Where do our choices come from?
I’d tell you, but you’d probably disagree. Most people are not hardwired to understand themselves. Although we’re really genetic beings reacting to other genetic beings, we don’t see it that way. We think of ourselves as rational actors, acting in response to other rational actors.
Most people think we have freedom of choice, to do anything we want. The problem is, we don’t (and can’t) chose our “wants” themselves. They are part of who we are, as genetic beings. Our genes are not something we have. They are something we are. And the mere 1% genetic difference among humans accounts for our dramatically different choices.
Many people are lucky to be born with innate motivations that coincide with their parents' (and society’s) wishes. So they often attribute their success to parents and mentors. Yet it's easy to find counterexamples. Whenever you hear someone say "my parents made me who I am", you can respond with equal validity that their parents also gave them their genes, and genes come in many different flavors.
As with quantum physics, it seems impossible to step outside the system to observe ourselves objectively. In quantum physics, the observed and the observer are one. The process of observation causes the observed to exist. There are no privileged perspectives. We humans can’t seem to step outside of ourselves either, in our interactions with each other.
We react to each other, without trying to understand those who differ from us. It's been shown, for example, that political preferences are probably innate. (Soon, there could be a simple genetic test to determine who prefers Fox News over CBS!) As an extreme example, we don’t identify with serial killers or psychopaths either, even as their motivations are innate. We simply want to punish and incarcerate them, and forget about them, not understand them. Although we all share 99% of the same DNA, it's also true that two keys may be 99% identical, yet start different cars.
What does it mean to say motivations are genetic? It’s shorthand for saying “genes create our body infrastructure, including the brain’s circuitry, and design the development process to be self-tuning (via expected experience from our evolutionary history)”. Genes, which evolved over billions of years, in close association with the environment, are really encapsulated experience from that ancient time, brought forth to the present. Genes now develop our brain circuitry to recognize expected situations in the environment, and to react to them in standard ways. And genetic diversity means that no two people are motivated by the same things. Some people prefer rock climbing, and others prefer studying history.
At some level, we are "designed" by our genes to respond to certain environments. As an analogy, think of a simple example of a human-designed entity. An elevator is designed to respond to very specific environments (i.e. button presses). When the 3rd floor button is pressed, it “chooses” to travel to the 3rd floor, of its own free will. That is who it is. It’s part of the elevator’s design. The possible environments (for which it can react) are constrained by the elevator’s design. Yet it feels unconstrained, and free to act. Its response seems rational, only because the design had a specific purpose.
Genes are like formulas in a spreadsheet. Genes are algorithmic. Yet we don’t all have the same formulas, so the behavioral outcomes differ. But those outcomes are constrained by the formulas. We don’t have “free will” to change them, nor do we want to, because they are who we are.
Humans are not elevators or spreadsheets, of course. We have hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of innate formulas in our brains, designed by our genes. The formulas themselves invoke Bayesian and nonlinear algorithms and fuzzy logic, and so are nearly impossible to simulate. We humans seem unpredictable, only because we have no prediction machine.
The main point is that no two people have the same “formulas” in their brains, due to genetic diversity. Some people are motivated to seek power, and others are motivated by following power. Some people take more risk, and are more resilient. Some people enjoy killing. Some people are selfless and brave in the face of danger.
How would you teach someone to be motivated by power? You can’t do it. You can motivate someone (using their existing motivations), but you can’t give them new ones (since the development of the brain begins within a short time of conception, in utero). Yet a CEO makes millions of dollars because he has rare genes. Leadership is innate. That doesn't make it fair.
Finally, is genetics too complex to understand and predict? No, because genes reduce complex situations to simple signals. For example, a powerful general who commands an army of well-trained troops needs only issue a single command (“Attack!”), to begin a war. You could try to understand the war in terms of the political history, the social context, the history of weaponry, and the personal histories of all involved. Or you could understand the war in terms of a single signal.
In the same way, humans may have a single “master” gene for certain high-level traits, that can trigger a cascade of activity in thousands of other genes. (Heck, even a simple drug can turn you into a compulsive gambler!) My guess is that we’ll find single “master genes” for many human traits and motivations. (Scientists have already discovered social behavior genes.) In the future, your DNA can be tested for these gene variants, to determine if you have rare leadership qualities, or what consumer preferences you may have.
If motivation is genetic, then our theories of rational agents, free choice, and homogeniety in society are sorely outdated.
