Determined, by Robert Sapolsky

Robert Sapolsky is a fascinating primatologist-researcher and looks at the world very differently than most of us. His Great Courses series on “Being Human” gives great half-hour samples of his depth-and well worth the price of admission. He also is a consultant at legal proceedings in support of defendants who have abhorrent behaviors. This book explains in part, his motivation for taking on that role and his belief that none of us really has free will.

Two interesting observations reflecting psychology experiments that become part of his argument:

1. It is known that being raised in a “collective” culture affects personal points of view and decision making. It turns out that Southern China has a long and rich history of collectivist societies. Northern China finds cultures with more assertive individualist patterns. Starbucks Coffee Houses were the site of an experiment performed exactly the same way in both Northern and Southern China: A chair was intentionally placed in a narrow “choke point” in the restaurant and the customer reactions observed. In South China, the tendency was for customers to work their way around the chair. In Northern China, the tendency was for someone to pick up the chair and move it. He adds one more interesting fact about such behavior:  “A dopamine variant gene that codes for dopamine receptor—-this variant makes the recipient less responsive to dopamine which is critical for risk taking, motivation, anticipation and reward. When the receptor doesn’t respond as well, risk taking behavior will increase the stimulation of dopamine…..and in East Asians, this variant is found in 1% but in Europeans, 23% suggesting there has been a selection bias against it in Asia……”

Decision points: taking risks or moving an impediment vs walking around it—manifestations of free will?

2)   A well known psychology study found a group of people “voting” on simple questions like,           “which of the projected three lines is the longest one?”  The participants but for one however are part of the study and all vote for a line that is not the longest one. The subjects who are being studied often choose along with the group ie choose a line that is not the longest. When interviewed, most will tell you that they did not think it was the longest but said otherwise to not stand out in the group. Others will actually convince themselves that the group was right. Happily, a majority will make the right choice, choosing the longest line. What does that say about free will, among other character traits? What does that say about our political polarization?

Yuval Harari’s Sapiens suggests that our minds as well as those of animals, simply mediate complex biological algorithms which results in behavior. Sapolski seems to make his case using the versatility and variability found in nature, with a similar notion,  building a model using experimental observations for his case that we don’t really have free will—that our decisions (blue one or red one? Should I run that red light or not?) are in a sense derived “mechanically” from a very complex algorithm. In that sense, he thinks we don’t really “choose.”

What might affect your choice in the moment?

We have genes—they are expressed in the real world with many variables affecting their  expression—for example, twins with identical genes may have one afflicted with schizophrenia and the identical sibling without that diagnosis.

Genes are modified in predictable ways, depending; some women were starved during pregnancy during World War II; their children were found to have the expression of some genes modified so as to, for a lifetime, they (children born to such mothers) consume and conserve calories differently than babies born to women who did not starve.

Hormones effect us from when we are in utero (if you have an enzymatic genetic error and can’t make proper testosterone, your external genitalia will be that of a women when your genes are those of a male), and obviously, later in life with obvious behavioral changes in adolescence.

Physical and emotional trauma affect our hormone systems and brain development such that you can predict complex social and physical outcomes based on scores of such traumas in life. ACE scores quantify this and  the higher the score the higher the likelihood for adult antisocial behavior which includes violence, poor social relationships, reduced levels of education, poor impulse control, divorce, more substance abuse, a higher risk of incarceration and a reduced life span.

Officer Krupkee’s song in West Side Story comes to mind.

There is a randomness to our decision making and choices: two people born on the same day—one may have a greater than average stage of mental development when they go to kindergarten—say they are cognitively advanced—they will get more attention from the teacher (I think this may play out for "pretty" children of both sexes) . They will get more praise and that feeds the success train all the way to a college degree when compared to their same-birthday peer. Identical twins get a taste of this: they live in the same household, have the same genes, and yet their attitudes in that family may set them apart leading to different levels of praise, feedback, and attention.

Your ability to process and store memory—which guides behavior— can be affected by trauma. The manner of your being raised behaviorly as well as the “richness” or “poverty” of your living circumstances demonstrably make a difference.

Normal development in humans requires the full integration of the pre-frontal cortex (the part of the brain that “reasons” and helps you do the right thing when it is the hard thing to do) usually completed by  25 years of age—-all the above can interfere and interrupt this development and connection rendering a personality changed from what it “should or could” have been.

I have long held that many adults with psychological problems seem like adolescents or children who never grew up.

 Important influences outside the family include:

 Peers: have a powerful effect and compete with parents for influence in the development of a brain.

Environment: is it safe? “Bookstores vs liquor stores” as influencing development in  the day-to-day.

Culture: rights of passage, aspirations—Looking at the outcomes of children growing up in a Jewish conservative community vs Dead Head community--one can expect different outcomes (even without studying them) with some predictable “free will” decisions made.

