12
Lack of moral training
This is 51% or one percent above average
13
Percent loss of neurons
Numerous factors, 1% percent above average
14
Psychological trauma (PTSD)
Not a factor
15
Physical damage brain
10% percent
16
Reduced capacity (intoxication)
He was not intoxicated at the time.
17
IQ of 70 or less.
His IQ is 100 so not a factor
TOTAL:
At 7010 he robs the store
Eric made a choice. He robbed the bank. Now let’s change just one variable, the amount of physical abuse as a child, by just one percent, from 90% to 89%.
1
Aggression genes
1500
90%
1350
2
Physically/verbally abused
1500
89%
1335
3
Neurotransmitters imbalance:
1000
51%
510
4
Endocrine/electrolyte imbalance
1000
25%
250
5
Education toward crime
1000
75%
750
6
Peer pressure toward crime
1000
75%
750
7
Other: unemployed, bullied.
1000
75%
750
8
Mental illness
1500
40%
600
9
Low Impulse control
250
36%
90
10
Addictive behaviors (alcohol, drugs)
1000
0%
0
12
Lack of moral training
500
51%
255
13
Percent loss of neurons
500
51%
255
14
Psychological trauma (PTSD)
500
0%
0
15
Physical damage brain
1000
10%
100
16
Reduced capacity (intoxication)
500
0%
0
17
IQ of 70 or less.
250
0%
0
TOTAL:
14000
6995
total possible
good decision
In this scenario, Eric walks away.
The theory here is that virtually every factor that preceded this event was the same except that Eric’s father beat him one less time, a teacher encouraged him, or an aunt showed him kindness.
There is abundant research indicating that severe physical or mental abuse during early childhood will have long-lasting impact on the developing brain, neural interconnections, and personality. It will impact us on both a conscious and an unconscious level. That singular event was the one causal event that made the difference, between clicking over 7001 or under, between robbing the drugstore or walking away.
All that matters is that there is a specific discrete number where we make the choice: rob or not, fight or run, red or blue.
Also, as I discussed earlier we are not good at comprehending the very small. It is easy to see a golf ball-sized tumor in his brain and say, “ok, I can see it, he was not responsible for his actions” but when it’s more obscure, more technical, and much, much smaller, perhaps a single neuron firing, it is so much more difficult for us to comprehend.
Let’s look at another example:
In this example, I increased a number of variables and now Eric is a hardened criminal and well over the 7001 range. He has committed dozens of crimes and is a menace to society.
1
Aggression genes
1500
75%
1125
2
Physically/verbally abused
1500
90%
1350
3
Neurotransmitters imbalance:
1000
75%
750
4
Endocrine/electrolyte imbalance
1000
25%
250
5
Education toward crime
1000
75%
750
6
Peer pressure toward crime
1000
75%
750
7
Other: unemployed, bullied.
1000
75%
750
8
Mental illness
1500
1050
9
Low Impulse control
250
80%
200
10
Addictive behaviors (alcohol, drugs)
1000
80%
800
12
Lack of moral training
500
70%
350
13
Percent loss of neurons
500
60%
300
14
Psychological trauma (PTSD)
500
0%
0
15
Physical damage brain
1000
60%
600
16
Reduced capacity (intoxication)
500
90%
450
17
IQ of 70 or less.
250
33%
82.5
TOTAL:
14000
9557.5
Total possible
2500 points over threshold
In the scenario above, this poor individual, technically, never had a chance. I even lowered his genetic score to 75% from 90% but a lifetime of abuse, gang membership, depression, addiction to meth, a low IQ, physical damage to his developing brain from huffing paint thinner in junior high–plus he was intoxicated in the drugstore, created a statistical certainty that he would commit the robbery.
Let’s assume that there is an immaterial consciousness or “free won’t” hovering above Eric’s drug-addled and neurobiologically-damaged brain. Even if you gave “free won’t” 2000 points, it would still not click him under the 7001 we need to veto his action. Do you honestly feel or is there ever any proof that this “free won’t”, not based on any antecedent event or memory, could kick in and make him walk away? Remember, it would have to be in another dimension, or some supernatural state to escape the abuse and damage to the chemical, electrical and biological make-up of his brain.
