The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World

by Dalai Lama XIV

When it comes to human happiness, studies have shown that people are actually happier living in homogeneous communities or societies, where there simply isn’t many of Them around. Which I guess isn’t surprising, but it is a bit discouraging for those of us living in multicultural societies like America.

As soon as I said this, I recalled the tragic situation in Tibet in which the Chinese were virtually assuring the final destruction of traditional Tibetan culture through the policy of population transfer of ethnic Han Chinese into Tibet. I felt very awkward, wondering if my words were causing the Dalai Lama to feel sadness or pain by reminding him of the current crisis. But he gave no indication of this, his demeanor unchanged—alert, attentive, listening.

From an evolutionary point of view, the limbic system is very old, part of the more primitive parts of the brain that can also be found in lower animals. Structures in the limbic system are responsible for our immediate instinctual response to the things or people we encounter, our “gut” reaction—do we have a positive or a negative feeling about the object, a general feeling of attraction or aversion, is it good or bad? Now, within the limbic system is a small almond-shaped structure buried deep in the brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is part of our danger-alert system, responsible for evoking emotions such as fear and anger, strong emotional responses that are helpful in dangerous, life-threatening situations. The emotions produced by the amygdala prepare us for the famous fight-or-flight response, to fight or escape the dangerous situation, predator, or enemy. The amygdala is critically important in our social interactions.

“So, yes, some people may be more capable because of better education, some less educated; some more affluent, some less affluent; some better looking, some not as good looking. But one big factor remains: that despite these kinds of differences, we still need to always be able to maintain respect for all. They are all human beings, worthy of human dignity and respect on that fundamental level. That’s an unchangeable truth.”

For more than a year, a shifting roster of judges and legal scholars on board the Rwanda Tribunal issued a flurry of confused opinions and decisions—completely changing their position and reversing themselves four times in an attempt to find a way to perceive the Hutus and Tutsis as two distinct racial or ethnic groups, but without success. The judges finally ruled that the definition of a victim in these cases would have to be done on a case-by-case basis—with the result that every genocide trial would begin by reviewing the same confusing and inconclusive evidence on Hutu and Tutsi identity all over again.

This was politically expedient in setting up the Tutsi to help them govern—at the same time assuring the increasing divisiveness and polarization between the two groups. The formalized definitions of the separate “races” and ethnic groups was so arbitrary, however, that in 1933, the Belgians classified an individual with fewer than ten cows as Hutu and an individual with more than ten cows as Tutsi!

Stereotypes are a form of heuristics, a kind of mental shorthand the brain uses to help us deal more easily with a complex world. While this has certain advantages—such as helping us react quickly to the things going on around us or helping to conserve brain resources—there is a big price we pay for this. It can result in distorting reality, forming false beliefs or stereotypes about other groups, and potentially lead to prejudice, hatred, and eventually violence.

Although, as the Dalai Lama points out, our false beliefs about other groups are the direct cause of much of the cruelty in the world, tragically we are generally not even aware of how the brain selectively filters, minimizes, or exaggerates information to make it fit with our beliefs.

“Of course,” responded the Dalai Lama, “we will always have some level of preference towards members of our own group, but here we are talking about reducing our prejudices and biases against other groups. And as I mentioned, there may be several methods. “But the first step is to motivate people. Of course, here there must be a willingness to look at their prejudiced attitudes. That is critical. Then, there must be some level of openness to revising their customary outlook.” “So, how do you begin to motivate people to revise their prejudiced attitudes?” I asked. “By increasing awareness of the disadvantages of their attitudes, having them reflect on the ways in which belittling other fellow human beings is detrimental to oneself in the long run.”

Paradoxically, part of the reason why up to 80 percent of Western societies may continue to harbor subtle prejudices could be the climate of “political correctness” that has been so prevalent in our culture. The desire for social acceptance and genuine embarrassment over their views may lead people to suppress or deny prejudiced thoughts or feelings. There have been research studies showing that merely trying to suppress such thoughts, to quickly try to “sweep them under the rug,” does not get rid of prejudice—and in fact it can increase it.

“Of course,” I added, “this kind of rationalization can perpetuate prejudice among oppressors as well as the oppressed. There have been research studies indicating that people don’t like to believe in an unjust world, and the idea of a world in which bad things happen randomly is unsettling to most people on a deep level—‘If someone receives bad treatment without reason, without deserving it, the same thing could happen to me!’ Because of this, if something bad happens to someone, at least a part of us likes to believe they somehow deserved it. So, when we see groups discriminated against in our society, who are low in status, or who are even actively oppressed, we tend to believe they must possess some trait that is responsible.”

