Tuesday, October 16, 2012

apparently i am quite the little determinist


The tension between a belief in free will or determinism can be found in many professions, religions, and cultures.  The assumption of either is fundamental to our understanding of why people behave, think, and feel the way they do, and how to address problematic behavior and bring about positive change in people’s lives.  My knowledge and understanding gained through the study of psychology has had a great influence on my personal assumption of determinism in every aspect of the human experience.  I will use a biopsychosocial framework to illustrate how human behavior, cognition, and affect can be explained from a deterministic stance, as can theories of change and modification of each of those aspects. 
Scientific research on the influence of human biology on behavior is extensive, and points to biological processes being an important piece of understanding and addressing behavioral change.  Genetic research, in particular, has offered an explanation for many of the physical and even psychiatric conditions that exist in human beings.  We know that along with conditions such as Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and spina bifida, other conditions such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and schizophrenia have a large heritable component.  By having a genetically-related individual who has one of these conditions, one’s risk of developing the same condition increases markedly.  A significant portion of the variance in intelligence and personality are also genetic.  Furthermore, biology outlines the potential for change as well as the limitations or barriers of change.  A person with a physical disability is limited by her or his biology, and change may not occur at the level of changing biology.  One might say that a person’s life trajectory is determined in part by the opportunities and limitations that their body (including their genes) offers them.   One cannot “will” themselves to be taller, faster, or more intelligent.  The constraints of biology are always present when considering the ways a person might change over the lifespan.
Libertarians assert that whatever the limitations placed on a person by the body and its biology, humans have freedom to make choices and depart from previously determined paths simply because there is some part of them that is spontaneous and not bound to deterministic factors.  However, much of what we know about introspection, memory, and learning (hence behavioral change) points to the great fallibility of the human mind in its attribution of free will and choice.  Research shows that people are not good at predicting how they will behave in the future, and that their memory of the past is always subject to distortion and selection.  Because people cannot get outside of their subjective experience, it is not always possible for them to know the reasons behind their actions.  The role of the psyche is to make meaning of, to interpret, and to process the environmental surroundings.   The ways it does this are due in large part to conditioned thoughts, values, and assumptions about the world, and are not active choices untethered to the natural context. 
Libertarians acknowledge the role of biology and the social environment on human behavior, but allow some space for spontaneity and free will.  In an article entitled “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being,” Bargh and Chartrand (1999) showed that much of our life experience is based on conditioned, automatic responses to the various stimuli we encounter.  They contend that we function automatically most of the time in order to have energetic reserves for the instances where we actually do have the freedom to choose.   I assert that any instances of “free will” exist in a specific context that must have allowed that sense of “free will” to occur, and therefore the supposed windows of free will are in themselves determined. 
Finally, the social and cultural environment has been shown by social psychological research to greatly determine human behavior.  Principles like social facilitation/loafing, groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, and deindividuation have been demonstrated by large amounts of empirical research, and point to the unconscious influence that the presence of others has on our behavior.  People work more or less, endorse horrific philosophies, fail to help others in need, and experience a decreased sense of self simply because of group processes impacting the individual.  In addition, there is a certain amount of cultural determinism in people’s lives.  By virtue of where a person is born and raised, she or he will hold certain beliefs and experience particular aspects of the world that would not occur in another place or time.  We are, in large part, products of our culture. 
It makes sense that people hold on to an idea of free will, because it is empowering, comforting, and consistent with everyday experience.  However, there is no way to rule out causal forces behind every thought and behavior, and there is no way to empirically prove freedom of choice.  Therefore, it appears that the best accounting of human behavior results in an acknowledgment of the known and unknown determinants that lie behind all we see and experience in the world.

No comments: