FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM:
FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM: hard determinism and soft determinism; biological, environmental and psychic determinism. The scientific emphasis on causal explanations.
My Blog Post on Free Will and Determinism Read Here
FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM IN PSYCHOLOGY
The enduring debate surrounding free will and determinism in psychology delves into the extent to which human behavior is influenced by forces beyond our control, or if we possess personal agency over our actions. This debate is central to understanding the complexities of human behavior and has far-reaching implications in various psychological domains.
Definitions:
Determinism is the perspective that an individual's behavior is controlled by internal factors (such as genetics) or external influences (e.g., learned behaviors from parents), making behavior predictable.
Free Will, conversely, posits that individuals exercise self-determination, actively controlling their behavior without succumbing to internal or external pressures.
The Scientific Emphasis on Causal Explanations:
A fundamental tenet of science asserts that every event in the universe has a cause, and these causes can be elucidated through general laws. The pursuit of knowledge regarding causes is crucial, enabling scientists to predict and manipulate future events. In psychology, controlled experiments within laboratory settings aim to replicate the conditions of a test tube, eliminating extraneous variables and allowing precise control and prediction of human behavior.
Different Forms of Determinism:
Determinism manifests in various forms, acknowledging the multi-faceted nature of human behaviour:
1. Biological Determinism: Biological determinism posits that behavior is driven by biological influences beyond our control, including genetics, hormones, and evolutionary factors. For instance, it suggests that elevated testosterone levels lead to aggressive behavior, or that certain genes predispose individuals to aggression.
2. Environmental Determinism: Environmental determinism argues that behavior is shaped by environmental features, such as systems of reward and punishment, over which individuals have limited control. For instance, growing up in an aggressive household may lead to the learned behavior of aggression, influenced by vicarious reinforcement.
3. Psychic Determinism: Psychic determinism contends that internal, unconscious conflicts control behavior, and individuals have minimal control over these influences. For instance, the development of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) might be attributed to unresolved issues at the psychosexual stages of development or repressed memories.
Implications of the Determinism and Free Will Debate:
This debate has left an indelible mark on psychology, shaping both theoretical frameworks and practical applications:
THE CASE FOR DETERMINISM
The Case for Determinism highlights several key arguments in favor of the concept that human behavior is significantly influenced by deterministic factors rather than free will:
Orderly Behavior: Determinism asserts that human behavior follows orderly patterns and obeys specific laws, which aligns psychology with other established sciences. This predictability allows for the development of treatments and interventions aimed at controlling and managing various behavioral conditions.
Predictive Power: By emphasizing causal explanations and determinants, psychology gains the ability to predict and control human behavior to some extent. This predictability has practical implications, as it allows for the development of therapeutic interventions, behavioral strategies, and treatments that can benefit individuals with psychological disorders.
Schizophrenia as an Example: The experience of mental disorders like schizophrenia challenges the concept of free will. Individuals with schizophrenia often experience a loss of control over their thoughts and behavior, which suggests that their actions may be determined by factors beyond their conscious choice. For instance, if schizophrenia is associated with elevated dopamine levels, the use of anti-psychotic drugs to reduce dopamine levels and alleviate symptoms supports the idea of determinism by targeting the underlying biological cause.
Recognition of Biological Influences: Determinism acknowledges the significant role of biological factors, such as genetics and neurochemistry, in shaping behavior. This recognition allows for a deeper understanding of the causes of certain behaviors, which can, in turn, inform more effective treatments and interventions
The Case Against Determinism
Legal systems are grounded in the assumption that individuals bear moral responsibility for their actions, suggesting the existence of free will. However, determinists argue that certain conditions can leave individuals with no choice but to react violently, as exemplified by those with a damaged amygdala. Charles Whitman's case provides compelling evidence for this ongoing debate, as his diaries chronicle his struggle to control violent urges despite his earnest intentions.
This debate extends to questions of accountability and the appropriate penalties for individuals grappling with such issues. Interestingly, offenders in legal proceedings seldom attribute their behavior to biological, environmental, or psychic determinism, perhaps because the legal system places a premium on individual responsibility.
Subjective Experience: Everyday experiences suggest that people exercise free will through choices. Research even indicates that individuals with an internal locus of control (those who believe they are responsible for their actions) tend to have better mental health, highlighting the positive influence of free will on behaviour.
The Case for Free Will
Face Validity: The concept of free will aligns with common human experiences. On a daily basis, individuals make choices, decisions, and exercise what they perceive as their own agency. This sense of having control over one's actions and being responsible for their choices resonates with people's intuitive understanding of how they navigate their lives. For example, when someone chooses between different career paths or decides to adopt a healthier lifestyle, they often attribute these choices to their free will.
Internal Locus of Control: Research has indicated a connection between the belief in free will and mental health, particularly in the context of locus of control. Locus of control refers to an individual's perception of where the control or influence over life events resides—either internally (within themselves) or externally (controlled by external factors or fate). People with an internal locus of control tend to believe that they are responsible for their behaviors and actions. Studies have shown that those with a strong internal locus of control often exhibit better mental health outcomes, such as reduced stress levels and increased overall well-being.
Protection Against Depression: Adolescents who lean towards a fatalistic view—that their lives are determined by external events or forces—are more vulnerable to developing depression. Believing that they have no control over their destinies can lead to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. In contrast, individuals who embrace the idea of free will are more likely to take proactive steps to improve their circumstances and overall mental health.
Positive Influence: The belief in free will can have a positive influence on human behavior and decision-making. When individuals perceive themselves as agents with the power to make choices and shape their futures, they are more motivated to set and achieve goals, pursue personal growth, and overcome challenges. This proactive mindset often leads to better life outcomes and greater life satisfaction
The Case Against Free Will
Libet's Experiment (1985): Benjamin Libet conducted a groundbreaking experiment that raised questions about the timing of conscious decisions. In his study, participants were asked to perform a simple action, like pressing a button, while their brain activity was monitored. Libet found that there was a noticeable neural activity in the brain's motor cortex that occurred milliseconds before participants reported their conscious intention to perform the action. This suggested that the brain initiated the action before individuals were consciously aware of their decision.
Siong Soon's Study (2008): Siong Soon and colleagues conducted a study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine brain activity related to decision-making. They found that brain signals could predict a participant's decision up to ten seconds before the individual reported being aware of their choice. This finding challenged the idea that conscious deliberation was the sole driver of decision-making.
These studies have profound implications for our understanding of free will. They suggest that at least in certain situations, our brains may make decisions before we consciously realize them. This challenges the traditional view that conscious intentions are the primary drivers of our actions. It's important to note that these studies have faced criticism and debate within the scientific community. Some argue that the interpretation of these findings may not entirely negate the concept of free will. They suggest that conscious awareness may still play a role in the final execution of actions or that these studies may not capture the full complexity of human decision-making.
OTHER CRITICISMS OF FREE WILL
Non-Random Thought Patterns: The brain's organization and the structured nature of thought processes suggest that ideas and decisions are not random. Instead, they follow patterns and are influenced by existing knowledge, beliefs, and cognitive frameworks.
Lack of Spontaneity: True free will implies absolute spontaneity in decision-making, where choices arise without any constraints or prior influences. However, the organized nature of thought processes indicates that decisions are not made randomly but are shaped by existing mental structures.
Influence of Past Experiences: Thoughts and decisions are often influenced by an individual's past experiences, learning, and cultural background. This suggests that free will, if it exists, operates within the framework of one's accumulated knowledge and experiences.
Ideological Beings: The argument against free will based on the organization of ideas posits that humans are inherently ideological beings. Our thoughts and decisions are guided by pre-existing ideologies, beliefs, and cognitive structures, limiting the scope of radical, unconstrained choices.
Deterministic Factors: Critics of free will may argue that the organized nature of thought processes points to deterministic factors at play, such as genetics, upbringing, and social conditioning. These determinants shape the boundaries within which free will, if it exists, operates.
SOFT DETERMINISM
The interactionist perspective, often associated with soft determinism or compatibilism, offers a potential compromise in the ongoing debate between free will and determinism. This perspective recognizes that human behavior is influenced by a combination of internal and external factors, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of human agency and responsibility.
Key points of the interactionist perspective within the context of soft determinism include:
Acknowledgment of Determining Factors: Interactionists recognize that various factors, both internal (e.g., cognitive processes, beliefs) and external (e.g., environmental influences, social context), can shape an individual's behavior. These factors are seen as determinants that contribute to decision-making.
Freedom of Choice: Unlike hard determinism, which denies the existence of free will altogether, interactionists argue that individuals have a degree of freedom when it comes to making choices. While external and internal factors may influence decisions, individuals can still exercise their free will within the boundaries set by these determinants.
Environmental and Cognitive Influence: This perspective emphasizes the role of cognitive processes and social learning. It suggests that individuals can make choices based on their cognitive evaluations of situations and their assessment of potential outcomes. Social Learning Theory, proposed by Bandura, exemplifies this perspective by highlighting the interplay between environmental influences and individual decision-making.
Morality and Responsibility: Interactionists align with the view that individuals can be held morally responsible for their actions. While behavior may be influenced by various factors, including past experiences and environmental cues, individuals are still considered accountable for their choices and actions.
Agency and Identity: Interactionists acknowledge that an individual's choices and actions contribute to their identity and character. The ability to make choices and act upon them is an integral part of one's sense of self and agency.
