One of our great behavioral scientists, the bestselling author of Behave, plumbs the depths of the science and philosophy of decision-making to mount a devastating case against free will, an argument with profound consequences Robert Sapolsky's Behave, his now classic account of why humans do good and why they do bad, pointed toward an unsettling conclusion: We may not grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture that creates the physics and chemistry at the base of human behavior, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, in Determined, Sapolsky takes his argument all the way, mounting a brilliant (and in his inimitable way, delightful) full-frontal assault on the pleasant fantasy that there is some separate self telling our biology what to do. Determined offers a marvelous synthesis of what we know about how consciousness works-the tight weave between reason and emotion and between stimulus and response in the moment …
One of our great behavioral scientists, the bestselling author of Behave, plumbs the depths of the science and philosophy of decision-making to mount a devastating case against free will, an argument with profound consequences Robert Sapolsky's Behave, his now classic account of why humans do good and why they do bad, pointed toward an unsettling conclusion: We may not grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture that creates the physics and chemistry at the base of human behavior, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, in Determined, Sapolsky takes his argument all the way, mounting a brilliant (and in his inimitable way, delightful) full-frontal assault on the pleasant fantasy that there is some separate self telling our biology what to do. Determined offers a marvelous synthesis of what we know about how consciousness works-the tight weave between reason and emotion and between stimulus and response in the moment and over a life. One by one, Sapolsky tackles all the major arguments for free will and takes them out, cutting a path through the thickets of chaos and complexity science and quantum physics, as well as touching ground on some of the wilder shores of philosophy. He shows us that the history of medicine is in no small part the history of learning that fewer and fewer things are somebody's "fault"; for example, for centuries we thought seizures were a sign of demonic possession. Yet, as he acknowledges, it's very hard, and at times impossible, to uncouple from our zeal to judge others and to judge ourselves. Sapolsky applies the new understanding of life beyond free will to some of our most essential questions around punishment, morality, and living well together. By the end, Sapolsky argues that while living our daily lives recognizing that we have no free will is going to be monumentally difficult, doing so is not going to result in anarchy, pointlessness, and existential malaise. Instead, it will make for a much more humane world.
Lighter and more liberally uplifting than I expected, though not all strong, the late chapters on the shifts in society as we ceased to treat schizophrenia, epilepsy, etc as personal moral failings stand out. From mostly neuroscience cases and psych experiments lens pushes at any gaps for spontaneous decision making separable from our histories of a second, an hour, a year, a millennium. Then moves into implications for society, primarily our societal morality and justice system's injustices built on individual responsibility.
Pitched as an exploration of whether free will exists and what to do about it if it doesn't, but really a broader neuroscience review about the genetic and environmental influences on behavior. I deeply enjoy Sapolsky, who is accessible, funny and opinionated (and uses musicals for examples!) but I think some of his conclusions were a little over-argued without truly discussing what does "free will" mean and can we have a sense of self while also having a high degree of biological determinism? He agrees that environment influences behavior extensively, but in the discussion about how we mete out justice, he doesn't really follow through with that to the obvious conclusion that we should identify environmental factors that will more positively shape behavior and then do those things, for example. Some of the digressions through chaos theory feel not very on-topic and Sapolsky admits he isn't an expert in this …
Pitched as an exploration of whether free will exists and what to do about it if it doesn't, but really a broader neuroscience review about the genetic and environmental influences on behavior. I deeply enjoy Sapolsky, who is accessible, funny and opinionated (and uses musicals for examples!) but I think some of his conclusions were a little over-argued without truly discussing what does "free will" mean and can we have a sense of self while also having a high degree of biological determinism? He agrees that environment influences behavior extensively, but in the discussion about how we mete out justice, he doesn't really follow through with that to the obvious conclusion that we should identify environmental factors that will more positively shape behavior and then do those things, for example. Some of the digressions through chaos theory feel not very on-topic and Sapolsky admits he isn't an expert in this topic.
Still, an amazing book, especially first third with heavy incorporation of modern neuroscience research, including neuroendocrinology, where Sapolsky particularly shines.
