Monday, August 23

How are your decisions actually motivated?

According to Laura Spinney, Wolf Singer, head of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt, extends the thesis that free will is an illusion, and "[his] claims have brought howls of outrage from academics across the sciences and humanities". Get it? Wolf? Anyway, he
argues that the human brain has to be complex to compute all the myriad variables that influence each decision we make - genetic factors, socially learned factors, momentary triggers including commands and wishes, to name a few. And because it considers most of those variables at a subconscious level, we are not aware of all the factors that make us behave in a certain way, just as we are not aware of all the elements of an object that are processed separately by our visual brains. As humans, however, we are able to extract some of those factors and make them the focus of attention; that is, render them conscious. And with our behaviour, as with the world we see, we yearn to build a coherent picture. So we might justify our decisions in ways that have nothing to do with our real, subconscious motivations...

One important implication of his argument is that treatment meted out to offenders should be less about revenge and punishment, and more about assessing their risk of re-offending, given the brain they have. Of course, this already happens. If a woman has been driven to a crime of passion after severe provocation, having otherwise lived an exemplary life, she is considered less of a danger to society than a man who has frequently abducted teenage girls, raped and murdered them. Another corollary of Singer's ideas that he recognises will be harder for people to swallow, is that the consequences of a crime should be considered less important than they are, since an individual can only control his own actions and not those of others. For example, a driver seen running a red light should be treated the same way whether or not he hit the child who, unseen from the wheel, stepped into the road at the same moment.
So much for rationality. It's more a question of rationalization, which isn't necessarily rational at all.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, I agree that a driver running through a red light whether or not he hits someone. He should be treated as if he did hit someone because that is the seriousness of the offence he committed.

Phil (www.flyingchair.net)

pkd said...

Most people are going to be more emotional when there's a victim, though.

pkd said...

Most people are going to be more emotional when there's a victim, though.