PDF Summary:Determined, by Robert Sapolsky

Scientists, philosophers, and theologians have spent millennia debating the existence of free will. In Determined, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky says that decades of research have led him to two conclusions: First, people do not have free will; and second, accepting this fact will empower us to create a better world for everyone.

This guide will begin by explaining determinism, the theory that every event is predetermined. We’ll then briefly discuss various scientific fields like chaos theory and quantum mechanics; for each, we’ll explain why some people believe that field proves the existence of free will and outline Sapolsky’s rebuttals. Finally, we’ll explore Sapolsky’s argument that determinism compels us to create a fairer, kinder world.

Our commentary will provide background information about human behavior from biology and neuroscience. We’ll also compare and contrast Sapolsky’s theories with ideas about the human will from philosophy and religion. Finally, we’ll suggest some alternate ways to think about Sapolsky’s findings—for instance, even if our choices are predetermined, couldn’t we still say they’re our choices?

(continued)...

In Antifragile, risk analyst Nassim Nicholas Taleb says that most predictions—especially those involving complex systems like financial markets or socio-political events—are inherently unreliable. This is because people tend to underestimate the effects of randomness and, therefore, overestimate their ability to predict future events based on past data. (Although Taleb uses the term “randomness,” his suggestions are equally valid whether events are truly undetermined or merely unpredictable.)

Therefore, instead of relying on dubious predictions, Taleb urges you to maximize your optionality: In other words, make sure you always have as many options open as possible. This way, instead of getting tripped up when events don’t play out the way you predicted, you can pick the best possible course of action based on whatever does happen—you’ll be able to minimize the harm from negative events and maximize the benefits from positive ones.

For example, one way to keep your options open is to avoid spending money until absolutely necessary. Once you’ve chosen something to spend money on, you’re no longer able to spend that money on anything else, meaning that you’ve reduced your options. So, if you just finished getting your car inspected, you might predict that nothing will go wrong with it in the near future, and spend money that you were saving in case it needed repairs. However, if something does then go wrong with the car (however unlikely that is), you’ll no longer have the money you need to fix it.

Theory #3: Emergent Complexity

The next concept Sapolsky discusses is emergent complexity: the idea that complex behaviors or properties can arise from the interactions between relatively simple things. For example, no single neuron has the ability to store information—however, when a lot of neurons communicate with each other in certain ways, we gain the ability to learn and remember things. Some people argue that, like memory, free will must be an emergent property of the brain.

Sapolsky’s argument against this theory is that emergent properties are often unexpected, but never impossible. Brain cells can’t simply activate themselves without any stimulus, meaning they can’t create thoughts and decisions that are free of external influences.

(Shortform note: Whether or not this argument holds up depends largely on how you define free will. Neurologists say that thought—which includes the ability to solve problems and make decisions—is an emergent property, made possible by various sections of the brain communicating with each other. The next question, then, is whether free will is an inherent part of thought, and therefore an emergent property of the brain. Trying to answer that brings us back to some fundamental questions of deterministic human behavior: Do the various factors influencing our thoughts make it so that only one decision is possible in any given situation? Alternatively, as we asked in earlier commentary, should predetermined decisions still be considered decisions?)

Theory #4: Quantum Indeterminacy

So far we’ve been discussing the behavior of objects that are relatively large by the standards of physics. For this final theory, Sapolsky delves into subatomic particles like electrons and quarks, which—for reasons that even the world’s top physicists don’t yet understand—behave according to completely different rules from larger objects. Some people believe that those rules, collectively called quantum mechanics, make free will possible.

Most relevant to this discussion is the principle of quantum indeterminacy, which states that a subatomic particle’s behavior at any given moment is not the result of what happened the moment before. Scientists have observed this in numerous experiments with subatomic particles; identical starting conditions can produce different results, which overturns a fundamental point of determinism.

Therefore, it seems that subatomic particles aren’t bound by the same deterministic laws that larger objects are. So, the argument goes, could it be said that those particles are choosing how to behave? And doesn’t that suggest that people—who are, after all, made of such subatomic particles—might be able to do the same?

(Shortform note: Quantum indeterminacy is closely related to what’s commonly known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This principle states that at the quantum level, there are certain pairs of properties that can’t be known simultaneously. The classic example is that it’s impossible to know both the speed and the location of an electron. This is because these subatomic particles also have properties of waves, which don’t exist at one fixed location; by definition, a wave cannot be a single point. It’s crucial to note that this uncertainty isn’t a failure of measurements or calculations, but rather a reflection of the fact that—due to their dual nature as both particles and waves—electrons don’t have fixed speeds and positions. In other words, their behavior is indeterminate.)

