Bootstraps vs. Circumstances

The struggle between structure and choice is a universal theme. While most people may not articulate this tension in academic terms, it lies at the heart of much political discourse in the West. This debate often manifests as a clash between those advocating for self-reliance—“pull yourself up by your bootstraps”—and those who argue that individuals are shaped by their circumstances.

Both extremes of this debate are overly simplistic. To ignore the impact of one’s environment on choices is misguided. If a person is surrounded by behaviors that hinder success, they are more likely to repeat those negative behaviors. Conversely, being around positive influences can lead to better choices.

However, it is essential to recognize that individuals are not entirely enslaved by their environments. There are numerous pathways for people from challenging backgrounds to achieve success, even if these paths may be more arduous than for those from more privileged backgrounds.

For instance, in Western societies, a few straightforward actions can help individuals avoid poverty: completing high school, refraining from crime, and avoiding substance abuse, among others. While these steps may pose greater challenges for individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, they are not insurmountable.

It is true that a small minority face extreme hardships, such as severe illness or profound psychological trauma. However, for the majority, escaping poverty is not an unattainable goal in the grand scheme of human capability.

Ultimately, neither side of the structure versus choice debate holds absolute truth. We are not entirely beholden to external circumstances, nor can we wholly escape their influence.

The Myth of Free Will

From a materialistic viewpoint, the concept of free will is questionable. If we think of the universe as a billiards table, then the cue ball was struck long ago, and all that occurs thereafter is merely a sequence of collisions predetermined by that initial strike.

However, we do not experience life from an abstract, cosmic perspective. Instead, we perceive the world from our own limited viewpoint, akin to billiard balls being struck and moved by forces set in motion long ago.

Our sense of choice is merely a reflection of our deliberation as we weigh potential outcomes. Since we can alter our actions but cannot predict their exact consequences, we speculate about future possibilities.

The outcomes of our decision-making processes are as predetermined as other natural phenomena. Yet, we experience the sensation of making choices, even when those choices are ultimately influenced by past circumstances.

As humans, we are inescapably tied to our perception of making choices. Lacking the perspective of the cosmic player, we can only engage with our experiences as the balls on the table.

The Moral Framework of the West

In response to the unsettling implications of materialism, Enlightenment thinkers turned to dualism. They argued that humans could navigate their physical reality through reason, as they were also spiritual beings not constrained by the same physical laws.

This perspective led to a moralizing framework for human behavior that still permeates our society. From this viewpoint, negative outcomes are seen as the result of flawed decision-making, whether due to moral failings or inadequate reasoning.

Instead of focusing solely on the circumstances influencing choices, we often strive to holistically improve decision-making processes, believing that individuals who make poor choices simply need moral or intellectual guidance.

While this approach has helped shape modern society, it only works when it aligns with the complex interplay of structure and choice. By holding individuals accountable for their actions from a moral standpoint, we create structures that guide their future behaviors. Rewarding positive actions and penalizing negative ones can influence behavior within these established frameworks.

While we can educate individuals in reasoning and provide them with better information, the impact of these efforts is relatively minimal compared to the influence of our moralizing culture.

Revisiting the Role of Circumstances

This perspective on choice and structure suggests that we need to move away from outdated moralistic views. Instead of adhering to a misguided belief that moral frameworks alone can improve humanity, we should focus on the circumstances shaping behavior.

This doesn’t imply that we abandon the concepts of reward and punishment. Rather, it means we should eliminate the superficial moralizing that often accompanies these practices.

The real challenge lies in our capacity to interact with the structures that influence behavior. While theoretically possible to shape behavior, our technological means to do so is still in its infancy.

Fortunately, this is not a call for a dystopian technocratic future. Instead, it invites a rethinking of how we understand behavior. Advances in neuroscience will soon equip us with the necessary tools to engage with behavior more effectively. However, we can begin this transformation now by adopting an ethos that recognizes the interplay of structure and choice while moving away from outdated moralizing.

Starting with something as straightforward as managing our snacking habits can serve as a foundation for personal growth. From this simple act of reflection, we can progressively enhance our ability to influence behavior positively.

The first video discusses how the decisions we make are deeply intertwined with our circumstances, influencing our personal choices.

The second video features Chad Crittenden at TEDxSDSU, exploring how we can create positive outcomes by shaping our circumstances.