Harvard psychologist Dan Wegner has written one of the best accounts of why we evolved the vivid experience of free will.17 Wegner argues that we have a brain that interprets actions in terms of a ‘we think we did it’ experience as a very useful way of keeping track of our decisions and actions. This is because the multiple conscious or unconscious influences and processes that lead to these choices are too complicated or hidden to monitor, but we can keep track of the outcome as a feeling that we have made the decision. For example, we may be at a party and want to impress some of the guests. Think of all the reasons why we might feel the need to do this – social anxiety, fear of rejection, the need to be at the centre of attention and so on. What do we do? We rely on our experience of past situations to come up with a strategy: we decide to tell a joke. We monitor the outcome and then store this for reference for future parties. We told a joke but were we free to do otherwise? Of course, we feel we made the decision but there were a multitude of previous experiences as well as current social norms and rules that influenced our choice. When our behaviours go wrong or we make a faux pas, we feel self-conscious and embarrassed and privately ask our selves, ‘What was I thinking?’
Having an experience of free will over our thoughts and actions binds us to these as the instigator of these decisions, even when that may not be the case. In this way, a sense of free will could help us keep track of what we have done, what we have not done and what we may, or may not, do in the future. As long as our conscious intention appears to precede our actions, then it is natural to assume that we willed them.
This authorship of actions requires the illusion of a unified sense of self. After all, it is useful to know who is responsible. Wegner18 has called this master illusionist ‘The Great Selfini’. As we act on the world, we interpret the consequences of actions from the privileged prospective of our singular self. This has some interesting consequences. For example, we remember our actions much better than those belonging to others. Whether the actions are walking, throwing darts or clapping hands, people are better at recognizing their own movements compared to those of others. In fact, we seem to be biased to remember those that pertain to us simply by acting on the world. In one study,19 individuals either selected slips of paper from a bowl or had them handed to them by the experimenter. The experimenter then read out the words associated with the code on each slip. In comparison to those individuals who had the slip given to them, those who chose their own slip remembered more of the words, even though they were never aware of the purpose of the study. It was a consequence of inconsequential actions, but because most of us are trip-wired to pay attention to our self, we tend to give special effort to anything we do.
However, just like false memories, sometimes our authorship of action can be mistaken. For example, when we make a plan to do something, we can forget whether we actually did it or not. If you ask subjects to imagine breaking a toothpick a number of times, and then a week later ask them to recall their actions, they have difficulty deciding whether or not they actually did break a toothpick.20 It’s like trying to remember whether you actually posted a letter or simply imagined that you did – did you or did you not? And the irony is that, by forming a mental picture of the action, we become more confused. Simply watching someone perform an action such as shaking a bottle can also lead to the false memory that we were the one who did it.21 Whether we imagine an action or observe others, we can mistakenly attribute our self as the actor. The reason gets back to the builtin mirroring system in our brain that responds to actual movements, imagined movements and the movements of others. If there is an author of actions, then sometimes they may make stories up or plagiarize the work of others.
Wegner thinks that the authorship of actions is like the mind’s compass that helps us navigate through the complexity of our daily lives. Like an autopilot, it steers the ship depending on the heading, conditions and the direction of magnetic north. There is no captain at the helm reading the compass because that would steer us straight back to the illusory self in control.
You Are Feeling Very Sleepy
‘If you focus on my watch, you will feel sleepy. You will find that your eyelids are getting heavy. You will want to keep your eyes open but you are unable to do so. The more you try to keep them open, the more you want to sleep.’ This routine should sound familiar as the commanding instructions of the hypnotist who uses them to make people relinquish control of their actions. Hypnotism is probably one of the best examples where people seem to abdicate their personal sense of free will.
Why is this? Hypnotism seems like some magical power that others have to exert control over us – like some external energy emanating from the eyes or the beckoning fingers of the hypnotist with the piercing stare and goatee beard. It is usually portrayed in popular culture as a paranormal power that the hypnotist possesses to overcome the will of others. However, this is the myth of hypnotism. Hypnotism works because not only do we instinctively mimic others, but we also tend to do what they ask of us in the right situation. If you couple that with induction techniques that place us in a state of relaxation, giving us the sense that we are not in control our bodies, then it is fairly easy to hypnotize someone. Even when we know we are being manipulated, we still give in. There’s nothing paranormal about it.
Imagine the typical dinner party scene where we have eaten too much, but the host urges us to have a bit more cake, ‘Go on, just one little piece won’t hurt.’ Most of us have encountered such social coercion and most of us give in, as the pressure to comply is so great. The same coercion would not really work in a restaurant and we would be mighty suspicious of the waiter who insisted that we eat more. In most restaurants (aside from the very expensive ones where many of us feel intimidated and comply to the authority of the maître d’) we are the ones in charge and do not capitulate to others. The dinner-party scenario is different because it is primarily a social event where we submit to the will of the group or the person in charge. We become susceptible to the influence of others we wish to please. This is because we are naturally inclined to be compliant towards others.
In hypnosis, we are similarly asked to submit to the authority of others to the extent that we end up engaging in behaviours that we would not necessarily think we would freely do. Also, we are willing victims. Many seek out a hypnotist for treatment or to help them stop smoking or lose weight. Others pay good money to go see a stage hypnotism show where we expect to see normal people doing daft things out of their control. In both of these situations there is an expectation that hypnosis will work and therefore we are willing to comply.
Techniques vary, but most hypnotic states are induced by a sequence of progressive compliance. For stage shows, the hypnotist works fairly rapidly to select the most suggestible members of the audience by getting them to engage in some motor act, such as clasping their hands tightly. He then tells them that their hands are stuck together with glue such that they cannot unclasp them no matter how hard they try. This simple technique will identify those who are willing to accept the suggestion of the hypnotist. Other induction techniques rely on various motor illusions such as trying to keep one’s palms separate when held at arm’s length. Our arms will naturally move together in such circumstances as our muscles fatigue, but by simply telling the individual that they have no control and allowing them to witness the involuntary actions of their bodies, it is a simple next step for many to begin to give up their sense of personal control. From then on, the hypnotist can focus on these individuals and manipulate them. Around one in ten of us22 is highly suggestible, which means that any decent sized audience will have more than enough suitable volunteers who can be made to bark like dogs or eat onions that taste like apples.