Arguments Against Free Will Via Quantum Indeterminacy

As with the other theories we’ve discussed, Sapolsky has several arguments against the idea that quantum indeterminacy makes free will possible.

The first flaw in this theory is right in the name: The particles’ behavior is indeterminate. This means their actions aren’t being controlled (which is to say, determined) by any other force, including the force of will. So, even if quantum mechanics do allow for multiple courses of action arising from the same starting point, it still wouldn’t be you choosing which course to take.

This brings us to the second problem: Quantum indeterminacy is random. Scientists know this because while they can’t predict exactly how subatomic particles will behave, in some experiments they’ve been able to predict how likely each possible outcome is. Therefore, if your free will were fueled by quantum indeterminacy then your actions would also be random, and that’s obviously not the case.

To illustrate the point, you can compare the randomness of subatomic particles to the randomness of rolling dice. For instance, if you roll two six-sided dice, there’s no way of predicting exactly what total you’ll get—but you can calculate the odds of each result fairly easily. However, human behavior is much too focused and purposeful to be the result of subatomic dice rolls.

Finally, Sapolsky explains that quantum indeterminacy cancels itself out on the macroscopic scale (anything big enough to see with the naked eye). This is because there are an incredible number of indeterminate quantum events happening at any given time, so they all average out; for each particle that randomly moves, another particle randomly moves in the opposite direction, and the net impact of those movements becomes zero. It’s incredibly unlikely that enough particles would randomly behave the same way to influence even a single one of your neurons, never mind controlling your entire brain for your whole life.

How Computers Benefit From Quantum Mechanics

It’s unlikely that quantum indeterminacy has any effect on human thought. However, some modern computers do take advantage of quantum mechanics to “think” much more quickly than traditional computers can. The uncertainty principle—which gives rise to quantum indeterminacy—means that these quantum computers can calculate many different possibilities at the same time. This is possible because quantum computers use a different basic unit of information than traditional computers do.

A traditional computer runs calculations using bits that can only exist in one of two states at any given time; we might call these states A and B. So, to determine all possible outcomes of a complex situation, this computer would have to set the relevant bits to A and calculate the result, then flip one bit to B and recalculate, and so on.

Quantum computers, on the other hand, use qubits that can exist as both A and B at the same time. Therefore, instead of needing to run separate calculations for each possibility, such a computer can calculate all possibilities simultaneously and then determine which possibilities have the best odds of being correct. This allows a quantum computer to process exponentially more information than a traditional computer could and to do so in a fraction of the time.

Implications of a World Without Free Will

Now that we’ve reviewed Sapolsky’s arguments against the possibility of free will, we’ll discuss why this issue matters. There are enormous psychological and societal implications to a universe without free will, but the author argues that embracing determinism would be largely positive for society.

We’ll begin this section by explaining what it would be like to live in a world where people aren’t praised or rewarded for their achievements (because those achievements weren’t the result of their decisions). Next, we’ll examine the implications of a world where people aren’t blamed or punished for their actions. Finally, we’ll discuss why Sapolsky believes that such a world would be fairer and kinder than our current individualistic society.

Implication #1: No Praise or Rewards

As we’ve already discussed at length, if free will doesn’t exist, then by definition people aren’t responsible for their own actions. Sapolsky says that if we follow that line of thought to its conclusion, it suggests that people shouldn’t be praised or rewarded for the things they accomplish. However, he also recognizes that this goes against human nature in several crucial ways:

1) It goes against our natural drive to compete. This doesn’t just mean our drive to prove that we’re better than our peers, but also our ancient drive to compete for resources. Why do anything if we won’t be rewarded for it? For instance, why enter a competition if there’s no trophy to win? Why go to work if we won’t get paid? Again, what’s the point of doing anything?

(Shortform note: The anticipation of getting something you want—whether it’s a paycheck, an award, or just the satisfaction of reaching a personal goal—is one of the most powerful motivators in human psychology. As psychiatrist Daniel Lieberman and educator Michael Long explain in The Molecule of More, this is because of a chemical called dopamine. Your brain releases dopamine when you’re expecting a reward for doing something, which motivates you to go and do that thing. Therefore, if there’s no expectation of a reward, you’re unlikely to have that dopamine rush driving you to work hard; the lack of dopamine would create the feelings of pointlessness that Sapolsky discusses here.)

2) It goes against our natural desire for recognition. We want our efforts to be recognized and our accomplishments to be praised. If nobody’s going to be proud of us—including ourselves—then what’s the point of achieving anything?

