Slow Thoughts on Free Will and Choice
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman[1] is a whale of a book. It is so filled to the brim with concepts, examples and studies, that to try and consume it in a week is impossible.
System one and system two thinking remind me of a similar idea in recovery, the upstairs brain and the downstairs brain. The downstairs would correlate to system one. It’s the reactionary part of us where all the trauma and experiences automatically cause all the systems to respond. The upstairs brain is where rational thinking comes in and a greater ability to process and discuss occurs. Kahneman’s version of System one puts it into a positive light, it is our intuition[2]. In recovery this often has a negative overtone because it’s hard to work through things when the automatic response if firing. It is the place where de-escalation needs to happen first to move the person into using the upstairs brain. Most things heard or seen when functioning in the reactionary downstairs brain is not received or understood. I appreciate Kahneman’s two system brain because it shows how the two work together without one or the other being good or bad. System one is our intuition expressed in automatic behavior and System two has more control over thoughts[3]. This self-control allows us to process ways forward with the reactionary system calmed down and not wreaking havoc. This takes greater mental work though. The cognitive effort can become too much, weakening self-control and causing people to make selfish choices[4]. In any twelve step program you would be familiar with continued addiction being an outcome of selfish choices. So an addict becomes stuck in the cycle between upstairs and downstairs, making recovery exhausting.
Association of ideas and priming’s influence on our thinking and behavior seems to make us puppets of our environment. One experiment used words associated with old behavior that then led the participants to behave by walking slower. This showed the ideomotor effect of an idea influencing action[5]. I have a hard time believing the universality of these results. There are so many layers of assumptions that need to be made to get a person from thinking “old” to then associate that to elders being slower (which may not be a characteristic that all people would think of old people), to then have your body unconsciously walk slow. There are too many cultural understandings, age categories and personal experiences that would skew such a general reaction. I feel like a lot of Kahneman’s studies seemed to make these overgeneralized (or should I say overconfidence with its illusion of validity[6]) results. When I did a google search on my questioning, I found a slew of articles critiquing the book on the difficulties of replicability of his studies. This matters to me because the philosophy of free will and choice affects how we behave. I started reading Behave by Robert M. Sapolsky[7] which weaves together evolutionary adaptations that have humans behave the ways they do. It seems to be leading to a conclusion that we really don’t have free will or choice, but are products of the experiences and biological changes of the far past. In Christian circles we debate predestination, in liberal social services we debate the ability that the poor can choose anything and in self-help we rely on the ability to choose our destiny. This idea of reactionary, unconscious influence on our behavior is a very important discussion. How much free will and self-efficacy do we really have? Are we just rats in cosmic cage being controlled by the divine? How much agency do we have? These are essential questions in understanding our relationship to others and God and growth and freedom.
Prospecting theory plays into the question of why we do what we do. We have an adaptation level that is our reference point for whether and how much something becomes a gain or loss for us. We come out as more adverse to loss then the risk to gain.[8] We are more emotional and desire certainty more than the rationality of the utility principle implies. The experiencing self and the remembering self may have different ideas of preferences and interests making for irrationality of choice[9]. Again, we see the inconsistency in our agency to choose. We remember the intense moments and the feelings connected to it, but not necessarily the linear facts, making us quite irrational in our behavior and desires[10]. I hope that we have more agency and choice than being products of our evolutionary history.
After several of the readings on leadership I find myself longing for a read on the heart and passion of leadership. This book speaks to the inner self, but in context of economics. I care more about leadership that transforms lives as the goal of an organization then I do about the goal of a corporation for more efficiently run systems and making money. Though the principles of leadership and how we think and behave may be affective in all settings, I am losing the passion of why I lead. I get stuck in my head and find myself longing for inspiration.
[1] Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2013
[2] Kahneman 20
[3] Kahneman 44
[4] Kahneman 41
[5]Kahneman 53
[6] Kahneman 209-210
[7] Sapolsky, Robert M., Behave: The Biology of Humans At Our Best and Worst. Penguin Press, 2017.
[8] Kahneman 282-283
[9] Kahneman 384
[10] Kahneman 385
About the Author
Jess Bashioum
6 responses to “Slow Thoughts on Free Will and Choice”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s great to hear your heart and passion for people come through in your writing, Jess! I read a great book on the soul of leadership recently that I’ll drop here if you’re looking for something different: https://www.amazon.com/Strengthening-Soul-Your-Leadership-Transforming/dp/083084645X
I think we sometimes get two different questions mixed up when we think about free will. The question of whether or not a God who transcends time knows what is going to happen within time seems to be one issue – one that I personally think is a logical straw man (if he transcends time, the question is meaningless).
Whether or not we created beings decide our own choices within that is a different question. I would say that there is a vast difference between atheistic thinking and theistic thinking on this topic though. Any worldview that has dismissed the possibility of a creator has already accepted some assumptions about purpose (usually that there is none), so I’m skeptical of mixing that with any other worldview (most religions) that posits that there is a creator and purpose. They just can’t logically work together.
For me the existential proof that refutes evolutionary determinism is pretty strong: people choose to take actions that run contrary to their first instincts on a regular basis. I think that this highlights the validity of the Christian worldview: that you gain your life by losing it, and to prove the point, God went first.
Thank you for the book recommendation. I liked other books by Ruth Haley Burton, so I’m excited to read this one.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Your last line really stood out to me. The uniqueness of our faith is that it calls us to lay down our life. It is the example of our God who took on physical flesh yet remained God. In my thinking about choice, I must remember to not try to separate the integrated spirit and flesh. These two things cannot be separated because they make up who humans are, in the image of God. Thanks for the reminder. God’s sovereignty and his togetherness with us leaves us to choose the path to the new heaven and earth that will perfectly unit the physical and spiritual.
Thank you Jess for this Jess. I loved reading the depth of reflection and I feel like a cup of tea is required to ponder on your content because it is so rich. Maybe I need to drink tea to properly think because I’m British!
One of the few things I do have a clear response to, unlike the rest of your content which I need to re read and ponder on further, is Dr Dan Siegels Upstairs and Downstairs brain concept. I also saw the comparison in the book, except Siegel specifically uses the language around ‘thinking brain’ and ‘feeling brain’ and explains that as a neuroscientist he hates his own use of the terms! So I think that rather than it being more of a divide between the instinctive and reflective parts of our brain as Kahneman seems to imply, Siegel is helping humans understand how powerful our feelings can be to override our thinking, rational and reflective reactions. That’s close but not quite the same. What do you think?
That is so helpful for my understanding. I couldn’t even remember who wrote about this upstairs and downstairs brain and thought of emailing you to ask if I had this right.
That makes sense to me, it is the strong emotions that can take over the rational thinking.
Thanks!
Dear Jess, Thank you for your post. I grew from reading your post, and like Betsy said, I will need a cup of tea to ponder your thoughts. Such rich and wonderful thoughtfulness that I’ve read. Like you, I care more for the transformation of hearts, and I’m wondering what has inspired you the most historically in your leadership? Sometimes, I ponder the heart of my call and the experiences that have launched me into the trajectory of my call. I’m curious to hear about what’s inspired you the most?
Jess,
I have really enjoyed and appreciate your posts, they provide a fresh and thought-provoking perspective on the topics we’re studying. Your ability to connect ideas from fields like psychology and theology spark a meaningful discussion that made me reflect on my own choices and sense of personal control. I also really connected with your desire for leadership that is driven by heart and passion, as it offers a welcome change from the usual, more mechanical view of leadership.