A Puppet on a String: Taking a Deep-dive into the Illusion of Thought

Introduction

Humanity is characterized by belief—our convictions of the world define who we are as individuals. Each decision we make, from the routine choice between attire every morning to the virtues upon which we choose to live, is contingent upon what we believe to be the best option in a given scenario—this unbreakable link between human perception and action is even noted within the field of psychology as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, it is expected that individuals are inclined to think beliefs are voluntary; the innate human desire for self-autonomy affirms that this must be the case.

Nonetheless, each individual’s beliefs are controlled by externalities from the moment they are born to their last breath. Even if subconscious, the decision to question an idea ultimately stems from the mind’s interaction with an external factor suggesting an opposing view. It is upon this rationale that I will base my essay, demonstrating how beliefs by function cannot be voluntary, analyzing real-world examples of such, and providing a counterargument against the tendency to assert the contrary.

Definitions

Prior to analyzing either side of the argument, it is important to answer two questions: what does it mean to believe, and what does the term “voluntary” entail?

In its simplest definition, to believe is to accept something as true or existing in the real world (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Yet, this definition leaves room for muddled thinking—what defines truth, and what degree of acceptance is believing? Thus, it is more reasonable to frame beliefs through a psychological lens, viewing them not as perceived truths but as “mental representations of the ways our brains expect things in our environment to behave” (Lewis, 2018). This view of belief avoids the confusing paradox of subjective truth that the oversimplified definition alludes to.

Similarly, because of the centuries-long discourse over what being voluntary or “of free will” suggests, this essay will refer to the term voluntary under its most widely accepted definition: the human ability to act outside of the influence of previous events (Brittanica, 2023).

Survival of the Fittest: A Darwinian Approach

As the Darwinian theory of natural selection follows, all organisms—humans included—are connected by one intrinsic trait significant above all else: the instinct to survive through adaptation (Darwin, C. & Kebler, L. 1859). Consequently, the human mind follows the same process, constantly deriving data from every interaction to assemble pieces of larger puzzles that manifest in our thoughts. When Luppi and Mediano (2022) researched the root behind the advanced perception of individuals, the brain’s emphasis on synergistic processes was responsible, indicating the core role prior events play on beliefs.

Moreover, the instinct of survival not only drives our beliefs by shaping how our brains form thoughts but also by altering the way we perceive our environment. A key example of this is the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968), expressed as the inclination for people to prefer things out of familiarity. Zajonc found that when organisms underwent repeated exposure to stimuli, they responded more favorably, as opposed to an initially avoidant attitude. Applying the principle to human behavior, an analysis of students saw that an increased amount of interaction throughout a series of classes was correlated with an increased level of perceived attractiveness and familiarity (Moreland and Beach, 1992). This effect is highlighted even more within the context of passing down ideologies. The notion of empiricism and tabula rasa suggests that children are born blank slates (Locke, 1690/2009), making them prime models of how the mere exposure effect operates outside of other factors. After researching the correlation between familial influence and religiosity in children, constant religious messaging, whether through a more conservative or liberal lens, resulted in an “additive and interactive relationship between ideology and children’s religious outcomes of worship attendance and importance of faith” (Smith, 2020). When children grow up and continue to follow the religion they’ve observed since birth, it isn’t purely out of free will but rather out of years of conditioning that has allowed them to associate religious beliefs with comfort and trust; the predisposition to exposure is simply an adaptation of the survival instinct to keep safe things close. This concept can be further extrapolated to all the beliefs and behaviors we retain from childhood—the cultures and values imprinted upon us by parents, and the circumstances under which we grew up.

Ultimately, this inextricable link between evolutionary instinct and the development of thought makes it evident that beliefs will never be attributed to free will; rather beliefs will, by nature, always be entangled with the prior exchanges from which they’ve been emanated.

The Vulnerability of the Mind

Outside of the survival instinct all individuals possess, the impact of the subconscious on belief exemplifies the lack of choice individuals have over their beliefs. Although the subconscious mind is characterized by a lack of active awareness, it nonetheless is a large influence on the creation of belief within the brain.