(Shortform note: To illustrate just how strongly some people feel about the need for recognition, some free will skeptics have talked about abusive and threatening emails they’ve received. For example, philosophy professor Galen Strawson had to go to the police after receiving several threatening messages from somebody who was enraged over Strawson’s claim that people aren’t responsible for their own achievements. In their first email, the sender specifically accused Strawson of trivializing everything that any of his loved ones had ever accomplished.)

3) It goes against our natural need for control. We like to believe, and centuries’ worth of culture have taught us, that we can take control of our lives through discipline and hard work. Therefore, we naturally resist the idea that we’re not in control and never can be. It’s hard to accept that all of our hard work and everything we’ve achieved are just our winnings from some cosmic lottery.

(Shortform note: Mental health experts say that control over one’s life—or more accurately, having a feeling of control—is an important part of overall well-being. Someone who doesn’t feel like they’re in control is likely to become stressed and anxious, or alternatively to develop feelings of helplessness and depression. Furthermore, numerous studies suggest that this tendency is hardwired into our genes. This suggests that we have an inherent need to feel control over our lives, in much the same way that we have an inherent need to feel love and a sense of belonging.)

The Point: The Common Good

As you’ve just seen, a common concern about a deterministic world is that there seems to be no point to doing anything, since you won’t get recognition or rewards for what you accomplish. In response, Sapolsky offers two reasons why your efforts would still be worthwhile: a selfish motivation and a selfless one.

From a selfish perspective, anything that improves the world around you will also make your own life better. For example, working to keep your neighborhood clean would improve your quality of life, even if nobody personally thanks you for it.

(Shortform note: Stoic philosophy presents another way that making the world better also makes your own life better: In Meditations, Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius says that working for the common good is the only way to live a happy and fulfilling life. Aurelius’s reasoning is that in order to feel fulfilled, you must have a consistent goal and spend your life working toward that goal. However, people are naturally inconsistent; your personal desires and goals will change frequently. Therefore, any fulfilling goal must be for the good of all, rather than directed toward your ever-changing personal interests.)

From a selfless perspective, Sapolsky argues that if you’re concerned about praise and rewards in the first place, then you’re almost certainly coming from a position of relative privilege. This is because people who have to scrabble for basic necessities like food and shelter don’t have the luxury of worrying about such things.

Therefore, the author urges you to improve the world not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of people who are less fortunate than you.

(Shortform note: In The Selfish Gene, biologist Richard Dawkins discusses selfish and selfless behaviors in nature. Dawkins uses game theory to predict the outcomes of various behavioral patterns in a hypothetical animal species and concludes that the best possible outcome happens when all members of that species act selflessly. This means that the animal population would grow to its maximum possible size, with all members having access to the resources they need to thrive. Sapolsky is making a similar argument here, saying that selfless actions will create the best possible outcomes for humanity as a whole.)

Implication #2: No Blame or Punishment

While many people won’t want to give up on getting rewarded for what they do, Sapolsky says that the opposite side of this issue (giving up on blaming and punishing people for wrongdoing) will also spark fierce resistance. One major reason people will cling to the idea of accountability is that human brains are hardwired to search for answers. This is to say, we naturally want to know why something happened and what we should do about it.

(Shortform note: The human instinct to seek out patterns and solutions has been a crucial survival strategy throughout history. The ability to recognize patterns (like which plants were poisonous, which animals were most aggressive, and the signs of inclement weather) allowed our ancestors to recognize danger and avoid it. This pattern recognition also helped them to devise solutions to problems, such as creating better tools for hunting and building shelters for themselves. Therefore, the twin drives to analyze and problem-solve are deeply ingrained in human nature.)

Unfortunately, we also tend to look for answers that are simple and satisfying. So, when something bad happens, we start asking simple questions: who’s to blame (why it happened) and how we should punish them (what we’re going to do about it). Compounding this issue is the fact that, in many cases, it seems obvious that a person is responsible for what happened, and seeing them punished satisfies our sense of justice.

For example, if your car is stopped at a red light and someone rear-ends you, of course you’re going to want to blame that other driver for the accident and demand that they pay for any damages. Determinism says that the crash was the inevitable result of myriad different factors, and therefore the other driver isn’t responsible. Unfortunately, that answer is both complicated and unsatisfying, so your mind is likely to resist it.

(Shortform note: Just like our tendency to seek out solutions in the first place, our attraction to simple answers goes back to our ancient ancestors. As historian Yuval Noah Harari explains in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, prehistoric humans lived in small, relatively isolated tribes. This means that we’ve evolved to understand simple and small-scale problems, like conflicts between people or between tribes; we still struggle to grasp large, complex issues. Therefore, people tend to take mental shortcuts, like labeling someone as “bad” and assigning blame to that person, rather than trying to comprehend the countless things that influenced their actions.)

