Troubles with Determinism?
In my brushes with the self-help movement, I have repeatedly come across the phrase “Everything happens for a reason” (EHR). I don’t know how common this belief is, but it seems to be widespread. At first glance, the EHR belief is an adaptive psychological response to distress. Many people are bothered by the idea of chance, or the lack of a reason. Research has uncovered some of the ways in which people reject the idea of randomness. Many gamblers believe that an odd number at the roulette table becomes more likely after a series of even numbers. Conversely, many basketball aficionados believe that a player who has scored several baskets in a row is now more likely to score again. Another form of chance rejection is the distaste for ambiguity as described by the Ellsberg paradox. Many people rather bet on drawing a red ball from an urn known to contain 50% (or even a smaller percentage of) red balls than from an urn containing an unknown proportion of red balls.
[...]
The problem of determinism is a deep one, and I think that neither scientific nor folk psychology have come to grips with it. In scientific psychology, there is constant friction between deterministic theories, such as behaviorism (or any other theory describing “mechanisms”) and theories stressing human agency. What academic psychology seems to be telling us is that human behavior follows scientifically detectable laws and that at the same time we have the power to choose and change apart from these laws.
Comment by will on 2 January 2009:
The author fails to explain the context within which EHR occurs. The
instances in which I have heard people use the phrase “everything
happens for a reason” they were referring to supernatural agency. They
believed that the events in their life were part of “god’s plan”.
This is not a true determinism since a god might choose to intervene
or not. It is also usually presumed that god intervenes (has a plan)
only for the true and faithful.
There is also a fatalism here, since if there is a plan, it would be
foolish to act on one’s own and disrupt the plan.
< <
be unpacked. In other words, to determinists the notion of randomness
is an epistemological trick. It expresses their ignorance of
everything that lies beyond the boundaries of their theories.>>>
No, only that which lies beyond their direct observation.
< <
describing "mechanisms") and theories stressing human agency. What
academic psychology seems to be telling us is that human behavior
follows scientifically detectable laws and that at the same time we
have the power to choose and change apart from these laws.>>>
This misrepresents the friction between behaviorism and other
psychological theories.
Radical Behaviorists believed that only behavior need be considered
when treating a patient. Later, it became widely acknowledged that
cognition has a major role in shaping a person’s experience. The
resulting blending of these approaches is CBT Cognitive Behavioral theory.
It would be a mistake to say that Cognitive theory stresses “Human
agency” that is “apart from scientific laws”.
In my experience, cognitive theorists are either neutral or lean
heavily in the direction of determinism.
The practical reason for this lean toward determinism is that if a
person has human agency that is beyond scientific law then they can
simply choose not to be mentally ill. If this is the case and they
choose to remain mentally ill then they are deserving of the stigma
attached to their condition.
By viewing mental illness through the lens of determinism, the
mentally ill are spared the stigma and condemnation of their fellow
human beings.
Determinism doesn’t mean that humans don’t have choice. Determinism
means that their choices are circumscribed by genetic predisposition,
environment and chance encounter.