Not necessarily.

Conformity and nonconformity are both driven by instinct... just different instincts.

For some, safety and belonging dominate. For others, truth, rebellion, or distrust of authority take over.

One person fears exclusion, another fears submission. Both responses are conditioned. Neither requires free will.

Nonconformity feels like a choice... but it’s often just the result of different wiring, different wounds, different causes.

The desire to break from the crowd isn’t proof of freedom... it’s proof that your internal compass points somewhere else, and you didn’t install that compass yourself.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Interesting perspectives

Yes, I’ll leave you with this. You might find it interesting:

The idea of free will was born out of religious necessity. Early religious institutions needed a framework to justify moral responsibility, sin, and punishment.

If people were truly free to choose good or evil, then it made sense to blame, punish, and condemn those who disobeyed divine law.

Without free will, hell makes no sense... how do you punish someone for doing what they were always going to do?

So the doctrine of free will became a tool of control:

- It made people feel guilty for natural desires.

- It justified obedience and submission.

- It gave priests and rulers moral high ground.

Even after the fall of religion, this belief lingered in secular culture because it flatters the ego. It says: “You are in control. You are responsible. You are the captain of your soul.” It feels empowering... but it’s a myth inherited from a religious system built to exploit guilt.

I would add that free will and predestination are contradictory as well. How can you have free will if god already planned everything and knows what you will do? Makes no sense