Now I would allow that at the moment he was going to rob the bank, he could have seen on the television behind the counter, a news story about a man with his exact name–and how he had overcame alcohol and drug addiction when he accepted the Lord. Eric’s turbo-charged brain could have interpreted this one-in-a-million probability event–as a sign from God–that he needed to stop his evil ways–and accept Christ. This happens all the time. It’s how Paul converted to Christianity. I am not sure exactly how this would operate in his brain but it would be some sort of cascading causal substitution effect–his addiction to meth now becomes an all-encompassing addiction to faith, religion and Jesus Christ.
But in our scenario the conversion did not happen. If we find a golf ball-sized tumor in his brain, does that make any difference concerning his free will? Size should not matt
er. There is ample, empirical evidence that all of the factors I’ve listed can influence a decision. Heck, just changing the order of a list will influence a decision–a lifetime of alcohol and drug abuse, coupled with an abusive childhood is a perfect storm of anti-social behavior.
It is no longer a matter of free will, self-control or willpower. Yes, maybe 10% of those who hit “rock bottom” find Jesus and substitute their chemical addiction with a religious one. However this is no longer a free will issue. It becomes a matter of probability. This is another example of damnation by probability. Blame is not the answer. Vengeance is not the answer. The key is prevention. In a deterministic world, our goal is to create positive causal events.
Matched Pairs
Here is a technique I learned years ago not in psychology class but in a sales seminar. I have never seen it elsewhere although it is a very valuable tool to determine what is really most important to you from a list. You will often be surprised by the results.
Let’s take a common decision–what do you look for in a life partner?
Loves me
Intelligent
Attractive face
Attractive body
Happy person
Funny/Laughs at my jokes
Kind and generous
Neat and clean
Unselfish
Good cook
You can add or subtract any element from the list above. Generally more than 10 becomes time consuming and unwieldy. If you do this with your partner or a group first ask them to rank the items above and keep it to themselves. If you wanted to test this theory further you could try it with a different group with the order above reversed. My bet is that the initial ranking would change because it is easier to accept a default value (See The Nudge by Richard H Thal and Cass Sunstein for more about this topic [Amazon Link]). Quick judgments are a Thinking Fast/Thinking Slow phenomenon. After you see your results you will see how your System 2 (reasoned approach) differs from System 1 (quick judgment).
So you now have your initial ranking? Here is how matched pairs works.
First create a list of all the options across the page like this. You are going to enter hash marks every time you select one of our ten options.
Loves me
Intelligent
Attractive face
Attractive body
Happy person
Funny/ Laughs
Kind and generous
Unselfish
Good cook
Then you will compare every option to every other option requiring a yes or no decision on each matched pair. You must choose one over the other. Which is more important? There are no ties. In the example below ask the subject to decide on “loves me” versus every option in the second column. They must decide; it is one or the other. Enter a hash mark in the chart above for each selection.
Loves me
Intelligent
Attractive face
Attractive body
Happy person
Funny/Laughs at my jokes
Kind and generous
Neat and clean
Unselfish
Good cook
After you match the first option to every option, remove “loves me” and move the second option, “intelligent” to the left. Compare it, in binary fashion, yes or no, one or the other, to the remaining eight choices. Enter each selection as a hash mark. Note how our list will diminish by one each time.
Intelligent
Attractive face
Attractive body
Happy person
Funny/Laughs at my jokes
Kind and generous
Neat and clean
Unselfish
Good cook
On the third element “attractive face” I have given some sample results:
It’s best to think of having one trait at the expense of another. In other words, in our example below, you get a pretty face but they are dumb as rock. Or you have to decide on a happy person versus an unselfish person. Assume that if they are happy that they are selfish when you make your selection. Or you have to choose between an unselfish person who is mostly sad or neutral at best. You don’t get both.
