My wife and I are getting some not-insignificant plumbing work done, somewhere around $10k worth, and it’s pretty specialized, meaning not everyone does it. We asked for recommendations from friends and co-workers and no one had ever had the work done, so I went to Yelp and searched. There were, I think, 7 companies that did the work in the area.
That was the good part. The rest, not so much.
I put in estimate requests for the top 3 of the 7. One called almost immediately and agreed to come out on Memorial Day to give me an estimate. That was a bit surprising.
Another called me and said they no longer do that work. Fair enough. I put in a request for company #4 on the list.
Another company called and set up an appointment to come out on Tuesday at 5pm. The third (was the 4th, but you get the idea), asked for my phone number so they could call.
This is hardly the first time this has happened. 8 years ago when we had the roof replaced, we called a bunch of roofers for estimates and only one even bothered to show up. The others that I called, they all sounded bored. Luckily, it was the roofer that we had a personal recommendation for, but how can these companies stay in business if they’re just ignoring actual work?
I’ve asked around and this is pretty much the case everywhere. Keep in mind, these are the top-rated companies on Yelp. These aren’t some fly-by-night companies that are run irresponsibly, except they are. Obviously they are. So the two that never showed and never called, they got bad reviews on Yelp. Hopefully that will affect their ranking. Unfortunately, I don’t know that there are a lot of people that are better, because the one who made an appointment and didn’t show was the #1 rated, with the one we went with by default, it was #2.
If you want to know who to blame for businesses falling apart, it’s the companies who can’t keep their word and don’t even try. Somehow, I’m really not surprised by that, are you?
That sounds incredibly frustrating—when you’re ready to spend serious money and companies can’t even follow through on basic communication, it’s baffling. It really does make you wonder how some of these businesses stay afloat when reliability seems like such a rare commodity. Maybe they figure I don’t need repeat customers. I’ll just rely on new ones if, when and only if I need them. It seems that way with so much of home repair/improvement.
I’ve been wanting to ask you something. I’m sure you’re familiar with Robert Sapolsky views on Free Will. That is, we don’t have it because of biological determinism (—genes, hormones, and neurochemistry) —that we do not choose.
From the structure of our brains to the levels of neurotransmitters, our biology sets the stage for how we act. . . .blah, blah, blah.
Because of environmental and developmental influences (our upbringing, culture, and life experiences) all shaping behavior long before we are capable of making conscious choices. Our neural development and behavioral tendencies all are beyond our control, etc.
The neuroscience research he cites shows decisions made by the brain before we are consciously aware of them. That is, what we perceive as a “choice” is actually the result of unconscious processes and what we call “free will” is simply a label for complex biological and environmental interactions we don’t yet fully understand . . .et. al. As science progresses, the space for true agency will continue to shrink, leaving little room for the traditional notion of free will.
What is your view on this and is it yet another reason people aren’t really making the choices they think they are in religions?
Nobody says that we’re not influenced by the outside world. That is not what I mean by free will, at least. Obviously, we are always going to be influenced by things external to us. That’s just the reality that we live in. However, when it comes down to the actual decision itself, no matter the influence, we can still make whatever decision we decide to make. I can still pick chocolate or vanilla. I can still order peanut butter even if i have a nut allergy. I can still order a gorilla. It’s my choice and there is no conceivable amount of influence that could make me walk up to the counter and order the U.S.S. Midway if I wanted to. We’re not talking influence, we’re talking ability. The only thing that decision making before we’re consciously aware shows is that we don’t understand our brains as well as we’d like to. There may be parts of our consciousness that we are not actually aware of. Big deal. Maybe we need to redefine what “consciousness” means. Our definitions are meaningless if they do not reflect objective reality. A lot of people lose sight of that.
