Category Archives: Psychology and Philosophy

A Paradox of Free Will

Most people enter into contracts and agreements under their own free will, yet paradoxically, there is a certain amount of duress, coercion, or fear of missing out contributing to most of these exchanges.

A common example is when people freely consent to provide a urine sample as a requirement for getting a job. They are freely providing bodily fluids for analysis by strangers—which is widely considered humiliating and embarrassing. Willingness to provide such a sample (while not under threat of arrest or dismemberment) arguably makes a compelling statement about an individual. (Note that I have given urine samples to get jobs as well, so I am not above the actions I am scrutinizing.) However, consider an alternative paradigm: perhaps people are not really acting autonomously as the law would lead us to believe? Can you simultaneously be exercising free will and acting under duress?

It seems obvious that the more resources one has, the less vulnerable one is to coercion. The poor individual who needs a job to make his rent payments is probably going to consent to giving a urine sample more readily than the child of a multimillionaire. However, people with ample resources may enter into an even greater variety of depraved and degrading agreements than the less fortunate. Consider that air travelers in the United States freely consent to being scanned with high frequency radio waves that reveal the contours of their breasts and genitals, or that college students, as a condition of their enrollment, agree to be subjected to codes of conducts that are often applied capriciously and without respect to evidence or law.

Even as a user of Facebook, you freely grant Facebook, Inc. a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [intellectual property] that you post on or in connection with Facebook” (Facebook terms, 2013-11-15 version). This is an agreement that many individuals would not sign if it was presented by a friend or family member, and yet hundreds of millions of people agree to these terms and more, of their own free will. The paradox is that many people use Facebook out of fear of missing out on the social and relationship opportunities it seems to present. People agree to ridiculous terms of service and end user license agreements everyday without ever reading them, and are blasé when discussing the implications of these agreements. And yet we accept that they are acting autonomously?

Taken to one possible extreme, the traditional model of free will is used as an antagonistic weapon of entitlement. Consider the argument that you have the free will to leave your state or country, and that remaining in Florida or the United States indicates agreement with the situations and policies being carried out. This is a laughable argument when applied to one’s homestead—clearly there are considerably, multifaceted costs to relocation. However, when applied to an institution or corporation, it is wielded with far less derision. “If you don’t like Facebook, no one is forcing you to use it.” “If you don’t want to be subjected to a breathalyzer test, no one is forcing you to get a driver’s license.” “If you don’t like Chinese imports, no one is forcing you to shop at Walmart.” “If you don’t want to be a rape victim, no one is forcing you to be a college student.” In this model, the individuals and institutions that perpetuate coercion are entitled to do so. The “if you don’t like it, you can leave” argument seems fair to the powerful, but for the individuals it is wielded against, opting out has significant costs. One who does not use Facebook, drive, shop at Walmart, or go to college misses out on a lot of experiences and opportunities.

A more accurate model of free will might be an exchange model that recognizes people are exchanging rights for rewards. Such a model must not imply that the exchanges are typically equitable. Unless two parties are coming from positions of similar power, the exchange (unless charitable) is typically devoid of egalitarianism. Facebook and Google arguably provide significant value to their users, but at a significant cost that has tangible benefits to the corporation (such as advertising and NSA revenues) while providing intangible benefits in return. My free will in agreeing to the terms set forth by Google and Facebook is perhaps one step above my free will in choosing Florida Power & Light as an electricity provider. “Their house, their rules” gets old when it’s always their house.

In truth, free will may be far less important than we think. As a psychology student, I think of the numerous experiments that demonstrate how changeable and malleable impressions and opinions are. If I am operating under my own free will, why am I so woefully inept at maintaining consistency and continuity in my actions and beliefs? Should I embrace hypocrisy, or should I fight the good fight, even though research has proven I will be the victim of logical fallacies and optical illusions, regardless of my efforts?

The next time you are tempted to chastise someone for making bad choices, consider that they may have less control than your diatribe will imply.

AT&T’s Landline Billing Practices

[This post is in reference to AT&T’s pricing in the Central Florida region.]

