‘Determined’ book review: A convincing and enjoyable account of non-existence of free-will

Robert Sapolsky rose to prominence following the publication and success of his book, “Behave,” which probes in microscopic detail, “The biology of humans at our best and worst.” It is a long book tackling issues of great complexity and challenge. If anything, the latest book, “Determined,” dives into the issue of even greater depth, and after going through scientifically informed analysis, concludes that there is no free will. Like the physical world outside, the internal world of living beings with their thoughts and actions is wholly deterministic and hence no responsibility for any act can logically be placed on the actor. This conclusion is loaded with implications that are counterintuitive and controversial. Hating someone who has murdered people ruthlessly and calling for revenge is as undeserved as praising someone for the deeds of protecting the lives of many. Hate and praise assumes that the person has consciously chosen to do the act and could have chosen otherwise. The book attempts to prove that such a view is indefensible when the findings of different scientific disciplines are put together and logically analyzed.

The book starts by looking into the immediate neurological cause of any behavior that anyone engages in, occurring seconds before the act. Any act is preceded by the activities of neurons in the brain that causes thoughts, emotions or movement of body parts. But that neuronal activity is preceded by the activity of other neurons and then those by others and so on. Besides, there is also interaction with the immediate environment including response to various stimuli that can influence one’s behavior. At the time of engaging in any act, we perceive being in control of our physical movement and thus our actions feel like having been carried out with intentionality. Even if that were true, the main question to be asked in determining whether free will exists is, “Where the intention comes from?” Sapolsky argues that what can be intended is already restricted and is out of control of the agent as a result of a combination of factors long before the moment of choice. As the famous saying goes, “You may do as you will but you cannot do what you will.”

Moving a little back, hours to days before the action, hormones coursing through the body impacts the excitability of the neurons, making one or other action more or less likely. For example, if there was above average flow of testosterone in the body of any person some hours back due to some physical exertion, it could increase the likelihood of her/his engaging in some aggressive act. But even the impact of hormones varies widely across different persons. It depends on the life experiences the person has gone through including childhood, her/his genetic makeup and culture that the person was raised in. 

The frontal cortex, the brain’s outermost region, considered the seat of rationality, impulse control and gratification postponement, continues its development even after other brain regions have more or less set in their way. So, the experience of adolescence and early adulthood is of great importance for shaping this region and guiding major human behaviors affected by it. Of even greater significance is the experience of childhood, when most of the neuronal connections and brain regions are being actively shaped. Say, someone has deep childhood trauma due to being physically abused or growing in uncertainty riddled poverty. His amygdala, a brain region related to fear, is likely to be larger in size and hyperactive for life and the frontal cortex becomes less capable in restricting impulsive behavior. During adulthood, while moving through a dark aisle, he happens to mistake a harmless passerby, who is getting his hands out of pocket, for an attacker intent on harming him, and in an instinctive self-defense, attacks the person. How free was he and how reasonable is it to blame or worse, hate, him for the attack? Sapolsky views his behavior to be equivalent to that of a car with damaged brakes hitting a passenger. 

There is a popular contrary view that asserts that anyone is dealt with by the lack of genes, culture, upbringing, mishaps of life are out of one’s control, but how she responds to it is where the free will is expressed. However, the book describes this as a dangerous myth. Ability to resist stress, temptations, move on despite suffering and whatever else is implied by willpower is ultimately the result of the brain’s functioning, mostly of the prefrontal cortex. It is thus determined by the factors mentioned above which is the interaction of biology and environment. Both of those are outside the control of the person. Dogmatic belief in the myth of willpower leads to creating unnecessary suffering like by blaming a dyslexic child with inherent inability to read and write for not applying herself in her study or accusing incompetent mothering for developing schizophrenic child.

At extremes like childhood abuse, genetic illness, etc. the lack of free will is relatively easier to appreciate and most of us would not blame someone for being born blind. However, the main object of the book is to show that everything is deterministic, be it the mundane day to day choices that we don’t even care about or the things people do that we feel we would never have done. In fact, as an example, if any of us had been born with Hitler’s gene, in the same womb that he inhabited and had exactly the same childhood and life experience he did, we would have done exactly what he did. Such extreme hypothetical circumstances with mind-numbing implication may be hard to accept but it is what Sapolsky means when he says that the world is deterministic leaving no room for free will to exist. And with that there is no reason to assign responsibility, even for genocide.

Sapolsky ends the book concluding that the fear of personal morality declining and society being uninhabitable in the absence of free will is misplaced. As a proof in form of analogy, he points to the scientifically informed fact that diminishment in religiosity and faith in god has not increased anti-social behavior.

I would highly recommend this mind enriching book which weighs in on a serious issue of great personal and social consequence in a deeply thoughtful and thoroughly enjoyable manner.