The Elephant in the Room: Free Will (PART TWO)
But Isn’t Behavior Predictable?
I was lucky enough to hear a podcast episode recently on this very topic. Dr. Matthew Dugandzic gives a case for free will with multiple arguments. After making his case, he brought up one of the objections to free will — the “argument of predictability.” Imagine the solace I found in hearing a Catholic professor speak to how the predictability of behavior is compatible with a vision for human free will. My clinical work actually depends on how well I can predict behavior and help a client effectively change it for the better.
Is it not the case that we can predict what other people will do? The more we get to know them, their behavior seems to become more predictable to us. This is certainly true … [pregnant pause] … but it shouldn’t bother you. In fact, it should encourage you (Dugandzic, 2023).
Dr. Dugandzic goes on to share how the predictability of behavior points to evidence for freedom having a basis in rationality. He comically shares how the unpredictability of someone’s behavior does not make us think of how “free” that person is, but rather how “crazy” that person is. With all due respect to those human persons who frequently have unpredictable behavior, this actually means we should take a closer look at unpredictable behavior as a sign of significant inner turmoil at bodily, psychological, or spiritual levels – the person is in a state of chaos, erratically trying to find homeostasis, equilibrium, and inner peace (in ABA nerd speech: oscillating between extinction bursts and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement).
I would add to Dr. Dugandzic’s commentary that we can have healthy “unpredictable behavior” in which we move uncharacteristically away from self-imprisoned cycles towards freedom in an open, positive search. This “positive search” is characterized by “self-openness” (i.e., acknowledging reality; honest self-awareness; acceptance of personal strengths and limitations) and interpersonal openness (i.e., listening to or seeking counsel and advice; honesty with others about struggles, growth-oriented decisions; flexibility and adaptation) (Azcárate, 1972). Unpredictable behavior is not necessarily free. It is either a sign of growth (which is actually free) or a sign of devolving (which is not free).
Regarding predictability, there is something to be said about the relationship between freedom based on truthful knowledge and the capacity for predictable, responsible freedom oriented toward goodness.
One of the last points Dr. Dugandzic makes is this radical statement: “The freer we are, the more predictable our behavior will be.” However, I would add that more predictability does not necessarily mean the inverse in that we are freer (i.e., in the case of addictions or other self-destructive behaviors which are predictable). We may be acting “rationally,” but that does not imply freedom. Knowledge of the truth (informing our rationality) leads to freedom, and “the more one does what is good, the freer one becomes” (CCC #1733). Acting “rationally” with lies leads to self-imprisonment which is the opposite of freedom (Azcárate & Clem, 1979/2022).
Volitional Behavior is Determined by Free Will & Influenced by Environment (and Grace!)
(Quick note: Not all behavior is volitional, such as those pesky thoughts that come into your mind without your permission or the way your pupils dilate under certain conditions, but the following will be a discussion on volitional behavior – the actions over which we have some degree of control with our will, though not necessarily full control – see the next section).
Okay, even if you agree that predictability does not disprove free will, then you may be inclined to still hold on to a deterministic perspective regarding biology and the power of the environment (i.e., reinforcing and punishing properties of the world in which we live). In the Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Kreeft & Tacelli (1994/2009) state: “Heredity and environment condition our acts, but they do not determine them … they are necessary causes but not sufficient causes of freely chosen acts” (p. 145).
In 1936, before Skinner’s first publication, the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin proposed an equation for behavior: B = f (P x E), meaning that behavior (B) is a function of the person (i.e., personality, motivations, learning history, etc.) and the environment (i.e., the situation, surroundings, etc.). This is certainly simpler than Skinner’s conceptualizations but there is a similar premise. The premise is that our behaviors are determined by material and organic causes as sufficient to explain our behaviors.
On the other hand, Kreeft & Tacelli (1994/2009) propose that B = f (H + E + FW) in which free will (FW) is necessary for causation of human actions while hereditary (H) and environmental (E) factors condition our responses (p. 145)
I would like to propose a different equation:
p(B) = (degree of FW) x f(P x E x S)
in which the probability of behavior is the degree of free will in the context of the person (i.e., learning history, personality, motivations, reason, affections, etc.), the environment (i.e., situation, surroundings, etc.), and supernatural influence (S) (i.e., grace from God which always increases degree of free will, diabolical influence which always decreases degree of free will).
In other words, we are a body-soul person in both a physical environment and a spiritual environment. The probability of our behaviors is determined by our free will and influenced by our context.
