Curing Hatred Without Granting Forgiveness

Does Hatred Have a Simple Cure?

“Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law.”   ― James Baldwin,  The Fire Next Time

     I have counselled many families through times of marital discord.  When a breakup occurred because of infidelity or betrayal of common goals, the person who felt wronged described feelings of disbelief, sadness, anger, and hurt.  These patients often appeared ill. They slept poorly; they looked anxious and depressed; and they had multiple somatic complaints. When anger morphed into toxic hatred of a partner, their clinical condition deteriorated further. The advice I offered them was traditional and pragmatic: “Hating someone harms you more than it hurts them. It serves no useful purpose and anchors you to the past. It interferes with your ability to make sound decisions and it keeps you from enjoying pleasures that might replace those that were lost. It is in your best interest to put these hostile feelings aside so you can focus on improving the future.”  I was very aware that the preferred solution would be to suggest forgiving the perceived wrong, but I rarely made this recommendation.  I had already observed that individuals who are consumed by hate for any reason are irrational and think this advice reflects naiveté; some even become hostile at its mention.  Even worse, if forgiveness is believed to be an unattainable goal ("I will never forgive him for this despicable behavior"), it might convince them that their only choice is to keep on hating. My intent was to facilitate functionality. Philosophical discussions about forgiveness would have to wait.

     To address this issue properly, we must first distinguish between hatred that is a transient emotion and hatred that is consuming and pervasive.  Perhaps we should refer to the latter as a “hatred disorder” when it becomes so severe that it interferes with a person’s ability to function normally.  The hater experiences visceral pain that can be so intense it becomes immobilizing and it can be accompanied by a dangerous mistaken belief that only retribution will bring relief.  In our personal lives, this animosity might be directed toward a person who is blamed for our suffering. In a more abstract setting, it can target any group whose values present an existential threat to our own. In both cases, just being alive seems reason enough to hate these individuals.

     The process of hating generates instant reward by using spiritual magic to punish the villain - the equivalent of piercing a voodoo doll.  On the other hand, the delayed gratification that might occur from granting forgiveness requires mental agility because the culprit remains conceptually unpunished.  In addition, when we are told that we must learn how to forgive [1]it implies that this is an acquired rather than innate skill.  So, except for those few individuals whose generosity of spirit allows them to forgive because it is the ™right™ thing to do, forgiving is not forgiveness at all. It is a pragmatic choice to suppress hatred to achieve a longer-term goal.

     I was frustrated by my inability to help these patients and it seemed clear that a different strategy was needed: “Forgive, Forget (Ignore), and Move On” did not seem to be the best answer. A viable solution became apparent once I realized that similar to the act of loving, the act of hating is also a very strong emotional attractant. Both extremes on the spectrum of human interactions constantly draw us toward the other person as reassurance that the intensity of emotion has not changed. In this case, we are attracted to the object of loathing in order to be certain that we still hate it.  And when hatred is used as a psychic weapon, the attraction becomes even stronger: The more we obsess over the person, the more we hate him. And the more we hate him, the more punishment we are inflicting. 

     Trial and error confirmed that if we substitute for hatred equally intense but different emotions that repel rather than attract, we can create an alternate plan that does not require forgiveness. Disgust and repulsion are excellent choices. Voila!  When we think of the hated person as disgusting and repulsive, it pushes their image away and out of our consciousness. As a bonus, the more the individual was hated, the more repulsive and distant he becomes. What difference does it make what this disgusting person did - or is doing - or will do in the future? Why would anyone care why he did it? Repulsive individuals do despicable things; no other explanation is necessary. The desire for retribution suddenly evaporates because exposing this person’s vile nature is satisfaction enough. Aversion has created distance from toxic thoughts and made room for recovery that hopefully will return us to our pre-injured state. And yes – we now have the ability to move on.

     This entire process seemed counter-intuitive. I had to put aside my personal and professional hesitation to prescribe the use of negative thoughts directed toward others. But my reservations were balanced against the effectiveness of this strategy and the knowledge that the patient’s decision is not irrevocable. Circumstances and perceptions can change with healing and time. And if they do, forgiveness remains an open option that can be considered in the future.