The first instance of this would be the implicit biases that underlie the perceptions we have of the people and ideas around us. Implicit biases and filters will always exist as part of the human mind, regardless of whether individuals acknowledge it; the brain is constantly playing an inherently skewed game of association with every piece of information it is fed in an attempt to optimize decision-making (Corbett, 2022). In a study conducted by Levinson (2007) on the role of implicit bias within legal systems, participants were read a story about a fistfight and then asked to recall facts—a simplified model of how individuals would recall evidence in a trial. Results found that individuals reading about Tyronne, an African American male, had a recall accuracy rate of 80.2 percent, as opposed to 67.8 percent when the same story was told about William, a Caucasian male. Moreover, the study indicated that those who “manifested more memory bias were not more likely to be explicitly biased,” proving that we are prone to acting on bias even if we do not actively perceive it. Our subconscious partialities determine which information we retain and under what lens—even in the legal system which strives to preserve objectivity and fairness when determining sentences, human actors cannot escape their innate nature.

Similarly, underneath the core principles of the marketing of both social media and political policies or ideologies lies the human mind’s susceptibility to external influence.

Social media has become ingrained in our lives, with 56.8% of the entire world active across social media platforms (Woodward, 2023). Its success can be traced back to its manipulative design; social media algorithms are intended to create an individualized and addictive experience by curating content users already seek out (Ifeanyi, 2022), playing on confirmation bias—the tendency for individuals to pursue information in a self-affirming manner (Nickerson, R.S. 1998). However, the consequences of these algorithms are deadly; the echo chambers of like-minded individuals that spring from said algorithms have acted as major proponents of viral misinformation (Törnberg, 2018), with investigators citing social media as the perpetrator of the devastatingly popular anti-vaccine campaign that arose in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic (Gisondi, 2022). When users are subconsciously fed the same misinformation through a skewed algorithm, they internalize the perceived truth, showcasing not only the human mind’s proclivity to being manipulated but the dangerous implications it holds.

The widespread use of propaganda as a tool for discreet persuasion by governmental institutions likewise exploits the shortcomings within the subconscious of individuals. When propaganda made its modern-day debut in America through the Committee on Public Information under Woodrow Wilson’s administration, it was responsible for the anti-German hysteria that funded and held up support for the war effort (Carey, 1997); since then, countless propaganda campaigns have changed the course of history, from those of the subsequent Second World War to the antagonistic rhetoric used by both the American and Chinese government today in competition for control over public sentiment. At the point where public attitude has been and is weaponized due to its malleability, it is clear our beliefs will never be of our own volition.

Purpose in the Absence of Self-Autonomous Thought

The conventional opposing view follows that as self-aware individuals, we must be able to control our thoughts, citing the impermanence of thought and the process of active decision-making as evidence. Before highlighting the critical flaws within both of these arguments, it is important to contextualize why individuals defend the concept of self-autonomy over belief. Primarily, the reasoning can be attributed to Self Determination Theory, which frames three core factors behind human motivation, one of which being autonomy (Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985). Control over ourselves enables a sense of purpose within our lives—we are more inclined to make use of our circumstances and seek our truths if we believe we can actively alter them (Lopez-Garrido, 2023).

Hence, the logic behind active decision-making as proof of voluntary beliefs follows as such: if individuals were all deterministic beings—that is, believing that all events are subjugated to externalities—the motivation to pursue certain goals simply wouldn’t exist because motivation is contingent upon our ability to change our fates. The existence of motivation thus supports autonomy over thought. However, the fallacy in this line of thinking is that being influenced by prior experiences doesn’t invalidate the ability to be motivated but rather the opposite; once we recognize and understand our vulnerability to circumstances, our mind’s resulting course of action becomes expanding our horizons to form less restricted beliefs (Harris, 2012). As Schopenhauer (1966) puts it, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills”—involuntary belief can and does coincide with the active choices we make in our lives, whether we choose to believe so or not.

