Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.
Plato
[Research] suggests that what we think of as free will is largely an illusion: much of the time, we are simply operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act – and how well we think and act on the spur of the moment – are a lot more susceptible to outside influences than we realize.
Malcolm Gladwell, Blink
What are the drivers of human behavior? Why we do what we do? Is human behavior the product of nature or nurture? What goals are worth having and pursuing in life? Should we trust our intuitions to make decisions? Is there free will and are we responsible of our actions? What is the nature of consciousness, and does it play a role in our decisions?
Do you feel fully in control of your actions? Most people believe they have free will and judge themselves and others through this lens. Indeed, research has shown that belief in free will is a predictor of several behavioral and psychological variables. For example, people with a strong belief in free will perform better in a variety of contexts, such as in work and academic settings. Likewise, weakening people’s belief in free will through experimental manipulations increases antisocial behavior, such as cheating, racial prejudice, and aggressiveness toward others, as well as decreases prosocial attitudes expressed in altruistic and cooperative behavior.[1]
But do we have free will? What really drives our behavior? Is it the product of nature or nurture? Human behavior is, by definition, the collection of activities performed by human beings and influenced by factors such as culture, attitudes, values, emotions, ethics, authority, coercion, and persuasion. The diversity of factors affecting behavior explains why there is such a wide range of observed behavior. Some behavior is considered common, some unusual, some acceptable and some outside acceptable limits. We may have the inclination or compulsion to behave in certain ways, but we often stifle our impulses because of social pressure. Therefore, the culture in which humans are embedded factors importantly in their behavior. We might think we have free will but in reality, it may be determined by the social norms around us.
Human behavior is complex and difficult to predict, even by the person responsible for such behavior. In the last section (Cognition) we saw that our own beliefs are hidden from us, and that they may be even in conflict with each other. It is not surprising, then, to find that there are several theories of motivation, each one highlighting different drivers of behavior. To name a few:[2]
· Control Theory (we seek to control the world around us)
· Activation Theory (we have a need for arousal)
· Attribution Theory (we need to attribute cause, that supports our ego)
· Drive Theory (we seek to satisfy needs)
· Escape Theory (we seek to escape uncomfortable realities)
· Expectancy Theory (we are motivated by desirable things we expect we can achieve).
They all help us think about human motivation that will in turn help us better understand human behavior. Humans, as we saw in the Human Nature section, are the product of evolution by natural selection, and so they share a general design that contributed to their reproductive success. One critical insight is that humans share innate needs that are universal. Indeed, achieving optimal human functioning – a good life – is based on their ability to fulfill their most important intrinsic needs. As we shall see, our cultural values, beliefs, and circumstances are significant factors in this quest.
It is therefore critical to understand our values and beliefs regarding what goals we think are important to pursue and what kind of life we want to have. The key argument is that we should aspire to goals that not only are concordant with our intrinsic needs, but that are also compatible with life in a complex world. Moreover, our goals should be guided by wisdom, not just self-interest (Idea 9, forthcoming).
Are we fully accountable for our actions though? The issue of free will and determinism underlies much of the debate about human nature. Free will, or agency, refers to the ability of humans to make (in some sense) genuinely free choices. As in the case of human nature, there are many contrarian views on this complex issue. John Locke’s philosophy of empiricism, for example, saw human nature as a tabula rasa. In this view, the mind is at birth a “blank slate” without any content, so data are added and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences.
On the other hand, Francis Galton intended to demonstrate that “a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world.” Each one of these views can lead us to different conclusions regarding whether humans have free will or not.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, scientific and, as we have seen, behavioral implications. In the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals are held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
The concept of free will is thus intricately connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, satisfies the metaphysical requirement of being responsible for one’s action. This, however, presents a conundrum. According to the latest scientific research, we do not have much conscious control over our own actions. In fact, our consciousness seems to be responding to the actions of the brain, not causing them. What does this mean? Are we still responsible for our actions? The way we answer these questions is at the core of our worldviews. In this section I explore ideas that can shed light on these important questions.
[1]Genschow, O., Rigoni D. & Brass, M. (2017). Belief in free will affects causal attributions when judging others’ behavior. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, PNAS. Aug 30, 2017. Vol. 114, No. 38. [2]See Petri, H. L. & Govern, J. M. (2003). Motivation: Theory, research and applications, Wadsworth Publishing, 5th ed.
Comentarios