by larc 58 Replies latest jw friends
Duns,
I have not responded yet because I have been near my 25 post limit for the last few days and didn't want to write a long piece and have it nullified. Also, I was not sure if you were coming back after last Friday, but you have returned. I will be back in about 12 hours with my comments.
Duns,
Since we both agree that although we may have free will, we are not "volitionally unlimited", as you put it. I used extreme cases to establish this point. It may be that more subtle genetic factors may put limits on our behavior as well. An interesting avenue of study in this regard, is twin studies. Identical twins most often have very similiar characteristics even when raised apart. Some examples I have seen are striking. They are also very similiar in their intelligence level, suseptability to scizophrenia and alcoholism, to name a few examples.
Culture: I used the cultural example of language because it is a clear cut one. I did mention that other cultural traits can be as easily learned as well. We can take it beyond traits to religion. A Buddist family in a Buddist country will have Buddist children. There is no free will here. Without extensive exposure later to other ideas they will never change. Of course, this could be applied to all religions where there's is overwhelmingly predominant.
Before we can go further with the cultural aspect of the discussion, you would have to provide a rather detailed sociological definition of "invulnerables.
The term "self awareness" is acceptable to me. We certainly can make an analysis of our own thought processes, not simultaneously while thinking, but after we have had a sequence of thoughts. However, the thoughts we produce are a function of our genetics, environment, and unique learning. Sometimes they are even influenced by our social group. Although our ideas "feel like" they are free and unique, there are many prerequisite conditions for them to exist.
Regarding what others have said about free will: What Victor Frankl said about free will means nothing to me. He was an obscure, bit player in the history of psychology. That "some scientists" call into question the theory of determinism doesn't do a thing for me either. There will always be different theoretical positions among scientists in every discipline.
Regarding the therapist who performed better once he left determinism and acepted the concept of self awareness. As I stated on a previous thread, some therapists are fuzzy thinkers. What he probably did when he changed his paradigm was to change from a machine like determinist to someone who showed more empathy for his patients. His shift in thinking and behavior has nothing to do with the theory we are dicussing.
Most cognitive behavioral therapists are determinists and take into account self awareness, in fact, they capitalize on it. Their major objective is to get the patient to become aware of their thinking process, understand how their thinking is causing them emotional prolems, then teach them how to think more rationally, dispute irrational thinking and reduces their own emotional suffering. The process gives a heightened awareness to the patient regarding their own thinking. Thus, they are changed from automatic thinkers to self aware thinkers.
Regarding the scientist you quote: I agree that science can not say anything about God or immortality. I do think that science can say a lot about human freedom.
In ancient times, the Gods were credited with much of natural phenomena. With the evolution of the natural sciences much less can be ascribed to a God or Gods, if anything. In times past, all human behavior was ascribed to free will, inspiration, or demon possesion. As the behavioral sciences progress, less and less can be ascribed to these three sources.
On another subject: Since you are a baseball fan, I wanted to tell you about an important Dun who lives in our area. His name is Adam Dun. Last year he played single A ball for the Dayton Dragons. This spring he played triple A, and a month ago he was brought up to play for the Cinncinnatti Reds. He is batting .300 and has 5 home runs.
Larc,
I will reply to you in a couple of days. I wanted to run by the library and pick up a couple of books before posting.
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Duns,
If you feel comfortable doing so, please e mail me before your fall term starts. I would like to provide some details regarding my research, and get your opinions.
Due to my personal and professional ethics, I would never make an attempt to determine your identity. Ergo, your e mail address would be safe with me. I may be interested in having you review a manuscript for comments at some later time.
I am getting ready for bed, larc. I just wanted to tell you that you got me so interested in the topic of free will from a scientific standpoint that I ordered a book on free will titled _The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will_. I should get it in the next couple of days.
Later,
Duns
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Duns,
While you are waiting for your book, I wanted to make some social commentary.
Even if determinism is absolutely true, it is a bad thing to teach people. As an input, it creates in the minds of people the idea that they are not to blame for anything. Our society is that point right now. We have become a nation of fault finders and blamers. People are less willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions. How many times have you heard criminals and the social workers who schooled them say that it is not their fault. It was an abusive childhood, reading pornography, whatever. Here, I think your idea of the invulnerables is a useful one. What about the ones from a lousy home who turned out well. What about the men that looked at pictures of naked ladies and the was the end of it. They didn't go out and rape or abuse children.
Whenever I hear a story that a man raped a woman and it was her fault because she showed cleavage and leg, I want to puke.
Therefore, I hope the book proves me wrong, because I would like to see a good alternative to what I am presenting. If the book is good, I will get a copy myself.
I guess in summary, I am saying that the theory of determinism is useful as a framework for scientific inquiry. It is a very bad theory to be adopted into mainstream society. Thus, I am at the same point as I was when I started this thread. As a scientist, I believe in determinism. As a human being, I believe in fee will.
Larc:
:Duns,
Since we both agree that although we may have free will, we are not "volitionally unlimited", as you put it. I used extreme cases to establish this point. It may be that more subtle genetic factors may put limits on our behavior as well. An interesting avenue of study in this regard, is twin studies. Identical twins most often have very similiar characteristics even when raised apart. Some examples I have seen are striking. They are also very similiar in their intelligence level, suseptability to scizophrenia and alcoholism, to name a few examples.:
Have you read what Plotnik has to say about the various factors that influence the personalities of identical twins? He notes that certain researchers have broken down the contributing factors to the development of one's personality in the following way:
genetic factors 40%
nonshared environmental factors 27%
error (i.e., certain influences cannot be determined yet) 26%
shared environmental factors 7%
Another point to keep in mind is what we mean by intelligence. Similarity in IQ scores does not necessarily = similar intelligence.
