You read this article title and chose to read of your own valition (unless of course someone forced you two - if so I wish you the best of luck). Your free will lead you here - or did it? Your genes, biology, culture, and environment affect the choices you can make and how you make them. Consider how genes and biology could give you mental or physical illnesses which prevent the ability to understand this article. If the culture lacks free speech maybe this article is censored, or geography prevents internet access. If these alter your choices, then your "free will" really isn't free.
Language itself alters the choices we make. If the language has no words for a concept then the concept itself might be impossible to imagine. Even if phrasing for a concept exists, by altering how words are said it's possible to change how we interpret things. In class a simple experiment was performed in which two readings were presented which the readers were told were two opposing views of immigration issues. Students were then asked how their viewed the articles and then revealed that it was a relatively neutral article. Students perception and previous bias affected how they initially read and heard the arguments. Simply put people put purpose in others words and change their meaning especially if phrased correctly.
A strong case study for both cognitive dissonance and bias can be found in an examination of political speeches by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton during the 2016 election. Students listened and recorded statements in which either candidate referenced an in-group ("us") or out-group ("them"). The results were interesting in which Trump made a large amount of ingroup references next to accomplishments while also making sure to reference opponents as an out-group. Hilary on the hand talked very little of outgroup. This data is not available at the time of this writing for the whole class, however personal data can be found in results. While it is sure too large an inference to assume that's the sole reason for the election results, having a designated enemy and positive reinforcement to change thoughts could be an influence.
Some arguments believe that more choices are always better. More choices is "freedom" and "freedom is good!" as more individualistic philosophies might proclaim. Human nature, contrarily, seems to seek limited choices. Paradoxical better outcomes can be associated with fewer or switched around choices. For example, when given the choice to "opt-in" to a retirement fund, only around 65 percent will choose so while when instead forced to "opt-out" it rises to around 98 percent (Henderson, 2014). While the benifits far outweight the negatives of joining a retirement plan, human beings are not perfect logical brings - we can be quite lazy. So if you still choose to believe in free will then maybe consider giving your will a few less choices to consider.
References
Henderson, D. R. (2014). Libertarian paternalism: Leviathan in sheep’s clothing? Sociology, 51, 268-273
Comments