Observations of late…
We only have partial free will that allows us to make decisions within a very narrow field. It’s the boundaries of that narrow field that appear to be genetically determined, that is, one’s ‘nature’. We tend to gravitate to like people who inhabit the same kind of field, who have a similar nature, if not the very same one. What differentiates those within the same field may be their somewhat different life experiences, their culture, their ‘nurture’. Knowing this makes the study of people both a qualitative and quantitative exercise at the same time and of great use. This is usefully shown in American politics in the following article that explains how ‘openness measures’ can be used to determine successes and failures and how electoral campaigns can be run.
https://medium.com/@maxborowitz/why-do-progressives-keep-losing-195381096132
And this can be applied to Alberta, or anywhere else, as well. This is kind of what I have been hinting at for some time. Look at this long list and ask yourself what they may represent. Being liberal, being conservative, being open, being less open, being unselfish, being selfish, being rational, being irrational, being afraid, being brave, being progressive, being regressive, being aggressive, being passive, being a conformist, being an nonconformist, being critical, being uncritical, being competitive, being noncompetitive, being cooperative, being uncooperative, being moral, being immoral, being introverted, being extroverted, being internally motivated, being externally motivated, being concrete sequential, being abstract random, being reasonable, being unreasonable and many more … survey questions are they not? These are some of our predilections, predispositions, the boundaries perhaps, and all the spaces in between, that are determined by DNA. We learn how to use these pre-existing qualities, in sum what kind of person we are, and base our thoughts and actions on them and so develop our experiences to preserve, enhance or downplay them as required. In some cases it’s the denial of our predispositions, or forceful intervention in negating them, that has caused agonizing mental suffering resulting in mental breakdowns and/or grossly anti-social behaviour. What we have happening in our human world is our DNA talking and there is precious little one can do about that. While you do have choices within your realm of predispositions, you have little or no choice outside of them. You would not even consider ‘going there’, your likes and dislikes having already steered you clear of that discomfort. The genetics of behaviour and psychological characteristics leaves us very few choices. We can choose, for certain we most assuredly do, but our DNA prevents us from choosing wildly off base options.
“The ultimate punishment requires an ultimate responsibility which cannot exist. That is why we should not be worried to discover that factors outside our control, such as our genetic makeup, are critical to making us the people we have become. The only forms of freedom and responsibility that are both possible and worth having are those that are partial, not absolute. There is nothing science tells us that rules out this kind of free will. We know people are responsive to reasons. We know we have varying capacities of self-control which can be strengthened or weakened. We know there is a difference between doing something under coercion or because you decide yourself you want to. Real free will, not a philosopher’s fantasy, requires no more than these kinds of abilities to direct our own actions. It does not require the impossible feat of having written our own genetic code before we were even born.”
And while you can not write your own genetic code, it has nonetheless been written and you have to live with it.