The Dalai Lama considered that question. “In that case, as I mentioned earlier, I might appeal to their own self-interest, pointing out the detrimental effects or disadvantages of those beliefs. For example, let’s say that one is engaged in business. The success of one’s business often depends on one’s reputation, and a reputation for being prejudiced would be detrimental to the person’s financial success. He will also lose the respect of those who are working with him or for him, and there will be less cooperation. So, eventually, he himself will suffer. So one can see how one’s racism can have negative effects in one’s personal life, at least in the long term.

This lack of contact with others, or isolation from others, is an important factor here, because lack of contact or isolation results in ignorance about the other groups. This ignorance can then lead to this ‘stereotyping’ you mention. This can also lead to more suspicion of the other side. And this suspicion can easily become a kind of fear. And when people act out of fear, aggression is one potential response. In fact, it is one of the most common responses. So you see, out of fear, out of mistrust, then their behavior sometimes becomes more aggressive, of a more violent type.

“In the past I had some feeling of distance, even bias, against other traditions. For example, in Tibet there were some who practiced Islam, and also our native pre-Buddhist Bon religion. So I do recall having a certain feeling of distance like this, but later over time I overcame these prejudices.” “And how did you overcome those prejudices?” “As a result of learning more about the other’s viewpoint, developing a greater understanding of them.”

personal contact with people of these other traditions. That was the most important factor.

None of us are born bias-free. Including the Dalai Lama. Admitting to his own brand of bias and prejudice when he was younger—prejudice against other religious traditions—he went on to identify the factors that had enabled him to eliminate that bias. His comments about how he overcame his own prejudices, uttered with such simplicity and so casually, would be easy to dismiss as little more than a few brief generalities, even commonplace or trite.

In 1954, one of the founders of the field of social psychology, Muzafer Sherif, conducted a highly influential study along with his wife, Carolyn Wood Sherif, called the Robbers Cave Experiment. It is a classic study not only on how easily prejudice and hostility form between groups, but on the potential benefits of contact between groups in overcoming prejudice and conflict. This is one of the principles the Dalai Lama had found to be beneficial in his own life.

This can occur in three main ways: First, the more information one has about others, the more likely one will be able to see others in individuated and personalized ways, as unique human beings instead of one-dimensional representatives of a group. Second, greater knowledge of others may reduce uncertainty about how to interact with them, which can reduce the likelihood of avoiding members of other groups and reduce discomfort in interactions that do occur. Third, enhanced intercultural understanding, in terms of better historical background or increased cultural sensitivity, might reduce bias by increasing recognition of injustice. Learning about the suffering and discrimination of a group while empathizing with the victims may lead people to come to believe that the victims do not deserve the mistreatment. If the victims do not deserve this unjust treatment, it may no longer be tenable to hold negative attitudes about them.

To understand how education can genuinely overcome prejudice, it is helpful to take another look at the neurological correlates of prejudice and what happens in the brain as we learn more about an oppressed group. Earlier, we mentioned how prejudice is a result of neural pathways that are hardwired into the human brain—in a sense we come into the world equipped with a built-in predisposition for prejudice. As we’ve discussed, this is a very old feature of normal brain function, calling upon the older, more primitive parts of the brain—such as the limbic system, and that rascal the amygdala, the culprit in producing our negative emotional response to out-groups. This might seem to be a depressing fact of human existence, but fortunately, that is only half the story. Our brains also come prewired with the capacity to overcome prejudice. This is possible because there are neural pathways running between the newer, more advanced areas of the brain, the prefrontal cortex—the seat of higher thinking—and the ancient, more primitive areas such as the amygdala.

The greater the contact we have with out-group members, the more information we will gain about them. The more information we have, the more likely we will be able to see others in individuated and personalized ways, as a unique human being instead of a one-dimensional representative of a group. This leads to the Dalai Lama’s next approach to overcoming prejudice: viewing members of the stereotyped out-group as individuals.

The more primitive areas of the brain evoking emotion, such as the amygdala, were built by nature to help us respond to threats or danger quickly and efficiently. So, when we encounter another person, the analysis of the individual that takes place in those areas of the brain is very crude, looking at only one trait—friend or foe, in-group or out-group. This happens very fast, in a fraction of a second. If categorized as “foe,” the danger alert is given, evoking negative emotions such as fear or hostility. In contrast, the “thinking” area of the brain, the neocortex, the area that produces our conscious thoughts, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, and so on, analyzes the person in more depth, assessing multiple traits and attributes of the individual, not just one. So, logically, this more complex analysis takes more time. Thus, by the time we are consciously aware of the person, and our stereotypes and beliefs about the person surface in our conscious mind, our emotional reaction has already occurred.