re: I can still order peanut butter even if I have a nut allergy. That seems true enough but would not the real debate be whether your choices are meaningfully free if they are the result of unconscious processes or deterministic chains of events? If decisions are made before conscious awareness, that undermines the role of conscious deliberation, which is central to definitions of free will, I would think. If decisions are initiated unconsciously, then the conscious self may not be the true originator of choice, which challenges traditional notions of free will. The claim “I can still make whatever decision I decide to make” relies heavily on introspection, which is notoriously unreliable. Just because we feel like we’re making free choices doesn’t mean we are. It is like the deeply indoctrinated religious. They can feel anything they want but maybe their brains just default to God and then they lawyer up. They know because they know but that has no evidence. Sapolsky, for example, discusses cases where individuals commit violent acts due to brain tumors (e.g., a man developing pedophilic urges due to a tumor pressing on his prefrontal cortex). The behavior is clearly not the result of conscious, free choice, but of identifiable biological causes. Sapolsky’s research argues that all behavior is like this, even if the causes are less obvious. What we call ‘free will’ is simply the biology that we haven’t understood well enough yet? We are nothing more or less than the sum of that which we could not control—our biology, our environments, their interactions?
Then please explain precisely what processes got me to order a gorilla at the counter. What conceivable set of demonstrable circumstances could have led to that? Because I can order absolutely anything, including complete gibberish words. How do you even get close to justifying any of that? That’s my question.
You’re essentially asking (-if I understand the question): How could a person end up ordering something as absurd as a gorilla at a counter? And maybe more deeply, what mechanisms—cognitive, linguistic, situational—could lead to such an outcome, especially when language allows for infinite expression, including nonsense? Slip of the tongue (Freudian slip or malapropism); fatigue, stress, or distraction; mental health or neurological condition (aphasia or schizophrenia -far more likely) can cause disordered speech; maybe intentional absurdity or humor (-like in Monty Python sketches or absurdist theatre?), the act of ordering a gorilla could be a deliberate subversion of expectations?
Are you saying the fact that you can order a gorilla, even if it makes no sense, is a testament to freewill? Even if people don’t have freewill, just like in religion there will be people who fight it because they don’t want to f-e-e-l that way? Believing we have free will gives us a feeling of control over our lives. It helps us feel empowered rather than helpless. We like to believe we deserve credit for our successes and others deserve blame for their wrongdoings. Determinism complicates that? It f-e-e-l-s like we’re choosing: Our moment-to-moment experience is one of making decisions. So, even if neuroscience suggests otherwise, that feeling is hard to dismiss. Even if our choices are determined by prior causes, the illusion of choice is deeply convincing. Determinism can feel dehumanizing?
I don’t know. I might not understand the question.
The question is, what specific thing that you can demonstrate happened actually influences making that decision. If all of our choices are the result of outside influences, then what are those specific influences that could cause that specific outcome? Because remember, you could just walk up to the counter and speak gibberish. This is the claim that is being made and the burden of proof needs to be met. So anyone who actually believes that, go ahead and meet it because I don’t think any of them can do it. This is really a matter of “it seems to me” which doesn’t work for religion and it doesn’t work here either. One standard for everything and the people pushing this bullshit simply can’t meet it.
Maybe it is not enough to conclude (nor am I concluding) anything but it sure looks like some burden of proof has been met—by decades of peer-reviewed neuroscience and psychology. I’m sure you’re aware of these:
Neurological Case Studies like the “pedophilia tumor” case (Burns & Swerdlow, 2003): a man developed very deviant urges due to a tumor pressing on his prefrontal cortex. Once the tumor was removed, the urges disappeared. When it grew back, so did the behavior. Possible implication: Behavior—including “morally” relevant behavior—can be entirely dependent on biological structures, and change drastically when those structures are altered. What seems like a “choice” is instead a biological output. This isn’t an isolated incident. Numerous cases from neuropsychology (e.g., Phineas Gage, frontal lobe injuries, epilepsy-induced automatisms) show that behavior changes when brain function changes.
Libet’s results (Libet Experiments – Decisions begin before conscious awareness) have been replicated and extended (e.g., Soon et al., 2008, Nature Neuroscience) showing choices can be predicted up to 7 seconds before conscious awareness using fMRI. Benjamin Libet’s foundational studies, showed from EEG scans that brain activity (the “readiness potential”) predicting a voluntary action begins hundreds of milliseconds before participants become consciously aware of their decision. The implication would be that the conscious mind is not the originator of the decision; it is more like a witness. This undermines the traditional free-will model where consciousness initiates choice.
