[maxdoop]

Do you often discount studies and science when it comes to ideas that don’t align with your natural instinct?

Is addiction a disease or a moral failure? Is depression a chemical imbalance or is it your own fault, maybe just “exercise and smile more”?

Questions of that nature are fair but simply being against a researcher or author because they have a viewpoint different your own is entirely what’s wrong with so much of discourse today.

[labrador]

You're implying that Robert Sapolsky speaks the truth the contradicts my belief system. Maybe you're thinking I'm Catholic (I'm not) who see free will as a gift from God that allows humans to freely choose to love and obey Him. Catholic doctrine holds that free will is granted to humans by God as part of being created in His image and likeness. Without free will, humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions. The ability to choose between good and evil is fundamental to Catholic understanding of sin and redemption.

No, I think Robert Sapolsky's focus is too narrow and materialistic, ignoring almost everything that makes us human. In the story of the seven blind men and the elephant, Robert Sapolsky is the blind scientist that feels the trunk and proclaims the elephant is a snake. Robert Sapolsky's science is flawed. If human behavior can be explained by chemicals then why do we need his colleagues in other departments at Stanford, such as the psychologists?

My point was he was doing what he does to make money Malcolm Gladwell style and I thought there was nothing wrong with that but that was a reason why I didn't take him seriouly.