This was pointed out to me by a wise old man I once met in Los Angeles. He had just emerged from a mental hospital, he was physically sick, his wife had left him, and his children were alienated from him. After a five-hour discussion, during which we disagreed on every topic that arose, l suddenly saw an underlying pattern to our debate.

"I see now, old man, why we disagree. We consider each topic at such depth that we get right down to our basic philosophical assumptions, and I am a free-willist whereas you are a determinist."
" Of course, young man, you are a free-willist - your life is going well and you want to take the credit. And, of course, l am a determinist - my life is going badly and I don't want to take the blame."

      Once I tried to teach myself not to get mad at inanimate objects. My technological possessions are not in a conspiracy against me. I finally convinced myself that they did not work because I was not using them appropriately. One object however still made me mad. My showerhead kept freezing or scalding me. Forgetting to move the whatsit to re-direct the water to the bath, my showerhead attacked me from behind as I bent over to check the temperature. Once again, I was responsible but - because of the lack of spatial and temporal contiguity - it seemed to be doing it to me. The feedback chain is usually much more complex than this, as when our karma comes back as a result of how we treat other people. Thus we keep blaming other things and other people for what is happening to us. The upside of accepting blame for the bad things that happen to us is that we can also accept the credit for the good things that happen to us.

      Introductory textbooks in psychology (including my own) intone, time after pompous time, that this or that behaviour is determined by some complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors. However, there seems to be a third factor. Once again, an anecdote may help: Chang and Eng were Siamese twins. Whereas Chang was practically teetotal and celibate, Eng was an alcoholic and a womaniser. Here were two people, who were genetically identical and had as close to similar environmental influence as possible, yet had totally different personalities. Their different personalities could not be attributed then to genetic factors, or environmental factors, or whatever complex interaction between them. There must be a third factor. Eng chose to lead the short happy life, whereas Chang tried for the long miserable one. Alas, poor Chang had to die when Eng died. However, most of us are not attached to another person and lead lives determined by our choices.

      This emphasis on choice does not imply that genetic factors are unimportant. Choice is a function of the natural unfolding of the potential of our species. Both phylogenetic (animal to human) and ontogenetic (child to adult) development could be best described - if they must be described in one sentence - as the progressive emancipation of the organism from the tyranny of the environment. Nor does this mean that the environment is unimportant. There is no evidence that any group of people has cornered the market on any of the human vices or virtues. Different cultures create different climates which encourage or discourage different choices. What is truly important, however, is the third factor of human choice. We are indeed constrained by our genetics and by our environments but, within those constraints, we can exercise choices to determine, to some extent, the course of our lives. We can write our own scripts.