On the impermanence of thought as proof of self-autonomy over beliefs, the flaw in this argument can be linked back to how the mind conjures thought in the first place. Beliefs are impermanent because the mind is pulling from additional information with every passing moment we spend interacting with the world—when the mind receives enough data supporting an opposing belief, it comes to new conclusions through the synergistic processes mentioned in "Survival of the Fittest". A prime case of this can be seen in the positive shift of attitude towards race, gender, and sexuality within the last few decades. Allport’s contact hypothesis attributed the reasoning for the shift to increased exposure to diverse groups (Allport, G.W. 1988). When analyzing the truth of this hypothesis through the lens of minority student populations, findings showed that “contact in schools has an important role to play in promoting more positive relations between host and migrant groups” (Vezzali et al., 2022). Our beliefs shift because we live in a world governed by the natural law of change, not because we choose to alter them.

Final Words

By using an approach of not only illustrating the basis for thought but providing examples of the human mind’s disposition to being influenced and countering arguments regarding voluntary belief, I explain how our beliefs are consequences of factors we do not have control over. At our core, we are products of our environment. Fortunately, not all hope is lost; in the words of neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris (2012), “This understanding reveals you to be a biochemical puppet, of course, but it also allows you to grab hold of one of your strings” (p. 47); upon this realization, we achieve freedom in the sense that we no longer operate under a façade of complete autonomy. By accepting the reality of our behavior, we can learn to appreciate the world from a different perspective, cherishing the roll of dice our lives are and challenging ourselves to grow through the expansion of ideas and people we interact with.

References:

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Allport, G. W. (1988). The nature of prejudice unabridged: 25th anniversary ed. the classic study of the roots of discrimination. Addison-Wesley.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, June 15). free will. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will

Carey, A., Lohrey, A., & Chomsky, N. A. (1997). Taking the risk out of democracy corporate propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty. University of Illinois Press.

Corbett, H. (2022, November 8). Your brain on bias: 5 steps to keep unconscious bias in check. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2022/01/31/your-brain-on-bias-5-steps-to-keep-unconscious-bias-in-check/?sh=6606a3b444ae

Darwin, C. & Kebler, L. (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray. [Pdf] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/06017473/.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

Gisondi, M. A., Barber, R., Faust, J. S., Raja, A., Strehlow, M. C., Westafer, L. M., & Gottlieb, M. (2022). A deadly Infodemic: Social media and the power of covid-19 misinformation (preprint). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.2196/35552

Harris, S. (2012). Free will. Free Press.

Ifeanyi, K. (2022, June 24). The good, bad, and very ugly of social media algorithms - fast company. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90761087/inside-the-good-bad-and-very-ugly-of-social-media-algorithms

Levinson, J. D. (2007). Forgotten Racial Equality: Implicit Bias, Decisionmaking, and Misremembering. Duke Law Journal, 57(2), 345–424. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040596

Lewis , R. (2018, October 7). What actually is a belief? and why is it so hard to change?. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201810/what-actually-is-belief-and-why-is-it-so-hard-change#:~:text=Beliefs%20are%20our%20brain’s%20way,the%20world%20to%20conform%20to.

Locke, J. (2009). An essay concerning human understanding. [Place of publication not identified], WLC. (Original work published 1690)

Lopez-Garrido, G. (2023, April 10). Self-determination theory: How it explains motivation. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-determination-theory.html#:~:text=Taking%20responsibility%20is%20important%20for,is%20a%20sign%20of%20confidence).

Luppi, A.I., Mediano, P.A.M., Rosas, F.E. et al. A synergistic core for human brain evolution and cognition. Nat Neurosci 25, 771–782 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01070-0

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Believe. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved June 27, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-o

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Schopenhauer, A. (1966). The world as will and representation, I. (E. F. J. Payne, Trans.). Dover.

Smith, J. (2020). Transmission of faith in families: The influence of religious ideology. Sociology of Religion, 82(3), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sraa045

Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo Chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLOS ONE, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958

Vezzali, L., Lolliot, S., Trifiletti, E., Cocco, V. M., Rae, J. R., Capozza, D., & Hewstone, M. (2022). Effects of intergroup contact on explicit and implicit outgroup attitudes: A longitudinal field study with majority and Minority Group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12558

Woodward, M. (2023, July 18). Social Media Addiction Statistics: Who is addicted and what are the consequences?. SearchLogistics. https://www.searchlogistics.com/learn/statistics/social-media-addiction-statistics/#:~:text=56.8%25%20of%20the%20world’s%20total,aged%2013%20years%20and%20above.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848