[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Again, to be fair, I see some value in having basic aptitude tests, and setting that as part of a screening procedure for certain professions. It is true that genetics sets certain limits for people, but it's not as absolute as TinyRedLeaf is making it out to be. I firmly believe that free will does exist, and that denying that is one of the worst things a person can do.

And when you take away a person's free will at the age of five, and give them no real choice at all, I don't think that's something that should be defended.

Why insist on an illusion of free will when we refuse to provide such luxury of choice to people who choose to indulge in the illusion of a Heavenly Father who watches over us all? We say that people who stick to religious beliefs are delusional, and ridicule them as such. Why should we not also ridicule people who believe in free will, even when scientific evidence increasingly suggests that it does not exist?

In reality, to what extent can we claim credit for our seemingly "autonomous" choices? You rightly point out that the environment, or "nurture", plays a role in shaping our biological potential. Yet, to what extent can we claim credit for the kinds of environment we grew up in? Simply put, we can't. It was a massive lottery. We couldn't choose our parents. And we certainly couldn't choose the kinds of environments our parents and peers put us through during our most formative years.

Where was "free will" amid all these all-important decisions that affected our lives?

The simple, awful truth is that some of us were lucky enough to be born in certain environments, while others were just plain unlucky. Too bad. It doesn't change the brute fact that we have to deal with the consequences of such factors, without pretending that our will was ever "freely" shaped by conditions of our conscious choosing, or so Harris claims. He wants us to face the ugly truth of our biology, and deal with the inevitable consequences, however unpalatable they may be.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And that's a key flaw in both the Sibyl System (as it appears so far) and in TinyRedLeaf's analysis. It puts far too much emphasis on genetics (re: "nature") and not enough on broader sociological factors (re: "nurture").

Not exactly true. Ep2 appears to suggest that any individual can freely create the ideal environment that will make him or her a happy camper. Individuals are effectively freed from material wants, because advanced holographic technology can simulate whatever they desire. If it's true that environment and nurture affects our biology, that this could in effect be the ideal scenario of making sure each individual gets the best he or she deserves.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

But for the rest, you don't even get a chance to overcome your genetic predispositions, like Jim Fallon did in real life.

It's tough to be born autistic, epileptic, quadriplegic or with any other kind of physical or psychological handicap, but that's life. Sure, we can give such people all the chances they need, but let's not kid ourselves, they'd never be the same as a "normal" person. So, how is bad to put such people on a separate, more forgiving track, than to put them on a track that may cause them nothing but mental anguish as they fall increasingly behind "normal" peers, and potentially become criminals in reaction?

Originally Posted by Triple_R

But the Sibyl System doesn't provide such an environment - Rather, it institutionalizes people, "playing the odds" and giving up on them without giving them a real chance in life.

How is that so different from what we're already doing today, with the grading and ranking of students, and with different levels of rewards for different levels of performance? Whether you realise it or not, as a modern society, we have already tacitly accepted the institutionalisation of class differences among people. The Sibyl System does no more than to make this baldly explicit. Face the hard truth, or would you prefer to wallow in the opiate of the masses?