|
tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/6/2013 4:57:32 AM)
|
quote:
vincentML
quote:
Vincent, your question seems to me to interested in identifying the determining factors are in a given behaviour. I don't believe that any human behaviour is wholly determined. It seems all human behaviour is mediated through the brain mostly consciously, often sub-consciously. This implies an element of choice, which can range from the minute to total prevarication depending on the individual the context and the choice.
Tweakabelle, there are some who posit that the choices we make are determined by the choices we made previously and those determined by choices made even earlier, and the emotions associated with those choices. Probably not a good place to insert the question of whether free will is an illusion but what prompts me strongly to wonder about it is the strength of compulsions, addictions, and fetishes that grip the consciousness of so many, and over-ride any sense of which behavioural choice is truly best for the individual's survival, status, or self-esteem. In a simple case, when you choose to visit a theatre and see a particular film your choice is determined by your previous decisions about the genre of film or the actors, etc. In the more problematic situation, when a rapist, a pedophile, or a mass killer acts out his fantasies those fantasies have such a grip on his mind to indicate he is in the thrall of delusion. So, free choice? I dunno.
Vincent, I have my doubts about "free will" too, especially when it is posed in an 'either/or' fashion against its supposed opposite of "pre-determination".
The question of addictive behaviour is interesting here. Both the current models of treatment (abstinence and harm reduction) posit that after completing treatment, the addicted person has a choice whether to indulge their addiction or not. So one begins with an unmanageable behaviour and ends up with a choice. One way of looking at that is: the choice - to indulge or not to indulge - has been there all along, the problem is that the addict was unable to access and/or exercise that choice, the addiction blinds them to the choices available to them. The role of therapy is to restore access to that choice to the addicted person, enabling them to exercise those choices. Neither approach uses chemical substitutes as an essential part of treatment, with the abstinence model eschewing such substitutes completely. The role of the individual, the strength of their commitment to change themselves and how they exercise their choices are the critical factors.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), currently much in vogue in that field is even more explicit. CBT holds that addiction is a learned behaviour, a habit. CBT treatments are designed to 'un-learn' that behaviour and replace the self destructive habit with healthier habits. The therapy is centred around teaching the addict skills to make better decisions - a decision to indulge the habit being a poor decision, a decision to do something healthier being a good decision.
Thus even in situations where it is held that the person has 'lost control of their life', where they are at the mercy of external elements chemicals or behaviours or whatever it is they are addicted to, there are still choices to be exercised.
|
|
|
|