With all of this said, Sapolsky gives a partial counterpoint to himself: Rewards and punishments would still make sense to the extent that they can influence people’s behavior. For instance, if you punish a child for breaking something, that child will probably be more careful in the future—it isn’t fair, but it’s effective nonetheless.

Punishing Bad Behavior Makes Good Behavior Possible

Recall our earlier commentary about universally selfless behavior leading to the best possible outcomes for a species. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) goes on to say that while this strategy is best in theory, it’s not actually practical. The most stable strategy is retaliation: This means acting selflessly by default, but turning aggressive toward individuals who show selfish behavior—in other words, punishing them.

Retaliation is necessary because in a truly selfless population, the rare selfish individuals would take advantage of the majority; they’d hoard far too many resources for themselves while not contributing anything back. Therefore, applying this same principle to human behavior, a deterministic society would still have to punish selfish people in order to show that such behavior won’t be advantageous.

Corollary: A Rehabilitation-Focused Mindset

One major concern about a world without free will is that it would be a world without accountability. After all, if criminals’ actions aren’t their own fault, then don’t we have to simply let them go free to commit more crimes? However, Sapolsky argues that’s only true if the purpose of the legal system is to punish criminals. Instead, he says, its purpose should be to protect society and work for the common good.

With that shift in mindset it would still be possible to imprison criminals because doing so protects other people and upholds order in society—there’s no need to believe that people choose to commit crimes and should be punished for it. However, Sapolsky adds that the focus of imprisonment would have to change from punishment to rehabilitation: giving people the skills, resources, and (if necessary) treatment to do better after they’re released.

As before, drawing a parallel to computers can help to illustrate this point. When a programmer realizes that their program isn’t acting the way it was intended to, they simply patch the code to eliminate that problem. Rehabilitation is like a software patch for people.

On the other hand, it would be absurd for a programmer to just put a glitchy program into a locked folder and hope it decides to change its behavior. Such an approach could never work because the problem is in the software’s programming, not its “choices.” And yet, that’s exactly what the legal system does by imprisoning people.

The Data Is Clear: Rehabilitation Works

We can support Sapolsky’s ideas here with real-world data: Studies have almost universally found that rehabilitation programs lead to much lower recidivism rates than punitive imprisonment. In fact, some studies have found that punishment-focused approaches could be counterproductive and actually increase people's chances of reoffending.

The idea behind punishment is that it provides an incentive for people to make better choices in order to avoid future consequences. However, if free will doesn't exist, then the concept of "choice" becomes a moot point. Furthermore, many people turn to crime because they believe they have no other option; it’s the only way for them to survive in the face of poverty, lack of education, and limited opportunities. This means that even if their actions weren’t predetermined since the beginning of time, those actions were predetermined by their personal situations.

Therefore, while we might never know if Sapolsky’s reasoning about free will is correct, his conclusions are certainly supported by data: Treating criminals as if they had no choice in their actions, and providing them with the skills and resources to do better in the future, is a much more effective approach than just punishing them.

Implication #3: A Kinder, Fairer Society

Finally, Sapolsky argues that—if we accept that free will doesn’t exist and we accept the implication that people can’t be held accountable—the rational conclusion is that we must create a more equitable society. This is because determinism eliminates the question of what people “deserve.”

The author reasons that if people’s lives are predetermined, then pure chance is the only difference between the richest person on Earth and a homeless person; it all comes down to who each person happened to be born as. Therefore, the wealthy don’t deserve their success and the poor don’t deserve their hardship, meaning that the inequality in the world today is monstrously unjust. Accepting that people aren’t responsible for their own situations also means accepting that we should correct this imbalance as much as possible.

Counterpoint: Determinism’s Social Implications Are Open to Interpretation

Sapolsky’s argument for equality is one way to apply deterministic principles to society, but one could also draw some less idealistic conclusions. One possible argument is that determinism logically leads to Social Darwinism: a sociological theory stating that the “fittest” people and cultures will naturally thrive, while “weaker” people and cultures are doomed to poverty, oppression, or extinction.

Someone who follows Social Darwinism or similar theories could argue that it’s predetermined for the strongest, smartest, and most motivated people to become rich, while those who are less fit for society get outcompeted. Furthermore, a Social Darwinist would argue that this is a good thing, because it ensures that the “best” people survive to pass on their genes and ideologies, thereby strengthening the human race as a whole.

