intelligence within psychology use the work of Gardner and multiple intelligences as a background (presumably having satisfied themselves that his objections are not insurmountable). However, they also often call for ways to measure spiritual intelligence.

Sperry (2008) critiquing one particular attempt to psychologise spirituality points out the problems of defining it in a way that satisfies both the needs of psychometrics and remains meaningful. Sperry argues that the subject of his critique has ended up with such a broad definition of spirituality that it becomes meaningless. Although Sperry's agenda is that spirituality needs to be understand as separate from psychology.

There is little more practical to a psychologist than a good measuring scale, and King & DeCicco (2009) provides one that seems to have met all of the assumptions of a psychological measuring instrument. King has kindly made his scale freely available for research.

Now that the instrument exists it to some extent side steps the issues of definition, Spiritual Intelligence becomes that which a carefully validated scale measures. It also leads to its use by other researchers. There are already claims made by motivational speakers seeking to create their own USP that spiritual intelligence will lead to more productive business. There is now an attempt to validate such claims, for example Rezaei, Kazemi & Isfahani (2011) which uses King's model. Likewise their are claims that to become a successful leader one needs to have spiritual intelligence.

I do have some objections to particular questions that King uses in his instrument, of the 24 questions there are eight that I find particularly silly, as there is no sensible way to answer them.

• I recognize aspects of myself that are deeper than my physical body.
• I am able to enter higher states of consciousness or awareness.
• It is difficult for me to sense anything other than the physical and material.
• I often see issues and choices more clearly while in higher states of
  consciousness/awareness.
• I am highly aware of the nonmaterial aspects of life.
• Recognizing the nonmaterial aspects of life helps me feel centered.
• I have developed my own techniques for entering higher states of consciousness or
  awareness.
• I define myself by my deeper, non-physical self.

Then there are a couple of questions which are essentially meaningless.

• I have deeply contemplated whether or not there is some greater power or force (e.g.,god, goddess, divine being, higher energy, etc.).
• I am aware of a deeper connection between myself and other people.

I do wonder the extent to which these questions measure abilities, and the extent to which they measure beliefs.

My ultimate objection is of course that should this measure gain traction then truthful people who do not believe in a religion or something like a religion may be screened out of certain positions and jobs because of their lack of belief.

There is also an irony, in that one of the sources that attempts to destroy meaningfulness in human existence, neoliberal managerialism, will use instruments to detect people with a particular view of how to make meaning from their lives, as they may be more productive workers.

And a happy new year!


References
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal For The Psychology Of Religion, 10(1), 27-34.
Hyde, B. (2004). The plausibility of spiritual intelligence: spiritual experience, problem solving and neural sites. International Journal Of Children's Spirituality, 9(1), 0-52.

King, D. B., & DeCicco, T. L. (2009). A Viable Model and Self-Report Measure of Spiritual Intelligence. International Journal Of Transpersonal Studies, 28(1), 68-85. 

Rezaei, H., Kazemi, A., & Isfahani, M. (2011). An Analysis of Spiritual Intelligence effect on Marketing Performance and Innovation in Sales and Marketing unit (Case Study: Isfahan Mobarakeh Steel Company). Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(6), 683-692. 

Sperry, L. (2008). The Psychologization of Spirituality: A Compelling Case for It Has Yet to Be Made. Journal Of Individual Psychology, 64(2), 168-175.

Transcendance: Measuring Spirituality

The Positive Psychology movement claims to be scientific, which is why it seemingly denies the influence of Humanistic Psychology. The majority of the research done within the matrix of positive psychology is conducted using scientific surveys. A range of the survey instruments being used are available from the authentic happiness site. Although you have to register in order to take any of the tests.

The VIA Survey of Character Strengths is one such instrument. 

The VIA Institute on Character proudly offers the free VIA Survey, a scientifically-validated strength assessment for adults and youth.

There is an impressive set of scientific literature on the character strengths, however I have some concerns about both the general principles of creating this sort of instrument for measuring subjective states, and the way that once such instruments are created they reify concepts.

Spirituality is one of the five character strengths that make up the virtue of transcendence, there are twenty four character strengths in total.

Transcendence: Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, Spirituality

Looking at my strengths profile:

Strength#24 Spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith

You have strong and coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe. You know where you fit in the larger scheme. Your beliefs shape your actions and are a source of comfort to you.