You mention “ordering a gorilla” as a hypothetical absurdity but there is disinhibition in Frontal Lobe Disorders. That is people with damage to the frontal lobes or in manic/psychotic episodes can and do make socially bizarre or nonsensical choices. Aphasia, Schizophasia, and Wernicke’s Aphasia. These conditions result in fluent but meaningless or surreal speech—people literally do say things like “I ordered a giraffe on the moon” and believe it has meaning. These aren’t rare or speculative—they’re documented clinical patterns.
Models like the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM) treat decisions as the result of stochastic neural accumulation of competing inputs (internal/external). Given enough input and time, one decision threshold is reached. It’s a mathematically describable, probabilistic process, not a sovereign agent making a “free” choice.
All are demonstrable, research-backed influences—not just “it seems to me” speculation. The real question is whether “you” are the origin of the decision or just the last step in a long causal chain.
This is not about “influence” in a soft sense—it’s about neural determinism. Every decision may be able to be causally traced to prior states of the brain and body, shaped by genetics, experience, and environment.
So would your position be that Robert Sapolsky’s core claim: Free will is an illusion because human behavior is the result of biological and environmental factors beyond our conscious control does not have enough evidence to warrant any credible consideration yet?
I’m not saying that you are, I’m saying that the people who are making those claims, they’re the ones with the evidential responsibility to back it up and they never have anything with which to do so. Ever. It starts to look a lot like faith, doesn’t it? “It seems to me” will never be enough to convince a skeptic, but these people aren’t skeptics, they’re true believers. They make a positive claim. They have no evidence to back it up. When called out on it, they simply repeat the claim verbatim and expect it to make a difference. Who does that sound like? It all comes down to word games because they are, in effect, doing the same thing that the religious are doing. They have a position to which they are emotionally attached and they can’t be wrong. Just ask them! I’m not interested in “it seems to me” though. I care about what is demonstrably true and when you lack evidence to back it up, then the only credible answer is “we don’t know” and far too many people are terrified of that answer.
You seem to be trying desperately to justify your position though Absolutely anyone can do the things that I’ve suggested, no brain damage required. Are you suggesting that you’re incapable of walking in and ordering a gorilla? That no matter how hard you tried, you simply couldn’t do it? I certainly hope not. So either everyone has brain damage or the excuse means nothing. Putting a favored explanation ahead of the facts doesn’t mean anything. It’s why the flat earthers go so wrong, because they are desperate to get to their favored explanation, even if it isn’t supported by the demonstrable data. They have to constantly play this silly “what if?” game because admitting they are wrong simply will not fly with their psyche. Saying “it’s about this thing I can’t prove” doesn’t get you anywhere. The evidence comes first, the conclusions only after.
Neural determinism isn’t demonstrable. “May be” is not “is”. “Is” requires evidence and there simply isn’t any. At present, it’s just an assertion but assertions mean nothing. I don’t think free will is an illusion because clearly, we can make choices freely, from within a set of available possibilities, regardless of any demonstrable influence provided. Until that can be demonstrated to be true, there’s no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. The entire burden of proof is on the side that claims that there is influence and they haven’t met it. Let me know when they have.
The only credible answer is “we don’t know” and far too many people are terrified of that answer.✅
re: Are you suggesting that you’re incapable of walking in and ordering a gorilla? That no matter how hard you tried, you simply couldn’t do it? I certainly hope not. -That’s true, I could order a gorilla.
But are you also saying in the Neurological Case Studies like the “pedophilia tumor” case (Burns & Swerdlow, 2003) the person committing crimes due to a tumor pressing on their prefrontal cortex still has meaningful choice? Would you not agree that behavior is far more likely to change when brain function changes?
re: desperate to get to their favored explanation, even if it isn’t supported by the demonstrable data.✅ -That may be true. It seems that most behavior is motivated. It’s really hard to stay objective. No doubt people are more likely to use motivated reasoning, confirmation bias -which rarely acts in isolation. It appears to intertwine with all kinds of cognitive biases (anchoring, availability heuristic, etc.) and social factors (groupthink, authority bias).
re: I don’t think free will is an illusion because clearly, we can make choices freely, from within a set of available possibilities, regardless of any demonstrable influence provided. Until that can be demonstrated to not be true, there’s no reason whatsoever to take it seriously. . . .Okay, got it. That’s pretty clear.