Although Social Darwinism largely fell out of favor after World War II—both because it’s scientifically unsound and because it played a major role in justifying Nazi Germany’s eugenics programs—echoes of it persist in racist discourse and free-market ideology (“strong” businesses must be allowed to succeed while “weak” businesses fail).

Why Determinism Demands Kindness and Understanding

Sapolsky points out that determinism has major implications for how we treat each other on a personal level, not just a societal one. It means accepting that even people who seem detestable don’t deserve to be treated badly, and we should therefore meet everyone with as much kindness and understanding as we can muster.

(Shortform note: Extending kindness and understanding toward people we despise is difficult, and it often feels wrong—almost by definition, we don’t want to be kind to the people we hate. In Radical Acceptance, psychologist Tara Brach says that we can start overcoming that obstacle through the Buddhist practice of metta (lovingkindness). Brach explains that this meditative process begins with yourself: reflecting on your goodness and wishing for personal peace and happiness. Your well wishes then expand to include loved ones, then other people you’re close to, then acquaintances, and finally strangers; eventually, you’ll feel love and compassion for the whole world, even for people who used to stir feelings of anger and disgust.)

For instance, we’d have to recognize that abusive spouses aren’t at fault for the conditioning or psychological disorders that lead them to believe their actions are acceptable. However, as we discussed before, understanding that people aren’t in control of their actions doesn’t mean letting them go unchecked—anyone who’s a danger to others would need to be arrested and rehabilitated to protect the common good. However, accepting determinism does mean letting go of satisfying urges like hatred and the desire to see “bad” people suffer.

Sapolsky points out that this goal may not be as impossible as it seems. Civilization has already made large strides toward humane treatment for criminals and outcasts. For instance, public torture and execution are no longer accepted forms of punishment in most cultures, and people are generally still satisfied as long as they know that criminals are going to prison. Therefore, it’s reasonable to think that the public can also adjust to the idea of “bad” people going to places that can help them instead of punishing them.

(Shortform note: Psychologists often describe anger as a secondary emotion, meaning that it arises in response to other feelings, one of which is fear. This helps to explain why people throughout history have learned to be satisfied with less severe, less public punishments for criminals—as long as the people feel safe, they can generally move past their anger and their urge to watch criminals suffer. It logically follows that as long as the general public feels like they’re being protected from dangerous people, most of them (though certainly not all) can overcome the need to know that criminals are being punished. Therefore, broadly speaking, people can learn to accept a system that focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment.)

Conclusion: Act “As If”

Sapolsky concludes by saying that, while all available evidence suggests people’s actions are predetermined, it’s impossible to know for sure. However, he argues that it would be best for people to assume that free will doesn’t exist. This is not only because there’s no evidence for the existence of free will, but also because of all the ways that such a worldview would improve society, as we discussed before.

(Shortform note: After spending an entire book arguing in favor of strict determinism, it might seem strange for Sapolsky to now admit that his theory could be wrong. However, as physicist David Deutsch explains in The Beginning of Infinity, a crucial part of scientific advancement is recognizing that even very strongly supported theories could still be proven wrong. Ideas that laypeople generally accept as scientific “facts”—evolution, for example—are really just theories that people have consistently failed to disprove. Scientists must therefore keep open minds, because it’s always possible that something we’ve believed to be true for centuries could be overturned by some piece of evidence that theory can’t explain.)

Sapolsky adds that this puts him in a similar position to many philosophers throughout history; they, like him, usually ended up admitting that it’s impossible to prove whether or not people have free will. However, unlike him, most of those philosophers believed it would be better for people’s mental and emotional health to assume that free will exists, so they concluded that it’s rational to keep believing in it.

If the human race has spent millennia believing in free will without any proof, Sapolsky argues, then we don’t need conclusive proof to overturn that belief, especially when doing so would have so many benefits. Therefore—even if the evidence and logic he’s presented throughout Determined haven't fully convinced you—he urges you to act as if the absence of free will is a proven fact and adjust your worldview accordingly.

(Shortform note: Having presented all the evidence and logical arguments he has to support his theory of hard determinism, Sapolsky’s final point now reverses the burden of proof. Sapolsky, having claimed that free will doesn’t exist, would be expected to bring extraordinary evidence to back up that claim (as he’s done throughout Determined). However, now he’s arguing that the idea of free will itself lacks evidence, and therefore the burden of proof shouldn’t fall entirely on him. In short, this final section could also be read as Sapolsky implying that while he can’t completely prove his position, he’s at least done a better job than his opponents have done proving the existence of free will.)