Why The Human Condition Can Be So Hard To Hear

A personal reflection on what Jeremy Griffith describes as “the deaf effect”, and why the most important subject of all can initially feel too confronting to take in

There are some subjects we seem to instinctively sense are heavy before we even know much about them.

Not heavy in the ordinary sense of being difficult, academic or abstract, but heavy because they seem to point towards something deeper in ourselves. Something serious. Something we may not be ready to look at.

That reaction is one of the most interesting aspects of Jeremy Griffith’s work on the human condition. Griffith’s central argument is not only that the human condition can now be biologically explained, but also that the subject itself is so confronting that our minds have developed ways of avoiding it.

Griffith calls this the “deaf effect”.

It is the idea that when discussion of the human condition begins, our minds can instinctively start to block out what is being said. Not because the explanation is necessarily too complex, but because the subject matter touches the deepest and most historically avoided question in human life:

Why are we humans capable of extraordinary love, sensitivity and cooperation, yet also capable of such anger, selfishness, cruelty and destruction?

That question sounds philosophical. But Griffith argues it is biological, psychological and ultimately resolvable.

Still, before the explanation can be properly heard, there is often a barrier.

A small moment that says a lot

A close friend and I spent several weeks hiking the Larapinta Trail, through Central Australia, several years ago.

Hiking the Larapinta Trail

Towards the end of the hike, we reached a public picnic site and stopped under a shelter to unpack our backpacks and have lunch. I had taken Jeremy Griffith’s book *FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition* with me on the walk, and I had placed it down on one of the benches while we ate.

Shortly afterwards, a couple in their 60s came over and sat down under the same shelter. After some friendly small talk about our hike, the woman noticed the book sitting on the bench.

“Well, that looks like a heavy book,” she said, “and heavy to carry as well.”

It was a casual comment, and there was nothing unfriendly in it. But I have thought about it a lot since, because I think there was quite a lot communicated in that brief reaction.

From a distance of a few metres, she could really only see the title on the cover and spine: FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition. She may also have seen the line describing it as “THE BOOK THAT SAVES THE WORLD”, and the image of a radiant sun coming up over the horizon.

That was all.

Cover of Jeremy Griffith’s book ‘FREEDOM’, with the description: ‘THE BOOK THAT SAVES THE WORLD’

And yet, even from that small amount of information, her immediate impression was that the book looked “heavy”.

I think that small moment gives real insight into the mechanics of the deaf effect. The phrase “the human condition” does not sound like a casual topic. It seems to point towards the deepest problems in human nature. It suggests that we may be about to confront something about ourselves that we normally keep at arm’s length.

And that is precisely Griffith’s point.

The mind sees the danger before we do

In FREEDOM, Griffith explains that the subject of the human condition has historically been almost impossible for humans to confront directly. The reason, he argues, is that until the human condition could be explained in a fully compassionate and redeeming way, looking at it too closely felt unbearably exposing.

If the human condition is the question of why humans are “good and evil” — why we can be loving and idealistic, yet also angry, egocentric and destructive — then facing that question without an answer has always risked intensifying guilt, insecurity and distress.

So the mind has learned to avoid it.

This is not ordinary disagreement. Nor is it simple lack of interest. It is more like an unconscious protective mechanism. The mind senses that the subject is dangerous territory and begins to steer away from it before we are even fully aware that this is happening.

That is why the deaf effect is such a useful concept.

It helps explain why someone might react to Griffith’s work by thinking it is too dense, too simple, too big, too confronting, too repetitive, too optimistic, too bleak, too intellectual, too strange — or simply “not for me”.

Some of those reactions may feel entirely rational. But Griffith’s point is that the reaction may not always be coming from the part of us that is calmly assessing the argument. It may be coming from a deeper defensive reflex that has been trained, over a lifetime and indeed over history, to avoid the subject of our own condition.

The snake phobia analogy

Griffith uses the analogy of a person with a phobia of snakes being asked to read a book about snakes.

To someone without that phobia, the book may seem harmless. It is just paper, ink and ideas. But to the person with the phobia, the very subject matter triggers a reaction. Their mind and body respond before they can calmly evaluate the content.

The analogy is powerful because it shifts the focus from the book to the reader’s response.

A person with a snake phobia does not first analyse the snake and then decide to feel fear. The fear comes first. The avoidance comes first. The rationalisations often come afterwards.

Griffith suggests something similar happens with the human condition.

Because the subject has been associated with guilt, shame and self-confrontation for so long, our minds can react defensively before we have properly heard what is being explained. We may think we are evaluating the material, but in reality we may be recoiling from the subject matter.

That is not a criticism of the reader. It is a compassionate explanation of the difficulty.

Plato’s cave and the pain of light

This is also why Griffith draws on Plato’s famous cave analogy.

Plato’s concept of humans living deep within a cave, accustomed to shadows as truth

In Plato’s image, human beings are like prisoners living in a cave, accustomed to darkness and shadows. When one of them is brought out into the sunlight, the light is painful. At first, he cannot see clearly. He may even believe the darkness was easier, more familiar and more real.

Only gradually do his eyes adjust.

Adjusting to the light

That is a helpful way to think about encountering Griffith’s explanation of the human condition. The explanation is relieving, redeeming and full of light. But because we have been adapted to the darkness of denial of the issue of the human condition, the arrival of light can initially feel too bright.

This matters enormously for anyone new to the material.

If the first reaction is confusion, resistance, irritation, boredom or even dismissal, it may be worth pausing before concluding that the explanation has nothing to offer. The reaction itself may be part of the very phenomenon Griffith is describing.

We are not being asked to stop thinking critically

One important point needs to be made clearly.

Recognising the possible presence of the deaf effect does not mean suspending critical judgement. It does not mean accepting anything blindly. It does not mean deciding in advance that every negative reaction must be wrong.

In fact, Griffith’s work asks to be understood, tested and thought through.

But it does suggest that when approaching the human condition, we should be aware about our first reactions. We may need to allow for the possibility that this subject is not like other subjects. It reaches into the very psychological insecurity it is seeking to explain.

That means the process of understanding it can require patience.

A reader might need to revisit the material. Watch an introductory video before reading the larger book ‘FREEDOM’. Read a summary before tackling the full explanation. Let the ideas settle. Return to them later. Talk them through on places like the Facebook group or Reddit page. Notice which parts produce resistance and ask whether that resistance is intellectual, emotional or both.

The slower approach can be a sensible way in to allowing yourself to become accustomed to discussion of the human condition.

A bridge to the wider explanation

The great value of understanding the deaf effect is that it gives context to reactions about the subject matter being discussed.

Instead of being thrown off by an initial resistance, we can recognise it, step back, and keep going. We can begin to see that the difficulty of hearing the explanation may itself be evidence of how deep and important the subject is.

The human condition is not a minor topic. It is the central question beneath so much of human life: our conflict, our insecurity, our need for validation, our anger, our evasions, our guilt, our longing for relief.

Griffith shows that this question can now be answered in a way that is biological, compassionate and liberating. That is why the deaf effect is such an important issue.

If we can understand why the mind resists this subject, we have a much better chance of moving through that resistance and accessing the explanation itself.

The key is to stay open long enough for the light of understanding to become bearable. Because what first appears “heavy” may, in time, turn out to be the very thing that lifts the weight.

My friend Anthony and I with our copy of ‘FREEDOM’, with a spectacular sunrise on Mt Sonder during our hike on the Larapinta Trail.

Adapted from this blog post by Sambelfield on FIX THE WORLD, first published August 4, 2016.