You are assuming that because some people are influenced, that all people are influenced and that is not justifiable. This isn’t evidence, it’s “what-about-ism”. I don’t see any evidence that most behavior is motivated. I only see confirmation bias, counting the hits and ignoring the misses because they have no explanation for the misses. This is a wholly irrational position to take. This is why we have to go back to the evidence and only the evidence. What we’re seeing is the same thing that the religious do. They are starting with a position they like for emotional reasons and refusing to acknowledge anything that makes that position look wrong. It has to be right because they want it to be right.
That is not how reality works.
-Absolutely, rely on evidence rather than assumptions or emotionally driven beliefs. But nothing looks clean at the intersection of neuroscience and psychology. I guess what you are saying is there’s empirical evidence suggesting that many of our decisions are shaped by factors outside our conscious awareness—like genetics, environment, and subconscious processing BUT we can still decide to order the gorilla, influence doesn’t negate free will.
re: the same thing that the religious do. They are starting with a position they like for emotional reasons and refusing to acknowledge anything that makes that position look wrong.
I don’t like not punishing people/ holding them accountable/ having even stricter liability. I think there should be much higher standards of culpability. I’m appalled by our “justice” system. I’m trying to think against my typical emotional comfort (more retribution/ punishing people/ even stricter liability/ accountability).
If we don’t have an answer, then the answer is “we don’t know”. People need to stop asserting things for which they have no evidence in support. That’s the hallmark of religion, not rationality. People need to stop pretending they understand when they clearly do not. That was the whole point. Until they justify their claims, and we both know they’re not even trying, I have no obligation to take any of it seriously. As such, I don’t take it seriously and neither should you.
You’re absolutely right —if we don’t have a reliable answer, the honest response is “we don’t know.” It is important to acknowledge ALL that uncertainty. A lot less would be said if people did that. Less speculation and more research.
—Helpful discussion, at least for me.
This was really aimed at the people who are insisting that there is no free will. Not quite the real crazies that think that everything was determined at the moment of the Big Bang and if we just had a sufficient understanding of that initial state, we could know what would happen to the smallest detail throughout time and space. That’s just stupid. I don’t think that most people have ever really thought about it. It’s another case of “it sounds good to me” and that’s where they stop. That doesn’t make it rational, any more than it does when the religious pull it and all I care about is rationality. I care where the evidence that supports the contention is and they don’t have any.
This is one of those places where, if I had a decent video to take on, I’d do it for the channel, even if it is off-topic. I’m all about going after stupidity, all stupidity, no matter where it hides. Not that they will care, any more than the religious do, because this is just a matter of blind faith.
Faith means nothing, no matter who you are. Thanks for the talk.
Robert Sapolsky on Free Will and Determinism – The Michael Shermer Show
This nearly a two-hour conversation so maybe way too long but it covers the “scientific” arguments from Sapolsky’s book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will
Philosophical critiques of compatibilism and libertarian free will; implications for justice, morality, and personal responsibility. Examples and experiments that illustrate Sapolsky’s thoughts.
As you may know, Sapolsky explicitly denies the existence of free will, and his arguments are “rooted” in biology, neuroscience, and psychology—fields that often get misused or oversimplified in popular determinist rhetoric. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX6jKdIBNKI
Anyway, you have made a strong and thoughtful case against both religious dogma and deterministic views that deny free will. Belief without sufficient evidence—whether religious or scientific—is intellectually lazy, and rationality and evidence-based reasoning should be the foundation of any serious claim.
Ultimately, faith—whether religious or secular—holds no value without evidence to back it up.✅
That’s the thing that the faithful will never accept. Kind of sad, isn’t it?
-Exactly✅