I enjoy the experimental support for all  the kinds of things that modify behavior and expectations of behavior which are tied to “free will” but at this point, I could not find much that changed for me, the nature of free will. His discussion is complicated and I think is linked to discussions about a non material soul (assuming one believes it exists). Saplolski (and I) are materialists ie believe whatever the soul or free will are, they are generated from the processes of the human brain and modified in ways he demonstrates. Modifying will and generating will and sensing will are to me, different things. He delves a little deeper: Specific brain waves with a specific pattern are predictably generated in a time interval before a person has a sense that their decision is made (red or blue?)—is that a “mechanical” process driving the decision? Should your decision be somehow, “instantaneous” to support the argument for free will? I don’t find that problematic when I believe our perception of ourselves and our decision-making is driven by all the cellular processes in the brain, in a sense, “mechanical” processes.

He contrasts the world class marathon runner and the person who achieves great things not from natural ability but,  “grit”  or perseverance.  Our culture loves Rocky Balboa stories (and grit) but he maintains that they are two sides of the same coin: your genetics and environment broadly considered render you successful based on many paths. “Grit” is as much an expression of the brain’s genetic foundation as the blessed body of a world class marathon runner. Where does free will enter into the outcomes of such people? Icing on the cake?

When tackling issues of soul/free will and the complexity of the world, he reflects on how much of our genetic and metabolic processes link all the way to sponges—which don’t even have nervous systems. We are all interconnected and from the simple— you find very complex systems in nature and in us as well. The are confounding.

Philosophy is tackled: chaos theory (a scientific discipline) can demonstrate order and beauty with variable inputs (an environment) but a simple, natural system of organizing—and natural processes do organize—think of the snail shell or shapes of crystals.  He shows by examples how such a system generates what we might call art.

Simple rules and randomness in nature gives you bees and ants with systems and simple components that get quite organized. These creatures can explore, find food sources, and communicate them quickly and effortlessly with simple “rules” of behavior that would require great investment of resources if we humans tried to do the same thing. We have different tools and abilities (not to mention outlooks) but in the end rely on our inherited biology to make those  useful and successful.

His point is we have no more free will than ants or bees......

This brings us, finally to Free Will and the Judicial system. Using his logic, he advocates for a legal system that does not attribute moral “blame” to criminal behavior. His approach is to understand that for all the reasons above, people sometimes cannot control their behavior and when it is egregious, they need to be isolated for the safety of others. The Death Sentence in his world makes not sense because it is an emotional “lashing out” and does not solve anything that isolation does not. He does think we may be “hard-wired” to enjoy lashing out, but wants to pre frontal cortex (doing the right thing even if it is the hard thing) to manage that.

Supporting his belief that we are hard-wired to enjoy punishing people -- he provides a variety of experiments in both humans and primates to support this point of view (think about scenes from the the Jim Crow South or the Middle Ages where having a well attended picnic awaiting a public execution would not be unusual).

He takes on philosophical points about good and evil — judgement and punishment tying it to his lack of belief in Free Will (or for that matter, in God). He believes behavioral norms and adjustments can allow for an organized and fair society without the word of God providing a blueprint.. Getting specific and addressing the concern that without religious direction, all would be chaos or anarchy: he asks us to  consider societies and seizures/convulstions through history. The Assyrians thought people afflicted with seizures were touched by the Gods. Over time, in Europe, it was associated with demon possession and could be a mark requiring an intervention to eliminate sin—or a demon. He goes into great gruesome detail on what constituted such efforts to rid someone of demonic possessions. Neurological science gave a more consistent and non-judgmental explanation—-along with treatment--and without metaphysics. We think of seizures differently now. If your child were killed by someone driving a car and experiencing a first seizure, you would think of it differently than if the driver was drunk or distracted while driving. You would think of it differently than your peer from the Middle Ages.  His point: you might as well as be angry at a Tornado or an Earthquake for your loss—except of course the parents will ask, “Did he have any warning? Was there a sign he had this before the accident?  Did his doctor miss some sign or history that might have prevented it?.”

That is hard to take. It may be logical, but it is nonetheless hard. And THAT is the human condition. I don’t think his evidence and anecdotes hits a bull’s eye. If we have a “soul” and “free will,” all he has demonstrated is that the environment and genes shape it—(starving people will steal food if given the option no mattere what their moral code is)-- with flexibility and boundaries.. That these may require a material basis for existing is not so difficult a leap-that the sense of self and will are dependent on functioning nerve cells protected from a hostile world and supported by a functioning heart, liver, kidneys, etc. in no way changes the reality that we feel and believe what we feel and believe. Some of us access that pre-frontal cortex (the part of our brain that helps with doing the right thing even though it is the hard thing) more reliably than others.

What to do with those feelings and beliefs remains in the hands of philosophers or more cynically, “influencers.” It certainly does not remain in the hands of scientists, as RFK Junior will demonstrate soon enough…

From my second year in college: the brain is too complicated for the brain to understand itself. I think that remains true despite all the experimental evidence we have to date. But we are pretty cool creatures to study!