Even if you deny supernatural influence, imagine how differently we would treat our clients if we at least acknowledged that there was a non-physical free will which could be strengthened (or weakened) depending on our clinical decisions. How might you change or continue what you are doing? I believe a lot of excellent behavior analysts work on increasing a client’s free will when they reinforce making choices, practicing inhibition, flexibility, tolerance responses, and approach-acceptance skills in response to aversive stimuli. What I am suggesting is that we can be more intentional about all of these skills in our treatment planning and curriculum design.
Free Will is Limited by Degrees
We have free will, but even under a personalist vision of the person, it gets complicated. Here is where I would like to see my colleagues and I take practical insights.
St. Paul says “For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want” (Rm 7:19). Doing and wanting seem to be divorced from one another in St. Paul’s soul. It is the (fallen) human condition. We actually were made for our desires and our actions to cohere to one another in truth and goodness, but we often fail to do the good. We have what is called a “limited free-will” (Vitz, Nordling, & Titus, 2020, p. 123). The will is something that needs to be trained so that the capacity for responsible freedom is greater. In Christian belief, God gives us the grace of hope to transcend even beyond our natural will yet not violate our free will.
Here are two premises and a conclusion:
Premise #1: We have limited knowledge (where knowledge is defined as apprehension of the truth)
Premise #2: If we have limited knowledge, then that limits our freedom (where freedom is defined as pursuit of the good)
Conclusion: Therefore, we have limited freedom.
Perhaps that is why Lucifer’s (Satan’s) crime was so significant that it is considered final and unchanging. He knew God and still rejected Him in total freedom. Unlike the Devil, we have human experiences of being tugged and pulled in our physical world and internally within the psycho-spiritual reality of our personhood. It is a mercy that God allows for us to live in mystery so that we can slowly know Him and freely choose Him in greater and greater degrees before we are presented with a choice that we are not ready to make in knowledge and freedom. God does not treat us as animals or property – he treats us as persons! He is patient with our limited free will.
Even when we conform our will to the will of another (either another human being or God) and let our will be formed, influenced, or determined by that other will, it is our active choice to do so. The free will cannot be compelled. The will’s choices and the actions it wills cannot be involuntary, because “involuntary“ means “not willed.” However, a choice of the will, though in itself … is an act, usually has motivating causes and influences that are not wholly actively willed. These are sensory and emotional experiences. They influence our will but do not determine it (i.e., necessitate it, force it). The will is free but it is not totally free, like God’s (Kreeft, 2020, p. 331).
If all of us have this limited free-will because of these different influences, how much of a greater degree can free will be limited by someone who experiences neurological, developmental, and behavioral deficits or aberrations? This has huge implications for how we treat, why we treat, and what we treat.
Are we guiding our clients to truth, freedom for goodness, and love?
May God bless you for reading (or even skimming) this far.
Sincerely,
The Catholic Behavior Analyst
If you liked this article, please consider sending $1 or more to my wife, Rachel. Any donations go directly to her because she is the one who makes sacrifices for me to write. You can Venmo her at @Rachel-Clem-2
Bio & Disclaimer:
Joseph (Joey) Clem is a Catholic licensed behavior analyst in Virginia. He is a husband, father, and lifetime full member in Youth Apostles. He works primarily with children diagnosed with Autism and volunteers in youth ministry. This article does not constitute professional advice or services. All opinions and commentary of the author are his own and are not endorsed by any governing bodies, licensing or certifying boards, companies, or any third-party.
REFERENCES
Azcárate, E. M. (1972). Growth Through Openness. Clinical Proceedings of Children’s Hospital. Vol. 28, No. 8, September, 1972
Azcárate, E. M. & Clem, J. (1979/2022). Truth, Freedom, & Care Theory©. TFC Series, No. 1. Youth Apostles, McLean, VA. [unpublished, officially copyrighted 2022]
CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church (2012). Vatican City, Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved from https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/
Dugandzic, M. (2023). The case for free will. Thomistic Institute Podcast [published August 16, 2023]. Lecture originally given April 18, 2023 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kreeft, P. J. (2020). Wisdom of the Heart: The Good, True, and the Beautiful at the Center of Us All. TAN Books: Gastonia, NC
Kreeft, P. J. & Tacelli, R. K. (2009). Handbook of Catholic Apologetics. Ignatius Press: San Francisco, CA. (Originally published and based on previous book: Kreeft, P. J. & Tacelli, R. K., 1994, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL)
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY
Vitz, P., Nordling, W. J., & Titus, C. S. (2020). A Catholic Christian Meta-Model of the Person: Integration with Psychology & Mental Health Practice. Divine Mercy University Press: Sterling, VA