 It does appear that Transcendence is not one of my main virtues.

Strength#22 Gratitude,
Strength#21 Hope, optimism, and future-mindedness
Strength#20 Appreciation of beauty and excellence
Strength#10 Humor and playfulness

Which I guess is fair enough, as I do not have a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience.

So what questions did the survey ask that led to my ranking on Spirituality? The survey is made up of 240 questions, I believe that 10 of them are about each character strength.

I am a spiritual person.
I practice my religion.
My faith never deserts me during hard times.
My life has a strong purpose.
In the last ~24 hours, I have spent 30 minutes in prayer, meditation or contemplation.
My faith makes me who I am.
I believe that each person has a purpose in life.
I believe in a universal power, a god.
My beliefs make my life important.
I have a calling in my life.

 
This seems to be measuring a particular form of religiousness, more than it is measuring a general spirituality or sense of purpose, although a couple of questions are directed at a sense of purpose. Those of you that know me will be able to anticipate my answers, so I will not distract you with the straightforward disagreements.

I suppose I could have answered "My faith never deserts me during hard time" as a very much like me; as my (lack of) faith is fairly invariable during hard and happy times.

"My life has a strong purpose." I could have answered in the affirmative, as creating a purpose for life is something that people can do, I answered in the negative as that phrase normally implies a purpose from outwith.

Now while I answered  "In the last ~24 hours, I have spent 30 minutes in prayer, meditation or contemplation" as not like me, I have just spent more than thirty minutes observing this way of measuring 'spirituality' so if I re-took the test I suppose I would have to strongly agree to it.

I feel that the coupling of "a universal power, a god" may be narrowly defining religious as monotheistic.

So 'spirituality' seems to be based on the assumptions of a monotheistic religious experience, and it does not seem probably that a person with an atheistic world view, even if they feel that their life is purposeful, or that one of things to do in life is to create purpose, would have this as one of their top five character strengths.

While reading around this topic I have come across, from a different psychological tradition, the notion of "spiritual intelligence" as something 'good' employees should have, while I intend to continue my exploration of the character strengths and virtues I may go and have a look at some of that literature over the next couple of days.


 

Spiritual but not relgious

Sometimes I read something that just leaves me stunned.

I found the following in a paper by Ratnakar & Nair (2012).

I don't think it is particularly valid.

Spirituality and mental health

While chatting to Dave Webster last weekend I came across the Royal College of Psychiatrists leaflet on mental health and spirituality. That in turn spurred me to look again at a set of guidelines on spirituality for staff in acute care services available for download from Social Care Online.

Now I do have some issues with the RCP leaflet:

"Although culture and beliefs can play a part in spirituality, every person has their own unique experience of spirituality - it can be a personal experience for anyone, with or without a religious belief. It's there for anyone. Spirituality also highlights how connected we are to the world and other people."

Of course one can be connected to the world and other people in a totally material way, no need to invoke the spiritual in order to feel a sense of belonging and connectedness.

"Spiritual practices

These span a wide range, from the religious to secular – which may not be obviously spiritual. You may:

• belong to a faith tradition and take part in services or other activities with other people
• take part in rituals, symbolic practices and other forms of worship
• go on pilgrimage and retreats
• spend time in meditation and prayer
• read scripture
• listen to singing and/or playing sacred music, including songs, hymns, psalms and devotional chants
• give of yourself in acts of compassion (including work, especially teamwork)
• engage in deep reflection (contemplation)
• follow traditions of yoga, Tai Chi and similar disciplined practices
• spend time enjoying nature
• spend time in contemplative reading (of literature, poetry, philosophy etc.)
• appreciate the arts
• be creative - in painting, sculpture, cookery, gardening etc.
• make and keep good family relationships
• make and keep friendships, especially those with trust and intimacy
• join in team sports or other activities that involve cooperation and trust."

Some of those practices are not obviously spiritual because they are not spiritual at all, and I do not see the need to invoke spirituality to explain why some of those practices are a good thing.

Finally;

"Spiritual skills include:

• being honest – and able to see yourself as others see you
• being able to stay focused in the present, to be alert, unhurried and attentive
• being able to rest, relax and create a still, peaceful state of mind
• developing a deeper sense of empathy for others
• being able to be with someone who is suffering, while still being hopeful
• learning better judgement, for example about when to speak or act, and  when to remain silent or do nothing
• learning how to give without feeling drained
• being able to grieve and let go."

