Cao 1

Charles Cao

Mr. Ruiz

Honors English 10

1 November 2016

Do Humans Really Control Their Actions?

Fate. Free will. Since the beginning of society, people have reflected on how much

control they have over their lives. Fictional plays, scholarly articles, and religious texts all offer

differing views. Malcolm Gladwell, author of ​Outliers: The Story of Success​, asserts that people

can control how well they perform in their activities through practice. In “Is Free Will an

Illusion?,” an article in ​Scientific American​, Shaun Nichols believes that free will does not exist

and people do not control their choices. Nichols offers a science-based and theory-based

argument while Gladwell supports his argument with analysis of one study and many opinions

from experts. Thus, Gladwell is able to appeal to an audience with ethos, logos, and even pathos.

Using expert opinions and one study comparing musicians, Gladwell asserts that the

amount of time spent practicing directly affects how someone performs. Explaining how

psychologist K. Anders Ericsson and two colleagues “divided the school’s violinists into three

groups,” Gladwell introduces a relatable topic, credible experts, and supports the argument with

ethos and logos. Through his analysis of the study, Gladwell is able to convey that people can

work for something and that natural talent is not the major deciding factor in people’s lives.

Gladwell further establishes ethos when he states: “The music critic Harold Schonberg goes

further: Mozart, he argues, actually ‘developed late’” (Gladwell). The addition of a music critic’s

statement on a prodigy in the musical field greatly increases the validity of Gladwell’s claim.
 Cao 2

Music critics deal with music and not psychology; however, this statement strongly suggests that

practice was the reason Mozart was so successful in his life. Mozart controlled how much he

practiced in order to excel because his “greatest work [was produced only after] he had been

composing for more than twenty years” (Gladwell). Gladwell believes that Mozart took the

twenty years to practice and to improve, further supporting his argument that a significant

amount of practice is needed to succeed. ​Utilizing pathos, he also appeals to readers.​ ​Gladwell

claims that the idea that practice shapes your life “is true even of people we think of as

prodigies.”​ The addition of the fact that even famous prodigies had to practice to excel bolsters

Gladwell’s claim that all people have control their lives. An shocking claim that reveals that even

Mozart had to practice and control his choices grabs attention.

Nichols does not strongly support his view that free will is an illusion. With little expert

opinion and uncertainty on some topics, he presents an unconvincing argument. Nichols weakly

asserts that “psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence

over our choices.” However, Nichols only presents unconscious processes as significant and not

the major factor in our choices. His words must convey a definite position to strengthen his

claim. Nichols questions if “consciousness” is not different from “brain processes.” Nichols

strongly believes that the brain is the one controlling people and it is a result of reactions that

take place. Conversely, Gladwell quotes neurologist Daniel Levitin that practicing for long hours

changes the brain. Therefore, this quote proves that Gladwell has a stronger argument; the brain

does not control people’s lives, but people control how the brain is shaped. In his article’s

introduction, Nichols explains that “it seems obvious to me that I have free will.” Even though

his argument was against free will, his words have lessened the validity of his later arguments.
 Cao 3

Nichols even admits that “[w]e still do not know conclusively if our choices are determined.”

The overall tone of his article is inconclusive. His statements are based on conjectures from

neurologists with little real-life examples to prove them. Nichols continues to support his claim

with scientific guesses: “Scientists have postulated that consciousness is populations of neurons

firing in certain brain areas, no more or no less.” However, proven facts better support an

argument; guesses weaken the argument. People may be led to believe that the arguments

presented elsewhere in the essay earlier or later may could also be based on guesses and not hard

evidence. Therefore, readers may believe that opposing claims could be plausible. His diction

detracts from his overall message.

Gladwell is able to convey a stronger argument by appealing to audiences and providing

more logical evidence. Through experiments, both Gladwell and Nichols support their argument.

However, Nichols does not provide ethos by accrediting the study to a psychologist. Gladwell

claims that the “magic number for true expertise [is] ten thousand hours” (Gladwell). This

statistic signifies that the amount of time an individual is willing is spend on practicing a skill is

directly correlated to how well they perform, further strengthening his claim. On the other hand,

Nichols explains that participants of a study solved word puzzles with words that “were either

associated with rudeness or politeness,” and “those exposed to rudeness words were more likely

to interrupt the experimenter.” However, there are no definite statistics that provide solid

evidence to support Nichols’s claim that free will does not exist. Gladwell addresses an opposing

side that claims that innate talent and destiny controls people’s lives. “[T]here is such thing as

innate talent,” but psychologists’ research validates that preparation plays a bigger role than

innate talent (Gladwell). Gladwell weakens the counterargument that innate talent is more
 Cao 4

important than preparation, thus persuading readers to agree with his stance. Although Nichols

placed many counterarguments, his ambiguity on the topics diminish his overall argument. For

example, he explains that “our intuitions about free will, however, challenge this nihilistic view”

that we do not have control over our lives. Since, this statement implies that readers may support

free will, his argument is less effective.

Both authors differ on the topic of free will. Nichols supports the idea that free will is an

illusion and “a figment of imagination.” However, this statement is contradictory; people can

freely imagine something based on their own free will. Also, most people challenge the view that

choices are already determined; Nichols surveyed many people to conclude that “individual

choice is not determined.” Gladwell has a stronger argument because he clearly provides expert

opinion, analysis of experiments, and appealing topics. He claims that people have innate talent,

but their lives are determined by practice and the amount of work they put in. Therefore, they are

able to control most of their lives.