Determined

It is as Sapolsky (2023) states. When you ask people what they think about the idea of not having free will, many react with rejection. At least that has been my experience since reading the book and discussing it with others. I guess it is normal to reject the idea as we are taught to have agency, to be the masters of our own lives. I was skeptical too and sure enough, if I read other convincing evidence, I might change my mind again. However, I do think that there is a lot to what Sapolsky (2023) writes. Thus, for now, I do think, that I actually do not have that much agency in my life (that is a difficult sentence to write…).

When you manage to get through some rough patches in your life, you might feel pride. It was you, your hard work, your willpower, your drive not to give up, to fight and rise on the other side.

What if this achievement is not because of you, not because of the willpower that you built up, that you worked on? What if what happens to you and how you react to it is not at all in your hands?

The other day, I was watching an edition of The Diary of the CEO. They talked about the difference between those people who push through rough times, and those who don’t. There was a sentiment of spite in the air. Spite for those who just do not have the drive. They did not say it, though, it was implicit. It is the fault of those who do not push through, and it is the achievement of those who do.

I had to think of the book Determined (Sapolsky, 2023). If we follow this book, then the conclusion that we can be proud of ourselves is wrong. Equally so, we should not look down on ourselves or other people who are not able to achieve certain things.

I have pushed through some things in my life. But was that really me or the fortunate environment in which I was born? It is easier to fight if you can pay a coach, have the right people to talk to, have some form of (financial and psychological) security, etc.

Sure, I put in the work. But I have to acknowledge that being able to put in the work is based on conditions I do not have much influence on. For example, sometimes when I hit a crisis point it was because some maladaptation was in place for too long. While I might have felt that something was off, I was maybe too stressed or too tied up in my habits to reflect on what is going on. I would argue that many people live in constant survival mode and even when a crisis hits, they cannot really take the time to reflect. Even if one can. Who are the people surrounding you, giving you well-meant but ill-suited advice? You might recognize that you need therapy, but you also know that this is frowned upon in your social cycle or you do not have the time and funds to go to a therapist.

You might say, that people from the same family can turn out completely different. Thus, there must be something else than the socio-economic background. As Sapolsky explains, there is. Even if several factors are similar, there is still much more that differentiates people. Even if the DNA is similar, it is not the same. Even if it was the same, the experiences that people have, will make them different people. E.g. if the mother went through stress during one pregnancy but not the other one. This will impact how your genes express. The school friends you have, the food you eat, etc. All of this impacts our biology. And in the end, you might differ a lot from your siblings. Every person is equipped with a unique biological setup and how the person develops (thus how the DNA expresses) depends on every experience we have throughout our lives.

Inherently then one has to conclude that one is not better than others, because of one’s achievements and accolades. Rather one must remain in a state of deep gratitude. Because, there is nothing we did to earn this luck that allowed us to achieve things. Pride is exchanged for gratitude.

How people behave is the combinational effect of nature and nurture. And as Sapolsky (2023) explains, we do not have an impact on any of these.

Even if I get to a stage in which I understand the impact of epigenetics and go on a biohacking adventure, I am still not steering the wheel. For example, the qualities that one wants to enhance are socially determined. Thus, the way I want to enhance my mind and body is determined by society (or some sub-part of society that I deem relevant). Some people take steroids to get bigger muscles, others take creatine to enhance brain function. What biohacking path a person takes is very much determined by the wish to fit into a specific group of people or to be seen in a certain way. Some people get implants, tattoos, surgery, etc. to look a certain way. I did not wake up wanting a tattoo. This was not some miraculous internal process. As a little child, I saw a documentary on TV about body art and got very fascinated (I am to this point). Becoming vegan was not an internal process. I was not struck by enlightenment. It was knowing about the suffering and for some reason, my brain is made up in a way to react to such things. If my parents are conservative, I might get a tattoo to rebel. Or I want to be like my parents and that is why I get a tattoo. How much of what we do is related to other people in our lives? My actions are a chain of cause and effect. Our continuous behavior, of course, impacts our bodies and thus, how we behave. If I am constantly undernourished, my body will change, my brain will change, and thus how I perceive the world and react to it. If I am constantly under stress, my brain will change, etc.

A simple example of how our behavior is influenced by our biology is the recommendation: don’t go to the grocery store when you are hungry. And there are many such recommendations, that clearly illustrate that our biology impacts our behavior.

The book Determined, is thus very humbling and it made me feel grateful. It would be nice if I could book all my achievements as MY achievements, but at the end of the day, I was just in lucky circumstances.

This is not to say that I take my hands off the wheel. Even though I know I am technically not riding the bike (I use the environmentally friendly analogy). I still try to enhance what I can, because I know how important it is to do so. Again, the steps I take are influenced by things I have no impact on. Another version of me might prioritize completely different things because she made different experiences and connects to a different social group. The book did not at all make me feel disempowered. Rather the contrary is the case.

Sapolsky (2023) makes the case for the strong connection between our biology and us (the mind, whatever the ME is…). He provides a very strong argument to take action and make sure that our biology is supported in the best possible way. I am in a position in which I can take at least some steps to support my biology. Clearly, other people do not. This is where Sapolsky (2023) presents an interesting discussion about how to deal with criminals. Following his explanation, it is not their fault that they are criminals. They became criminals because of what happened to them and because of their genetic predisposition. One conclusion to draw is that we need to make sure that people are as much supported as possible. This goes beyond basic need provision, of course. Arguably, we are far away from a society in which everyone has access to the resources needed to flourish. How many people are supported during their education? How many people have access to therapy? How many people have access to meaningful human connections? And, of course, how many people do not get their basic needs met and grow up chronically stressed?  As we are not in the driver’s seat of our own lives, one conclusion is that we are responsible for each other. My behavior impacts others. Thus, as a society, we have to make sure that people get the necessary tools to develop in the best possible way (where again, what that means is socially determined).

Sapolisky’s (2023) book is very rich in discussing the implications of his proposition. One is that people might want to free ride. Thus, if we assume that people have no agency, they have an excuse to do whatever they want. They could (also in court) always blame circumstance. I guess, this is technically right. I do not think that the majority of people would react like this and wreak havoc. I guess this is similar to the argument that a universal income would make people stop working. I do not at all believe that would happen. Though, sure, people might look for meaning full jobs… Even if we accept that people have no free will, we still have to understand that our brains are wired in certain ways. We still follow moral codes. That moral code just might become stronger. If we know that our actions can have a great impact on others, we might want to behave better. I think that Sapolisky’s (2023) arguments could be used to foster social support. That would be great in times of increasing individualism. Individualism tells us to do what is necessary and that the fittest survive. In my eyes, this is what leads to reckless behavior.  

There is much more that one could discuss, such as complexity and the question of predictability. Though, I will end the blog here. I found the book by Sapolisky (2023) very inspiring and written in an entertaining way.

Reference:

Sapolsky, R. (2023). Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. Penguin Press.