In a series of significant experiments, Fiske and colleagues began by showing a group of white subjects a series of photos of unfamiliar faces, including both black and white ones. Monitoring the subjects using an fMRI brain scan, they found that the amygdala was activated when subjects viewed black faces, but not when they were shown photos of their own race. Previous studies had found that the more the amygdala “lit up,” the higher the person scored on a standard test for racial prejudice. Interestingly, the amygdala was activated to at least some degree, indicating a biased response, even in those test subjects who reported that they had no prejudiced or bigoted views at all, underscoring the automatic and unconscious nature of these responses.

The fundamental question here is, is there a way to get rid of prejudice? A seminal experiment by Fiske provided a striking and surprising answer to that question. In this experiment, investigators assessed both the emotional and cognitive components of prejudice in a group of subjects, using fMRI scans and cognitive testing techniques as described above. This assessment was repeated under two different conditions, with different instructions. In one part of the experiment, white subjects were asked to look at photos of black faces and judge whether the person was over twenty-one. This instruction encouraged the subjects to look at the faces on the basis of social categorization, making a quick judgment about whether they belonged in the “over twenty-one” group or the “under twenty-one” group. Like race or gender, “age group,” categorizing on the basis of “young” or “old,” is one of the socially distinct categories or groups that we instantly recognize in our culture. Viewing the faces in terms of their membership in a group discouraged looking at them as individuals, which would require more detailed analysis of the individual characteristics of that face. Under these conditions, when the white subjects assessed the black faces on the basis of “over or under twenty-one,” subjects’ racial prejudices were elicited—activating both the negative emotional bias (activating the amygdala based on fMRI) and racial stereotypes (determined by cognitive testing). In the second phase ...

It was astounding! These subjects had already been shown to have racial prejudice to at least some degree. And even if one did not have stereotyped beliefs, it was thought that at least the negative emotional bias against other groups was a deeply ingrained, automatic human response, something beyond our conscious control. But now, it seemed that this fundamental innate human response, a response that was at the root of prejudice, hatred, conflict, and even violence—the Us Against Them response—could be quickly and easily extinguished. In fact, all we need is the deliberate intention to look at others as individuals: “Hmm . . . I wonder what kind of vegetable this guy enjoys?”

Their previous work with extreme out-groups had revealed some unexpected findings. Using the same fMRI techniques, they found that viewing the photos of extreme out-groups instantaneously activated an area of the brain known as the insula, an area associated with avoidance behavior and feelings of extreme disgust—significantly, in previous studies this pattern of brain activity had been seen in subjects’ responses to nonhuman objects such as garbage, mutilation, and human waste.

“Yes,” he said, “the way to do this is by reflecting on our fundamental equality as human beings. I think the more you increase awareness, actively promote positive ideals such as the fundamental equality among all people, the less prejudice there will be in a society.”

“Yes. This meditation practice involves visualizing a friend, an enemy, and a neutral person and then first allowing your mind to react to each of these in your normal way: observing how you feel attachment to your loved one, a feeling of hostility toward the one whom you dislike, and a feeling of indifference or no emotion to that stranger. The next step is to ask yourself, ‘Why do I feel such different emotions to these three individuals?’ You will find some grounds, like your friend has done this or that for you, has shown you kindness, and so on. But then you begin to investigate, analyze, use your reason, to see if these are valid grounds, if they are reasonable. Analyzing in this way you will discover that the reasons, the basis for calling one person friend, another enemy, or feeling indifference toward the third, are not permanent conditions, and this may change at any moment. Your friend may harm you and may become an enemy, your enemy may show you kindness and become a friend, and the stranger may become a friend or enemy in the future. So, deeply reflecting in this way you will realize that there are no justifiable grounds for discriminating between them in this way and feeling such strong emotions. You will see that these designations or labels of ‘friend,’ ‘enemy,’ or ‘stranger’ are impermanent and subject to change at any time.

But whether it is from a scientific perspective, or from the perspective of Buddhist practice, the main thing is reflecting on these truths deeply, so that it becomes part of your fundamental outlook, and how you relate to others.”

This look into the code of life sparked a renewed interest in taking a look at who we are, and what it means to be human and the differences and similarities among different races. It was reported in the popular press that every human being is approximately 99.9 percent the same and there is greater variation in a person’s genetic make-up within each race than among the races. This finding leads many people to conclude that humans are so fundamentally alike that the concept of race is outdated, essentially a myth, a mental projection, at least from the biological point of view. For example, we place such a great importance on skin color in our society, yet the difference between two human beings based on skin color is so small, it is almost nonexistent; in fact, it has been reported, for instance, that white skin is produced by the changing of one DNA “letter” out of three billion!

