In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Academics are people, and as such they engage in evolutionarily preserved behaviors relevant to a social context. One such behavior is group formation , usually around some commonality. For academics, groups can form around common ideas such as whether free will exists or not. These different viewpoints may lead to interesting philosophical discussions about ethics and moral responsibility (as evidenced by this book) but can also create social groups around these ideas. Ironically, social groups may impede the ability of academics to scientifically answer complex questions about the existence of free will. Here, we argue that different philosophical stances create social groups and inherent conflict, hindering interdisciplinary intellectual exploration on the question of free will because people incorporate their support for a particular stance into their identity. This is not to say that philosophy does not contribute to the interdisciplinary intellectual exploration, but through group formation around a common philosophy, people may conflict. Group identity plays an important role in explaining how such conflict can arise from a simple discussion. Groups provide people with a sense of belonging and security, making it rewarding to belong to a group (Hagerty et al., 1996). However the mere existence of other groups creates intergroup tension (Tajfel, 1970) that can be amplified when each group’s philosophical stance and subsequent identity refutes the other. These identities guide perceptions of the validity and accuracy of ideas and conclusions drawn during the debate. Metaphorically, all groups in the free will and determinism debate—metaphysics, mind, and ethics—believe in their stance; these beliefs strengthen when interacting with ingroup members due to ingroup positivity biases and group polarization (Brewer, 1979; Isenberg, 1986). Individual variability in the extent to which people hold a belief suggests that there are people who do not identify with any group but may still pursue these questions. Nonetheless, for argument’s sake and to avoid a 10 A Social Perspective on Debates about Free Will Victoria K. Lee and Lasana T. Harris 382 Victoria K. Lee and Lasana T. Harris discussion of leaning toward a philosophical position, we will consider just the ideal group members: those people that strongly identify with a philosophical position in the free will debate. Let’s imagine a typical academic. This person’s behavior is motivated by monetary and social rewards. Putting money aside, social rewards greatly influence this person’s choice of research topic and even his or her philosophical position on questions of free will. These social rewards come in many forms but consist of liking and respect from primarily ingroup members. All academics belong to social groups, departments comprised of other people who study similar topics from similar perspectives. Hence people who study specific aspects of the physical and social world cluster together in academic departments comprised of other people who study similar things. These topics of study inform the person’s identity, a core self-concept that also motivates behavior. Thus, the academic is motivated by social rewards and their identity as an academic. Social approval from peers is therefore quite rewarding and highly motivating. This approval is generally reserved for prototypical “good” group members because the behavior of these people represents the group and their ideas well. Stated differently, a typical way to be a good group member is to represent the group well. This idea is institutionalized within academic departments, where there exists a promotional structure that endows members with higher status dependent upon their performance as a group member. This institutionalized reward blends social and monetary rewards, resulting in more respect (though not always liking) and higher salaries. Therefore, any person within an academic structure is motivated to be a good group member: a good academic in their discipline . Being good in one’s discipline requires adhering to the philosophical position undergirding that particular discipline. For instance, legal scholars should endorse a free will position while most scientists are intrinsically deterministic. Now the question arises as to whether a person joins an academic discipline because their philosophical position aligns with the discipline or whether the discipline shapes their philosophical position. If it is the former, then this seems to suggest a certain degree of freedom; each person is free to choose the discipline to which they belong. However, closer examination suggests that this choice is not entirely free because the philosophical position itself guides the choice. Therefore, the manner in which the philosophical position was attained delineates whether there was free choice in the matter or not. Perhaps genetics or the person...

Share