Wednesday, April 17, 2013

The Power of Habit [Chapter 9]

Haley Scholars Spring 2013 Reading Groups 

By Danielle Hall

In chapter nine of The Power of Habit, Charles Duhigg explores the complex links between deep-rooted habits as automatic behaviors, “the neurology of free will,” and the role of society in assigning responsibility. He queries “the ethics of habit and choice” through the lives of Brian Thomas and Angie Bachmann — both of whom on the exterior appear to have two remotely different experiences that result in loss. Yet, both examples demonstrate how the brain responds to ingrained habits and how neurological processes can trigger or impede one’s ability to make decisions.

According to Duhigg, some habits are indeed “automatic behaviors so ingrained in our neurology that, studies show, they can occur with almost no input from the higher regions of the brain” (255). In other words, Brian’s automatism/sleep terror and Angie’s pathological gambling look quite similar when viewed as reflexive behaviors or responses from individuals acting without choice. Despite the outcome in each narrative, Duhigg reminds readers that even under the most uncanny or dire circumstances, “habits… aren’t destiny” but that “every habit, no matter its complexity, is malleable” (270).

He later states that the “real power of habit” is “the insight that your habits are what you choose them to be (273).” Based on the reading, do you feel that Angie Bachmann’s gambling case was (more/less/as) justified as Brian Thomas’ sleep terror example? Why? 

7 comments:

Phillip L. said...

I am thankful and at the same time lack any type of understanding about either situation. I understand why Angie is held accountable and Brian is not, I am not sure if I agree though. The State Supreme Court Justice was correct in saying that not only did she know she had a problem, but even in her condition there were steps she could have used to combat those problems.

I am not sure that I can understand how Brian is not considered a danger to himself or society. Anyway, the question is do I believe that Angie’s case is (more/less/as) justified as Brian’s. Less justified. I could be wrong but I feel that because she is fully aware of her actions and is said to feel guilt as result of actions she is more culpable. Why doesn’t she put herself on the state list or do whatever she can in her more lucid moments to protect her and her family from herself?

Phillip L said...

I am thankful and at the same time lack any type of understanding about either situation. I understand why Angie is held accountable and Brian is not, I am not sure if I agree though. The State Supreme Court Justice was correct in saying that not only did she know she had a problem, but even in her condition there were steps she could have used to combat those problems.
I am not sure that I can understand how Brian is not considered a danger to himself or society. Anyway, the question is do I believe that Angie’s case is (more/less/as) justified as Brian’s. Less justified. I could be wrong but I feel that because she is fully aware of her actions and is said to feel guilt as result of actions she is more culpable. Why doesn’t she put herself on the state list or do whatever she can in her more lucid moments to protect her and her family from herself?

Ke'Asha jones said...

I feel that Angies gambling was less justified compared to the night terrors Brain has because from the beginning of his night terrors he never chose to have them and have them more than once but Angie chose to gamble and she chose to gamble the second time until it became a habit hard to break

robyn r said...

I think that Angie's gambling case was less justified because like previously stated she had choices. Angie chosed to keep up with the "habit" that resulted in the negatve consequences. Brian on the other hand was not conscious meaning not in his right mind like Angie. Brian's incident for lack of better words can be considered an honest mistake.

Monique Williams said...

In my opinion, I feel as though Angie is able to take some responsibility of her gambling situation. She had the choice and was aware of her actions. For instance, a smoker has a choice of whether to smoke that first cigarette or not.
Although I believe that Brian can have the ability to pose threat to society, I believe his situation can be easier to justify then Angies. As I can see, he did not have control over his situation, or a choice. This is something out of his hands.

Jacquelene G said...

I feel Angie’s case was a little less justified than Thomas’s sleep terror. Although, I feel both of the habits were automatic and involuntary, in Angie’s case, as the author stated perhaps she could have taken more steps to prevent her outcome. Even after moving away she could have perhaps blocked the casino’s calls or put herself on the voluntary exclusion program. However, Thomas could not have done much to prevent something he never suspected to happen, having never had a history of violence during his sleep walks before. I also, felt the verdict in both cases was fair.

Jac`quelene G.

Yasmyn K. said...

I believe that Brian's night terrors and Angie's gambling are two different types of examples. Angie's gambling habit is less justified than Brian's terrors at night. I feel this way due to the fact that it was a choice made by Angie to gamble, but Brian can not control his night terrors.