In summary, the interactionist perspective, rooted in soft determinism, seeks to strike a balance between the influences of determinism and the existence of free will. It emphasizes that individuals can make choices and exercise their agency, even when influenced by internal and external factors. This perspective offers a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of human behavior, highlighting the interplay between determinants and individual choices
CASE STUDIES
Charles Whitman, born on June 24, 1941, in Lake Worth, Florida, came from what appeared to be a normal family and experienced a relatively uneventful childhood. He later enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, where he received training as a sharpshooter. However, Whitman's life took a dark turn when he began experiencing severe emotional and behavioral problems. He started to have violent outbursts, particularly directed towards his family. These episodes included physically assaulting his wife, Kathleen, and his mother, Margaret.
Recognising the seriousness of his increasingly aggressive behavior and uncontrollable anger, Whitman sought professional help. His diary entries from this period reveal deep concerns about his behavior and his struggle to control his violent tendencies. In these writings, he described intense, irrational anger and even admitted to thoughts of harming people. He realized that something was profoundly wrong with him and that it was beyond his control.
Furthermore, Charles Whitman took the extraordinary step of calling the police and asking them to arrest him, fearing that he might harm others. He diligently maintained a diary in which he attempted to reason with himself about his temper and violent thoughts. These actions demonstrated his sincere efforts to exercise free will and regain control over his behavior.
On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman carried out a horrific act of violence. He ascended to the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's clock tower, armed with various weapons, including rifles and handguns. From this vantage point, he indiscriminately opened fire on people below, resulting in the deaths of 16 individuals and injuries to dozens more before the police eventually shot and killed him.
The subsequent discovery of a brain tumour during Whitman's autopsy added a tragic and complex dimension to the ongoing debate surrounding free will versus determinism. This discovery raised questions about whether an individual can genuinely exercise free will when biological factors, such as a brain tumor, may significantly influence their actions without their awareness.
In conclusion, Charles Whitman's case serves as a poignant example of an individual grappling with behavioral issues, seeking help, and attempting to exercise free will, all while being unaware of the underlying neurological condition that likely played a substantial role in his actions. It underscores the intricate interplay between personal agency and biological determinants in human behavior.
Whitman's case is often discussed within the context of the free will versus determinism debate in psychology. While he made earnest efforts to seek help and control his behavior, the presence of the brain tumor likely played a significant role in his actions. His case highlights the complex relationship between biological factors, personal agency, and the ability to exercise free will in matters of human behaviour. It stands as a tragic example of how neurological conditions can impact an individual's capacity to control their actions, even when they are aware of their issues and actively seek assistance
OTHER EXAMPLES
Being Drunk or high: The consumption of alcohol impairs judgment, reduces inhibitions, and impairs decision-making abilities. When individuals are intoxicated, their cognitive functions become compromised, and their actions may be influenced by the effects of alcohol, limiting their capacity to exercise free will.
MAOA-L Gene: The MAOA-L gene, often referred to as the "warrior gene," has been associated with aggressive and impulsive behaviour. Individuals with a particular variant of this gene may be more prone to aggressive outbursts and violent tendencies.
High Levels of Testosterone: Testosterone, a hormone primarily found in males (though females also have it in smaller amounts), is linked to increased dominance and risk-taking behaviour. Elevated testosterone levels can lead to heightened aggression, making it difficult for individuals to exercise restraint and free will in certain situations.
Dementia: Dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease, can lead to significant cognitive decline. Individuals with advanced dementia may lose the ability to make informed choices and decisions, as their cognitive faculties deteriorate. This condition restricts their free will, leaving them dependent on caregivers for many aspects of their lives.
Autism Spectrum Disorder: Autism is characterised by differences in social interaction, communication, and behavior. Individuals on the autism spectrum may have restricted interests, repetitive behaviors, and difficulty understanding social cues. These characteristics can limit their ability to conform to societal norms and exercise free will in social contexts.
In summary, the debate between free will and determinism in psychology can be distilled into key points:
Free Will:
Assumes individuals have control over their behavior.
Implies personal responsibility for one's actions.
Suggests that behavior is not easily predictable.
Strengths of Free Will:
Emphasizes individual responsibility.
Focuses on the autonomy of the individual.
Suggests the possibility of free behavior.
Weaknesses of Free Will:
Lacks scientific rigor, as behavior cannot always be predicted or objectively measured.
Lacks a clear and universally accepted definition of "free will."
Determinism:
Suggests that behavior is influenced by external forces beyond an individual's control.
Emphasizes the predictability and controllability of behavior.
Strengths of Determinism:
Highlights cause-and-effect relationships in behavior.
Encourages the development of interventions and therapies based on understanding these causes.
Weaknesses of Determinism:
Ignores the role of free will in behavior.
Oversimplifies behavior, which is often complex and variable.
Does not assign blame to individuals for their behaviour.