Which I agree are a useful set of skills for anyone I don't particularly see the need to label them as spiritual skills.

However, despite some misgivings about the RCP's stance on spirituality it is clear from their position statement (link to pdf download) that the patient's right not to have spiritual beliefs is also respected. I do believe that for those people with religious or spiritual beliefs it is right that such beliefs are addressed especially when doing so may benefit them in clinical practice.

When I post on the Positive Psychology virtue of transcendence, with its associated character strength of spirituality I might show quite so much equanimity. Nor am I happy about the guidelines published by the Social Care Institute for Excellence.

These guidelines were drawn up by Peter Gilbert, Professor of Social Work and Spirituality, Staffordshire University, CSIP NIMHE National Lead on Spirituality and Mental Health.

My main objection is the sweeping over definition of spirituality.

"We all have something inside us which makes us tick: a spark of
motivation for why we get out of bed in the morning, and why we do the
things we do; a light which guides us when the going gets tough. This
spark is our Spirituality, which can be defined in many ways..." Gilbert, 2008, p3)

Most of us, most of the time, may have a spark of motivation (although we wouldn't have had before the 1904 when the term as an inner psychological state was introduced and it wasn't until the 1920s that the term came into general use). I do not, however, see the need to claim that as a uniquely spiritual rather than material state of affairs.

I am concerned that this publication doesn't include a case study of someone like me, a materialist who rejects the notion of spirituality. Although it does include someone who is spiritual but not religious, one case study where religious or spiritual beliefs is not mentioned, and five case studies involving religious and spiritual beliefs (seven cases in total).

I might react quite badly to someone insisting that I need to look after my 'spiritual dimension' and to those who insist on relabeling human activity as spiritual.

Positive Psychology, what's not to like

Imagine a psychology that can tell you how to live a happy fulfilled life, and to do this not on the basis of the received wisdom of religion or politics but to do it on the basis of science.

This is a psychology that would stand in contrast to negative psychology, the psychology of distress and illness, but rather it would be a psychology that would help to create scientific understanding and well founded interventions that would allow individuals, their families and communities to thrive.
The labeling of the rest of psychology as negative has been dropped, but the notion that positive psychology is something apart from the rest of the discipline has remained.  In order to replace the DSM positive psychology has come up with its own set of Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson and Seligman, 2004).

I intend to look at these in some depth as time goes by, but right now I just want to get my  initial thoughts down, before I do too much reading of both Positive Psychology and the small body of critical work around it.

• Positive Psychology is as much a moral project as it is a scientific project
• Positive Psychology is deliberately ahistorical
• Positive Psychology mistakenly claims that the character strengths described are (or should be) universal

I will also look at each of the character strengths, probably starting with Transcendence as that is the one that contains Spirituality.

• Wisdom and Knowledge
• Courage
• Humanity
• Justice
• Temperance
• Transcendence

So at the moment this is just immediate reaction stuff.

I am a little perturbed by the claims that it is necessary to be spiritual to be authentically happy and thanks to David Webster I am more than a little skeptical of some of the claims made in the name of spirituality, http://dispirited.org/.


I dislike the trumpeting of positive psychology being some shiny new thing.

"For the last half century psychology has been consumed with a single topic only—mental illness—and has done fairly well with it” (Seligman, 2002 p. xi)

I don't think that claim will hold up, but the other thing that a move like this does is to deliberately underplay possible contributions from elsewhere in psychology.

Other authors, but particularly Held (2002) have pointed out the relationships between Positive Psychology and Humanistic Psychology. As far as I can tell, and it is too early to be really sure, it looks like Positive Psychology is doing to Humanistic Psychology what psychology as a whole has done to Freud. Rip off various appealing concepts, repackage them in a scientific framework, and then rule out the earlier contributions as none scientific nonsense that we are better off without.

Kurt Danziger (1997) writing about the attempt to create a psychology of motivation based on universal human needs suggested that:

"Elevating one set of historically contingent conventions to the status of universal human needs not only emphasized their importance for the society in which they originated but provided a rationale for proselytizing efforts elsewhere." (Danziger, 1997 p123).

Well that is enough for a Sunday evening.

References
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.
Held, B. (2005). The “Virtues” of Positive Psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 25:1 p1-34
Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues A Handbook and Classification. Washington, D.C.: APA Press and Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. NY: The Free Press.