EXTREME NATIONALISM “WELL, THIS week we have been talking about Us Versus Them divisions, and the dangers of this progressing to prejudice, conflict, and violence. I am just thinking that identifying with one’s country or nation seems to be one of the most powerful examples of Us. It seems that following a period of national crisis there always seems to be this resurgence of patriotism and nationalism. Of course a lot of the time this nationalism expresses itself as a kind of vocal patriotism, expressions of support for one’s country, a lot of flag-waving, and so on. But historically, the more intense this kind of nationalism, the greater the danger of falling into destructive patterns, and it is not much of a leap to go from a zealous kind of patriotism to overt hostility toward other countries. This kind of thing has acted as a fuel for a lot of conflicts in history.

“Clearly one important lesson we need to learn is that people’s national identities are very important to them and should be respected. In particular, what this tells us is that when different nationalities coexist within a larger group, whether within a federation of countries like with the European Union, or a single country, we need to ensure that the different nationalities are respected and accorded dignity.

“Anyway, I think that the tragedy in the Balkans can teach us an important lesson of what can happen when that kind of basic respect is absent. . . .” He paused, then added quietly, “Respect for others’ traditions is so important in today’s world.”

is very important on many levels: learning to appreciate diversity, really reflecting on its value, investigating its benefits. The more you can appreciate diversity, the easier it will be to respect those who may be different. For example, from the viewpoint of humanity as a whole, I think the variety of cultures, variety of ethnic groups can be enriching to humanity. So the point really is that in order for the collective humanity to thrive, the individual members of that collective have to thrive.

Such a model, the ideal balance of individual and group identity, was once seen in a group of sixteen-and seventeen-year-old boys, Bosniaks, Croatians, and Serbs, who came together in 1984 to play for the Yugoslavian junior national basketball team, a team that was to become a legend. For four years this group was invincible, a dream team of young players who never lost a game in formal international competition on the court, and who grew up together off the court, forging deep friendships as they traveled together, roomed together, trained hard, and shared each other’s lives. Their sense of personal camaraderie and athletic confidence was unshakable during those years, to the degree that the night before their most important game, the 1987 World Championship for Junior Men, they snuck out of their hotel rooms together to spend the night jumping on trampolines. And they still emerged triumphant, beating the Americans at their own game the next day, 86–76.

Surowiecki goes on in his book to give example after example of similar stories, and adding scientific theories and studies, demonstrating the basic thesis of his book: “Under the right circumstances,” he writes, “groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” He makes the counterintuitive argument that groups of people are better at problem solving and make better decisions than even the top experts in the group. Of course, we all know how incredibly foolish people can be at times when assembled in crowds, prone to idiocy ranging from witch hunts to unthinkable acts of evil (e.g., lynching). So, the key here is identifying the “right circumstances” Surowiecki refers to, the conditions that allow the wisdom of the group to emerge. The conditions identified by Surowiecki lend support to the Dalai Lama’s argument that diversity—whether a diversity of individuals in a crowd, a diversity of cultures within a nation, or the diversity of nations on our planet—can sometimes offer great benefits. Drawing upon many scientific studies, and an abundance of practical examples, Surowiecki concludes that “the conditions that are necessary for the crowd to be wise: diversity, independence, and a particular type of decentralization.”

“No,” the Dalai Lama responded, without missing a beat, “not at all. Because even though such horrible acts like this are committed by a handful of human beings, I remain firmly convinced of the basic goodness of human beings, and at the fundamental level, our nature is gentle and not violent.”

“So, basically,” he summarized, “if a person commits a very destructive act, you can say that act is evil. No question. And you should always oppose that act, as an evil act. You must take a very strong stand. And let’s say that the person’s motivation for the act was hatred. Then you can say that both the motivation, and the action that it leads to, are evil because of their destructive nature. But we still cannot view that individual as ‘an evil person,’ intrinsically and permanently evil, because there is always the potential or possibility that a new set of conditions will come into play and that very same person may no longer engage in the evil behavior.”

With a solemn nod he slowly replied, “Yes, when you are confronted with horrors like the Holocaust, it can shake your faith in humanity itself. You know, I’ll never forget my first visit to Auschwitz. There were several things I saw there that struck me very powerfully, and one of them was this huge collection of shoes. The shoes of the victims. And what struck me with complete horror and deep sadness was when I saw many small shoes, children’s shoes! I felt so strongly for those innocent children. They didn’t even know what was going on. I really felt, ‘Who could do such a thing?’ So, I prayed there.”