On our AT&T landline bill for 8/13/2014 – 9/12/2014, they prorated the “Federal Subscriber Line Charge” and “Federal Universal Service Fee” to a higher rate for 7/1 – 8/12—$7.28 instead of $6.78 and $1.14 instead of $1.12.

I am looking back at bills from 2013 and 2012 and they did this in those years too, but the fees increased by 22¢ and 26¢ instead of 52¢ this year. Also, the “Residential Line” rate is $24.00 now, was $21.00 in Aug. 2013, $18.00 in Aug. 2012, and $16.00 in May 2012.

People are getting rid of / have gotten rid of landlines in droves, and now the pricing is less regulated so AT&T’s solution is to jack up the rates much faster than inflation. They have to pay for maintaining a network with fewer and fewer customers, after all.

It is ironic that our bill for local phone service without long-distance, call waiting, caller ID, or any other features is now more than my cell phone with unlimited nationwide calling, call waiting, text messaging, and data—about $37 vs. $35 per month (MetroPCS at $70 for two lines on a family plan—it would be $40 for one line). We only keep the landline for family and so my step-mom can call her friend in Canada, and that is by dialing my local Google Voice number first and using it to dial out for free calls to Canada and free domestic long-distance (yes, local numbers in the Daytona Beach area on Google Voice are long gone, but they weren’t when I signed up in 2007—also, the service was called GrandCentral then and Google had not yet acquired it).

While the “federal” subscribe line charge (which actually goes straight to AT&T) is merely at the maximum rate allowed by law—if the FCC says they can double or triple next year, they will invariably do that—the base rate has also increased by 50% between May 2012 and Aug. 2014—from $16.00 to $24.00 per month. This is to use a network that already exists and hasn’t had major changes in decades.

In Central Florida, we are actually seeing the same practices with cable Internet with Bright House Networks as well. The base rate is now over $50.00 per month for 10 Mbps compared to $5 to $10 less a couple years ago, and a $3.50 modem rental fee now applies—but this “rental” was provided for free not long ago, and for $2.00 even more recently than that. The fee is closer to $4.00 since it has taxes and fees stacked on top. I have managed to pay less by buying a used modem for about $20, and by disconnecting and reconnecting as a new customer every six months or year with a new promotional offer—a ridiculous practice that involves them sending someone out to physically cut the cable at the pole and me relying on my phone and free Wi-Fi for up to a week while waiting for new service to be connected.

It is amazing in a period of such great technological innovation and upheaval that the pricing for basic services continues to increase while quality stays flat or declines, and is arguably an example of the declining standard of living in the United States. Based on observing ongoing trends, I believe we will only see more of this in the future.

Establishing Positive Self-Talk

Some ideas I wrote today for the 2014-08-06 meeting of the Toastmasters club of Port Orange, FL tonight:

Establishing Positive Self-Talk

Self-talk is the ongoing stream of private thoughts that run through your mind. The self-talk of many people focuses on anxieties, imperfections, shortcomings, and “what if” questions. However, just because pessimistic self-talk is common does not mean it is healthy or beneficial. If we make an effort to change our self-talk to be more positive, optimistic, forgiving, and encouraging, we will have more success and happiness in life.

Here are three examples of negative self-talk and positive replacements:
• “I’ve never done it before.” – “It’s an opportunity to learn something new.”
• “It’s too complicated.” – “I’ll tackle it from a different angle
or “I’ll chip away at it over time.”
• “I could never be as good as so-and-so.” – “So-and-so inspires and motivates me.”

One way to improve your self-talk is to make a conscious effort to replace negative thinking with positive thinking. Don’t beat yourself up for not being perfect. Celebrate your hard work rather than dwelling on times when you were lazy or needed rest. Think more about your accomplishments and less about your mistakes.

We tend to be hold ourselves to a higher, harsher standard than acquaintances and even close friends and family. However, doing so is often counterproductive because it prevents us from taking risks and causes us to sell ourselves short. Instead, try being as uplifting and supportive to yourself as you are to your best friend.

[ Quotes copied or adapted from a Mayo Clinic article ]