"Free Will" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by Headphonaught
“Free will” is a misleading term. We can take action to self-actualize, but detractors and restrictors always impact our decisions and efforts. Everything about us is influenced by the external environment including the interactions we experience with others. Character is something we display on our terms, but the choice is impacted by the sum total of how we think, and those thoughts are based on our experiences. We can't completely manipulate the influences in our lives that control our perspectives and outcomes.
This Next Big Idea podcast, "Free Will: Are We Better Off Without It?" is very thought-provoking regarding who we are and how much that’s determined by our personal desire to be “ourselves”. In his exploration of free will, Robert Sapolsky's work offers a compelling challenge to "personal autonomy". From his teenage years, Sapolsky was captivated by the concept of free will, ultimately concluding that it doesn’t exist. His conclusion is rooted in his background as a biologist, neurologist, and neurosurgeon, where he argues that human behaviour is influenced by a complex web of biological, genetic, and environmental factors, rather than by an independent, autonomous will.
"The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over -Robert Sapolsky
Sapolsky’s stance is not just a theoretical perspective; it’s one that he builds on extensively in his book Determined. He delves into mechanisms like brain chemistry and genetic predispositions, that shape our actions, decisions, and thoughts. According to Sapolsky, the illusion of free will is a product of our brains processing information in a way that makes us feel in control, but, in reality, is created by neural activity.
Moreover, Sapolsky goes beyond the mere negation of free will; he also proposes that recognizing the lack of free will can have profound, positive implications. Understanding that people are shaped by factors beyond their control could lead to a more compassionate and humane society where individuals are judged less harshly for their actions and treated more empathetically when they struggle with behaviours often attributed to "choices."
His perspective ties into larger philosophical and ethical debates about responsibility, punishment, and the nature of consciousness. If we accept that we are not truly in control, Sapolsky suggests, we might build systems more focused on rehabilitation, understanding, and social support, rather than retribution. Considering this, a significant possibility emerges to improve how we approach support for kids in school.
A school of thought is emerging in education and social services prioritizing awareness of the lived experiences of the student, or client. Whether working through trauma-based care in Dr. Bruce Perry's Neurosequential Model, Dr. Ross Greene's Collaborative and Proactive Solutions Model, or my own HOPE Wheel Model; the awareness that we can't effectively support another person without consideration for the environmental influences they've endured is fundamental. Limiting ourselves to the person in front of us and the private logic they express without knowing the story behind their story puts us at a significant disadvantage in helping them at all. We have will, but it's not free from the barriers and determiners of our past.
Ultimately, Sapolsky’s argument against free will challenges long-standing views on autonomy and moral responsibility and offers a framework for rethinking how we structure society and deal with issues like crime, mental health, and personal development. By recognizing the biological and environmental factors driving behaviour, we can foster a society emphasizing empathy and compassion over judgment and punishment.