Also you might want to set a time limit for deliberation because some of these become really difficult as you weigh the alternatives. Would I date or marry an unattractive person who was kind and generous? Is your answer how you really feel or just what is more socially acceptable? Hopefully you will gain some insight into your own decision-making by the end of this exercise. Note how now we compare “attractive face” to the remaining seven attributes.
Attractive face
1
Attractive body
Attractive face
Happy person
1
Attractive face
Funny/Laughs
1
Attractive face
1
Kind and generous
Attractive face
1
Neat and clean
Attractive face
Unselfish
1
Attractive face
1
Good cook
Note that if your selection does not match the person you are with, it would be due to a System 1/System 2 mismatch which happens all the time. Also, you may ask someone to just list three traits they like about their spouse before you begin this. Often what we say we want or like is not what the matched pairs reveals we want.
Your last comparison will be only one: “unselfish” to a “good cook” and then you are done.
When you are done ranking every element against every other element, tally your results and create a new, sorted ranking. Is it the same or different from your initial ranking? Often you will find what you thought was important is not what you selected when forced to make a binary, one or the other decision. What do the results mean to you? This is a powerful tool and can be used for any decision-making process. Have fun with it.
Also, I ask you is this an example of free will? You just made very deliberate, thoughtful choices. It sure felt like you were in control. They were not snap decisions. But were your choices made freely from any internal or external influence? Could you have chosen differently? Note that even if you redid the exercise and came up with different results, the previous run-though became the antecedent event to your next choice. It does not matter if you conduct the exercise a hundred times each run-through is a causal even to the next outcome. Remember you are now a causal ramjet. You goal is to be the very best causal ramjet possible.
Other Actions-Blame or Not
With the 17 variables above in mind, use my list of questions to answer the questions below. Who do you blame? Which variables could influence their decision?
A rock falls on someone and kills them. Is it a bad rock?
Your car malfunctions, you loss control and kill someone.
Someone designed car to malfunction 1% of the time and you kill someone.
A dog mauls someone. Paul trained the dog to kill; the dog dug a hole and got out of the fence. Is Paul responsible or just the dog?
A robot, HAL, goes haywire, due to faulty programming and kills someone.
Sal is drunk, drives home and kills Susan, who was recently married. His three friends, Howard, Mike, and Seth allowed him to drive home drunk. Sal had been warned that "he might kill someone someday."
Arnold is a heroin addict and kills someone accidentally.
Martin is a meth addict and kills someone robbing them to get money to support his habit.
Michael enjoys killing people; he is true psychopath and a serial killer.
Someone in the frenzy of war kills entire families after seeing his friend killed by a 12-year-old suicide bomber.
What’s Up with All the Names?
You may have noticed, or not–that I am using specific names in my scenarios. Except where noted, these are all fictitious. Most are taken from a list of the top 100
baby names in 2013. Since they are so common, I’m illustrating a cognitive bias, an availability bias, where you might find yourself, either consciously or unconsciously, saying to yourself, oh my gosh, I know a drunk names Sal! How did he know?
This is also why anecdotes about Liam, who was startled by a burglar at 3 am was able to pull out his trusty revolver and shoot him dead, are so popular. We like stories about Liam (number 3 on the baby list); statistics are boring.
Giving our perpetrators specific names make them more personal, like a narrative versus a cold, clinical study.
Implications
Legal Implications-low IQ
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing mentally retarded people "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.
Then, after the Atkins decision, Freddie Lee Hall, who murdered a pregnant woman, was reevaluated and found to have an IQ between 71 and 80 on two tests. Florida, like nine other states (Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington), uses 70 as its cutoff for establishing mental retardation.
In a brief asking the high court to hear the case, Hall's attorney, Eric Pinkard, notes that lower courts originally placed his IQ at 60. He argues that the state cannot set a "bright line" for measuring something even the IQ tests' inventors say is a moving target.