Reevaluating the Concept of Free Will

Facts and figures often fail to convince someone on the opposing side. The persistence of misinformation and differing perspectives has led to an increasingly polarized society. Americans are creating divides amongst themselves faster than other nations, which threatens national security and well-being.

As a scientist who engages in public outreach, I frequently encounter skeptics of topics like climate change, vaccines, and evolution. My responses used to be counterattacks, drawing on an arsenal of facts and figures. However, this strategy often fails, especially on topics that have become politically charged.

The Illusion of Free Will

No one forms their beliefs in a vacuum. Invisible forces beyond our control shape personality, behavior, and beliefs. We don’t pick our genes. We had no say in our prenatal or childhood environment. We do not choose the culture, religion, or ideology that gets etched into our psyche during our formative years.

Neurobiologists have established that subconscious brain activity occurs before we are conscious of our intention to perform simple tasks. Even when we consciously deliberate on a decision, we have no control over the thoughts that bubble up from the dark cauldron of our subconscious. Furthermore, the judgment we cast upon each of those thoughts is anchored by a causal chain of prior events.

As it is now generally agreed that biological and environmental forces greatly constrain beliefs and behavior, admonishing someone for being willfully ignorant feels like a hypocritical copout. Instead, we should embrace our lack of agency to engender more fruitful interactions with people who believe and do things that bewilder us.

Rejecting Agency Resets Your Relationship

Imagine you’re having an uncomfortable encounter with someone who doesn’t see things your way. You can marshal evidence and masterfully rebut every dubious claim, but these approaches are shockingly ineffective because we view reality through different lenses. A lifetime of unique experiences dictates who we trust and what we perceive as factual.

The 2015 dress meme demonstrates how people can view the same image differently. Whether someone sees the dress as blue and black or white and gold depends on how their visual system unconsciously perceives the lighting, a physiological property beyond our command. If you could see the dress through another person’s eyes, you would agree with the colors they see.

It’s the same for worldviews. What we believe to be reality has been filtered through a lens we had no hand in grinding. When confronted with opposition, remember that if you had their genes and life experiences, you would see the world as they do. They cannot help who they are any more than you can help who you are.

Changing the Objective of the Conversation

When you ask nonjudgmental questions with a genuine desire to learn rather than contest, you gain an appreciation of other perspectives. You’re also prompting them to inspect their own lens, potentially leading them to see the smudges and cracks in their vision of the world without being confrontational.

Sharing your different life stories makes for a more interesting conversation than the predictable exchange of dogmatic talking points that defend our respective positions. An individual’s personal history is fascinating, and the story underlying their worldview may surprise you.

This is why it is crucial to have a congenial conversation that uncovers things you have in common. Seize upon those similarities. They lighten the weight of the differences. They are planks that build a bridge connecting your worlds.