:Culture: I used the cultural example of language because it is a clear cut one. I did mention that other cultural traits can be as easily learned as well. We can take it beyond traits to religion. A Buddist family in a Buddist country will have Buddist children. There is no free will here.:
The Buddhist family will have children who are Buddhist nominally. This fact does not mean that the child never thinks for himself or herself or questions the beliefs of his or her parents. Children brought up in Witness homes are not necessarily JWs. They are children of JWs. But they have to ultimately decide whether they will accept or reject JW beliefs. As I said earlier, most thinkers see free will in terms of free volition. They do not think that it means one is totally unlimited. Sartre thought that humans are free even in the face of the limitations that factical existence brings. Sartre even noted that I am always free to say, "No!" I can always refuse to engage in evil acts or anything that offends my sensibilities. That, my friend, is free will (according to Sartre). The words of Hebrews 2:14-15 have actually been concretized and reified in the life of numerous Christian existents, who have refused to share in evil moral acts and have instead chosen to dedicate themselves to God. These believers are no longer hindered by the fear of death that results in a type of bondage. A number of Christians have fittingly articulated the Sartrean, "No!" in the face of evil.
:Without extensive exposure later to other ideas they will never change.:
I disagree. Phenomenological realists point to examples of individuals who possessed a distinct and disparate Weltanschauung at a time when an entire culture looked at life through a different grid.
:Before we can go further with the cultural aspect of the discussion, you would have to provide a rather detailed sociological definition of "invulnerables.":
I never really followed up on this sociological term, but I did find certain articles on the inet about invulnerables. I need to email my former sociology professor and obtain information from her on invulnerables. I can do that tonight.
:The term "self awareness" is acceptable to me. We certainly can make an analysis of our own thought processes, not simultaneously while thinking, but after we have had a sequence of thoughts. However, the thoughts we produce are a function of our genetics, environment, and unique learning. Sometimes they are even influenced by our social group. Although our ideas "feel like" they are free and unique, there are many prerequisite conditions for them to exist.:
I find it difficult to accept this explanation because there is no mention of a priori ideas or inborn dispositions affecting our behavior. How can you really know that our thoughts "Are a function of genetics, environment, and unique learning" or our social group only? Science cannot plumb the unfathomable depths of man as man. It is no surprise that Sartre speaks of man as homo absconditus and metastable. He says that existence precedes essence. If Sartre is even partly right, one cannot reduce man to genetics and culture. There is an aspect of man that is hidden and unfathomable. Science cannot vitiate the "mystery" of the human existent.
:Regarding the therapist who performed better once he left determinism and acepted the concept of self awareness. As I stated on a previous thread, some therapists are fuzzy thinkers. What he probably did when he changed his paradigm was to change from a machine like determinist to someone who showed more empathy for his patients. His shift in thinking and behavior has nothing to do with the theory we are dicussing. Most cognitive behavioral therapists are determinists and take into account self awareness, in fact, they capitalize on it. Their major objective is to get the patient to become aware of their thinking process, understand how their thinking is causing them emotional prolems, then teach them how to think more rationally, dispute irrational thinking and reduces their own emotional suffering. The process gives a heightened awareness to the patient regarding their own thinking. Thus, they are changed from automatic thinkers to self aware thinkers.:
The therapist I had in mind was Dr. Albert Ellis (the founder of rational-emotive therapy). He has written a book entitled _Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy_. He claims that rational-emotive therapy has produced better results than Freudian or behaviorist determinism. I might also add that your view of self-awareness differs from mine. If I am really self-aware, then I can perform mental acts akin to Viktor Frankl's. He did not simply change from an "automatic thinker" to a self-aware thinker. I think his account deserves another read.
Have you also read Joseph F. Rychlak's essay on free will? He addresses a number of your concerns in the book _Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Issues_ (7th edition). See page 68.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Duns:
I have just skimed this post and will make a few brief comments, possibly with more detail later.
Your percentages from twin studies are similiar to what I have seen. To account for 74% of behavior by genetics and environment is a huge percent of the total. Remember psychology is the youngest science, and before it, people thought that all our behavior sprung from free will. Now we are down to 26% in a fairly short period of time.
Of that 26%, how much of it is accounted for by small group influences? I can't quanify it, but I would say a pretty good sized chunk. Most of the studies I listed on a previous post had to do with interpersonal and small group influences. As I said before, the reading of this body of material is humbling. For a quick update, you can review a General Psych. text - the chapters on Social Psychology, Attitudes and Attitude Change, Interpersonal and Group Influence.
IQ: As a general measure of intelligence, IQ tests have very high reliability and high construct validity. The correlation between IQ scores of identical twins raised together is about .9. The reliability of the test is .95. Therefore, the IQ of twins is nearly identical.
Ellis: The book you mentioned is a very scholarly piece of work. I used to own a copy, but it got lost somewhere in my many house moves. Since I was under the impression that he was a strict determinist, could you provide a quote from his book that proves otherwise?
Some quick thoughts for now. So far, everything I have written is from long term memory. If this keeps up, I might have to hit the books.
Dear larc,
I'll post some information from Ellis' book tomorrow after noon. I am getting ready to turn in for the night. I will just post some brief comments tonight.
Cordially,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Duns,
For a recent discussion of Ellis, see the thread, "10 nutty believes (sic)" started my Tina with elaborations by yours truly. I see nothing in Ellis's model that indicates free will. It is a very deterministic model.
The idea of empathy on the part of the therapist is orthoganal to his/her theoretical underpinnings or even their preferred treatment modality. Meta analytic studies on the effectiveness of psychotherapy demonstrate that the amount of therapist empathy is a strong predictor of their effectiveness regardless of the treatment method they employ.