# # #

---

[1] "If we really want to love we must learn how to forgive."
     –Mother Teresa

Parents' Intuition: It Can Harm As Well As Help

    After my children were born I was very surprised by the degree to which emotional rather than rational thinking influenced our parenting decisions. Even simple choices seemed complicated: Should we wake the baby to feed or allow her to sleep? Was the injury risk from contact sports greater than the benefits of team play? Should the kids stay home when they have a cold but miss their math test? Were we setting boundaries that were too strict or not strict enough? The list was endless and intuition quickly earned a prominent place in our parenting tool kit. We came to realize that there was simply no other practical way to make these choices.

 

     The concept of intuition is quite mysterious. We understand that it is not rational and use vague descriptive terms like “gut feeling” and “sixth sense” but we don’t quite understand how intuitive feelings get into our heads in the first place.  Even more disquieting is the notion that we have to use intuition to know when to trust our intuition. Intuitive thoughts allow us to make predictions that might seem to be based on absolutely nothing, but the most valuable intuitions occur when we unconsciously compare past experience to what is happening in the present. They can warn us away from serious danger, “I don’t want my daughter travelling in that boy’s car,” and they can address the more trivial concerns of a mother who asks through the bathroom door, “Are you okay in there?” Despite its limitations, most of us agree that a parent’s intuition has real value and it is easy to recall situations where potentially terrible mistakes were prevented by responding to a seemingly unexplained anxiety. It is quite possible, however, that we exaggerate its accuracy and minimize its failures because we are more likely to remember those times when we discovered a toddler about to drink furniture polish than when we rushed to the kitchen and found our child happy and safe. 

     There is usually a complimentary relationship between intuitive and rational thought.  But when there isn’t, bad things can happen.:When rational thinking tells us one thing and intuition another, parents can become so immobilized that they can't make any decisions at all. And there are times when parents were absolutely certain that something is true but intuition tells them to ignore it anyway. It is counterintuitive, but very confident parents who believe that “no one knows my child better than I do,” are at extra risk for making mistakes because they are so certain they know what will happen next.
 

     Group intuition can also lead us astray.  Most recently, it is playing a role in vaccine refusal. Vaccinating against infectious disease is one of the few times a parent can knowingly lessen their child’s chance of developing permanent brain damage and even death. But the strong power of negative intuition might cause a parent to delay or miss this opportunity - especially when it is reinforced by like-minded friends, relatives and pundits. The statistical evidence is very clear that the risk of developing brain inflammation from measles illness is one thousand times greater than from the vaccine: One per thousand vs one per million. Even when we exclude parents whose religious beliefs don’t allow vaccination and those who think that vaccination is a conspiratorial plot, we might reasonably wonder why an informed parent would hesitate to vaccinate against this disease. The answer is that a fairly large group (including some parents who did vaccinate their children) have a strong intuitive feeling that it is the wrong thing to do. They are aware of the benefits and the risks to their child and others, but it just doesn't feel right. Some have understandable but irrational concerns about giving too many shots, tinkering with the immune system, injecting a "foreign" substance, or the discredited association between vaccines and autism. Often, they will not or cannot articulate why they are so wary. But once this feeling of dread has been planted in their heads, a rational discussion with the doctor is unlikely to make it go away. Unfortunately, we pediatricians can be part of the problem. We often tell parents to trust their intuition but then we don’t address their non-rational fears in a respectful or meaningful way. 

 

We can and should  agree with parents that their iintuition is a very powerful tool ,but then we can offer them some additional advice: First, be certain that the information you are relying on is current and comes from a reliable source. Be especially wary of “junk science,” anecdotes, and unsubstantiated claims that are found on the internet. Next, try to keep rational thinking and intuitive thinking separate. Don't try to rationalize one in terms of the other; we will make better decisions once we can say, “I know that the evidence says this, but my intuition tells me that…,”  Third, get another opinion – preferably from the child’s other parent. In the vaccine example, I was surprised to learn how often parents in stable relationships have never discussed this issue with each other.  (That is why I frequently made both parents sign our refusal to vaccinate form; it is not legally necessary but it forces both parents to have a conversation.). And last, suggest that they give more weight to the best available information and rational thinking when making those decisions that are most important; vaccination is one of them. Life events are unpredictable, but over time, we are more likely to guess right by playing known odds than by betting on a hunch.