This is not a matter of him ignoring the horror of such tragedies, nor is he unaware of the evil things human beings can do to one another. Still, with full awareness of the human capacity for evil, his belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity remains unshaken.

For example, in Buddhist ethics, we have a list of what are called ‘heinous crimes.’ These include the murdering of one’s own father and mother, creating schism within the community, and so on. But just because these things exist doesn’t mean that human beings cannot adopt a moral way of life.” “Yes, that may be true, but . . .” “Howard,” he went on, “I think we should remember that what we are proposing is a mode of behavior that is grounded upon the recognition of the basic goodness of human nature. And with that full awareness, deliberately adopting a way of life to express this. That is our purpose, our goal. So that’s why we are trying to educate humanity. We are trying to promote the idea that basic human nature is positive, so there is the possibility to promote our sense of community, our sense of concern. And this is not a religious matter. This is not simply a matter of philosophy either. It is our future.

At the same time, the Dalai Lama’s compassion never seemed sentimental or fatalistic. In fact, it seemed to be matched in equal measure by a kind of resoluteness, a bold determination to educate others to his best ability, to help them see themselves who and what they truly are, to see themselves as he sees them, as fundamentally good and decent.

He first pointed to the physical and emotional health benefits of compassion and caring and the many destructive effects of hostility and aggression, effects such as cardiovascular disease—then he appealed to common sense and reason, asking: Which “nature” is more suitable for the human mind and body, for the flourishing of human life—aggressive or gentle?

If we follow the Dalai Lama’s customary recommendation to deliberately investigate human behavior from a wider and more comprehensive perspective, looking at the interplay of events that may contribute to any given situation, and examine rates of aggressive, violent behavior of our species from a long-term perspective, a very different set of facts emerges, presenting an entirely different picture of humanity: According to researchers, during the age of hunter-gatherer societies, 30 percent of the male population died by violent means, at the hands of others. What was the percentage during the bloody twentieth century, even with the wars, the genocides, the constant warfare? Less than 1 percent!

Over the millennia there have always been ups, downs, and cycles in the rates of human aggression and violence; but the direction is absolutely clear: The tendency toward violence and murder is slowly declining, leaving open the genuine hope that the Dalai Lama may be correct about human nature after all.

We mentioned earlier how our brains evolved to scan our environment for danger or threats to our survival, endowing us with what some call our catastrophic brains, which are hardwired to be excellent at picking up on what is wrong in the environment—but pretty lax on noticing when things are going right.

It is up to us to make a special effort, actively investigating and observing our world, looking for evidence of human kindness and the positive side of human beings.

Our perception of human nature has equally important implications and profound effects on the individual level as well. Ultimately our goal is to find happiness in our troubled world. And there is compelling evidence showing that how we perceive the world around us can affect our happiness. An extensive study of more than eleven thousand Americans conducted by professor of sociology Abbott Ferris at Emory University confirmed what we might intuitively guess: The perception of our world, and by extension human nature, as either good or evil can directly affect our levels of happiness. Ferris found that those who tended to perceive more evil in the world were significantly less happy than those who saw the world, and human beings, as essentially good.

Conditioning can come from many levels. . . .” “Levels?” “Yes,” he explained; “for example, conditioning can come from the values or messages one receives from the wider level of society, from the leaders, the media, or educational system. Then conditioning can also come from one’s family, and so on.

In fact, a series of seminal experiments dating back to the 1960s, conducted by several legendary figures in social psychology, initiated what could be seen as a Golden Age of scientific research investigating the “causes and conditions” leading to evil behavior. In a way, this Golden Age of research on the causes of evil can be traced back to 1961, to what could be considered the watershed event in the modern scientific investigation of human evil: the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the principal architects of the Holocaust, Hitler’s Final Solution.

To many people, one of the most surprising and troubling aspects of this trial was Eichmann’s commonplace appearance, bland affect, and extraordinary ordinariness. He appeared to be an average, unremarkable-looking man in a plain dark suit, balding, gray-complexioned, and wearing horn-rimmed glasses. Rather than a sadistic monster of unparalleled dimensions, an inhuman anomaly of nature, he seemed to be more of a colorless functionary, a bureaucrat, a man of average abilities. Political theorist and writer Hannah Arendt, who was covering the trial, was so struck by these features that she characterized Eichmann as the embodiment of the “Banality of Evil.”