Robert Sapolsky, 67, one of the most controversial figures in the American academic world, has its own perspective on neuroscience, an area in which a doctorate has, and is a professor at the prestigious University of Stanford (California, United States). For more than three decades he examines the brain to decipher issues that cause discomfort to the human species, such as stress. In recent times, however, it is concentrating on the mechanisms behind decision making, an issue that arouses scientific curiosity and that gives a unique approach. Based on broad studies, Sapolsky says that the elections that people make are almost entirely determined by genetic and environmental factors. This is the fuel behind your book “Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will”.
Journalist: In times of greater complexity and turbulence, like the one we live, is it more difficult for individuals to make decisions?
Robert Sapolsky: Undoubtedly. There are historical moments in which irrationality, human feature, manifests itself in very high degrees. It is what we are observing now. This has to do with the presence of wars, the increase in uncertainties and cracks in polarized societies. An environment inflamed by hatred, confined to a logic of “us against them”, generates fear and triggers a vicious circle that hinders decision making, a boiling point that has as its scenario the brain.
Journalist: Does neuroscience help explain irrationality?
Sapolsky: People stress more in times of a lot of movement, which releases hormones that activate brain structures related to emotions, altering the reflexive function of the frontal cortex, which makes us think before acting. Hence the propensity to a more impulsive behavior, with a tendency, even, to radicalization and extremism.
Journalist: Why are your conclusions about the human decision -making process so controversial in academic circles?
Sapolsky: People feed the illusion of the power of choice, when, in reality, free will is a myth. This means that individuals are almost 100% scheduled to choose this or that path in the different aspects of life. People’s decisions are defined by a combination of genetics, the surrounding environment and the experiences they have; These also shape DNA. Everything is practically written in us, an idea that clashes with several schools of thought.
Journalist: What space is then for the individual to improve and arbitrate more wisdom?
Sapolsky: People can mature, resort to Freud’s psychoanalysis and evolve in different areas. The brain is malleable and changes in response to experiences. But there are limits. Psychoanalysis provides new perspectives that shake the patterns of thought and behavior. But the way in which the circumstances outside our control affect us, from a biological point of view, will continue to be decisive for the decisions we make. However, I have an optimistic vision: we can change enough to live better.
Journalist: Do we have little control over our decisions?
Sapolsky: That’s how it is. Of course, an important part of the brain helps us think before making a decision. As only fully develops in adulthood, adolescents are, in general, more impulsive. But even this area linked to reason is affected by a set of events tattooed in the brain, which makes the majority of the decisions we make almost inevitable.
Journalist: You affirm that the belief of the human species that you have greater control over the course of its existence, and of your decisions, is an evolutionary tool.
Sapolsky: Humans have a series of mechanisms that allow us to deny reality to live better. We all know that death is inevitable, but it would be too painful to spend 24 hours fighting with that idea. Oblivion is a survival tool.
Journalist: To what extent does reason influence behavior?
Sapolsky: The idea of the rationality of species is another myth. Individuals have the impression that it is the mind that moves them in a certain direction, but emotions have the same weight. A study that I conducted in the political sphere, on elections, demonstrates, based on neuroscience, that the vote is not defined by the ideas of a candidate. What really matters are the feelings it causes and how much they resonate in the fears and anxieties of each person.
Journalist: Are political decisions also predetermined or depend on circumstances?
Sapolsky: They fit into the list of others, under the same logic. Let’s take the US President Donald Trump, the most controversial leader of our time. I would say that it is an exemplary case of how the combination of genetics and environment produces a human being capable of actions without empathy. The father was a real estate scammer and the mother a freezer in the field of affection and care. He spent his whole life without knowing if the people around him loved him or were simply there for money. We cannot expect anything very different from what we are seeing.
Journalist: Doesn’t this deterministic vision worry about you?
Sapolsky: Yes, it torments me. Scientifically understanding the roots of human errors does not mean that they do not cause repulsion.
Journalist: Retaking an extreme case, such as Adolf Hitler’s, is it possible to say that evil is also predetermined by biology?
Sapolsky: There is no such thing as an “evil gene” that predicts you to commit genocide. DNA has to do with potentials, not inevitable. The environment in which Hitler was immersed played a crucial role in his career, which included complicated childhood, the trauma of the first war, the economic crisis, the rise of nationalism; All this altered its operation, exacerbating what can be read as a propensity to evil.
Journalist: Can you better explain, from a biological perspective, how the environment impacts the decisions we make?
Sapolsky: There is no way to know for sure. But there are clues. A genetic variant related to serotonin, the hormone of happiness, which supposedly predicts the levels of aggressiveness was discovered. It is only activated in a single scenario: when the individual was raised in an abusive context. Genetics and the environment always go hand in hand, shaping who we are and how we act.
Journalist: Does this idea not make humans look like machines?
Sapolsky: We are biological machines. The difference with artificial intelligence is that humans are more multifaceted, we are aware of what our buttons are and where they are. It is a sophisticated system, but it is not something to show off. The same kinase enzymes that illuminate the receptors when we learn something are present in the brain of marine slugs.
Journalist: If practically everything is already written, why is it so difficult to predict tomorrow?
Sapolsky: Even chaotic systems are deterministic, since they follow fixed rules, but even they exhibit a sensitive dependence on the initial conditions. And it is exactly at this point that a small variation can have a great impact over time, giving rise to unpredictable results, drastically different from what is expected. Let’s take the case of twins. Although they share such a similar genetic composition, they will never become identical or similar people in their way of being, acting and deciding.
Journalist: What did you find in your studies on twins?
Sapolsky: From the most primitive cell level, distinctions are noticed between them that only deepen over time. Each person will have their own career and will be influenced by their own experiences, something that will leave a decisive mark on it. None of this is visible, so it is impossible to draw scenarios with mathematical precision. What can be inferred are trends.
Journalist: Understanding decision making as you define it brings any benefit?
Sapolsky: From the moment we understand the elections of each person as an expression of their nature, there is more empathy and less judgment. Perhaps the understanding that individuals are diverse by definition, from the beginning of life, contributes to an environment of greater tolerance and less hate.
Journalist: How to deal with criminals within this deterministic logic?
Sapolsky: There must be punishment, but the model in force in countries like the US, where I work with public defenders, should be rethink. It is not about mitigating the transgression committed by the criminal, but about understanding that it will only evolve when exposed to an environment of coexistence with others, capable of stimulating positive changes. In Norway, prisons are guided by a rehabilitation approach, based on a lot of activity and education. It is true that the investment in that direction is high, but there are records of a fall in homicide rates and in the recidivism of various crimes.
You may also interest you
Image gallery
