FAD-Plus – “Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire” (Paulhus 2011)

[11:54 p.m. March 2, 2023] Cybermonk

Site Map

Contents:

The FAD-Plus: Measuring Lay Beliefs Regarding Free Will and Related Constructs
Delroy Paulhus & Jasmine Carey
2011
Journal of Personality Assessment [assessment: does the person use possibilism-thinking, or eternalism-thinking? -cm]
Issue 93(1), 96–104 (2011)
Search:
FAD plus Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs paulhus
https://www.google.com/search?q=FAD+plus+Measuring+lay+beliefs+regarding+free+will+and+related+constructs+paulhus
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528483
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-26461-013
Full article, $50:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223891.2010.528483

Abstract

“We describe the development of FAD–Plus, a 27-item measure of lay beliefs in free will and 3 closely related constructs: scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability.

“Previously published measures included only a subset of these variables and tended to assume an a priori pattern of relations among these 4 beliefs.

“In Study 1, exploratory factor analyses suggested relatively independent factors.

“This independence was sustained in Study 2, using a confirmatory analysis.

“Each of the 4 subscales (Free Will, Scientific Determinism, Fatalistic Determinism, and Unpredictability) showed acceptable internal consistencies.”

  • Free Will
  • Scientific Determinism
  • Fatalistic Determinism
  • Unpredictability

“Study 2 also mapped out associations with the Big Five personality traits and showed that believing in free will is not synonymous with having an internal locus of control.

“Study 3 replicated the instrument’s structure and subscale reliabilities in a community sample.

“Preliminary applications are described.

(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)”

Intro

I finally figured out how to relate the 3 articles!

  1. FAD q’aire (1994 then 2011) is non-psychedelic.
  2. But Letheby & Timmermann 2021 is Psychedelic application of the non-psychedelic FAD (2011) q’aire.
  3. Finally, Matthew Johnson (2021) is a review of Letheby’s book, which both naturally incorp Letheby article.

All of it (2011 FAD q’air, Letheby’s 2021 article, Letheby’s 2021 book, Johnson’s 2021 review-of-book article) thoroughly drenched in possibilism-thinking, with nary a trace of eternalism-thinking (naturally & inherently, firmly predictably, as predictably as sin precedes redemption).

This is an important q’air b/c Matthew “Lose the Buddha statue” Johnson cites it and cites Timmermann (a 3-way article relation):

  • Paulhus’ FAD 1994 & FAD-Plus (2010) article/instrument.
  • Timmermann & Letheby’s article Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs (2021), cited by Johnson.
  • Johnson’s 2021 article “Introduction: Psychedelic Science Needs Philosophy” about Chris Letheby’s book Philosophy of Psychedelics, in Metzinger’s Journal of Philosophy and the Mind Sciences (which includes a Precis summary of the book).

Items

[IT’S AN INHERENT GIVEN THAT THESE ITEMS ALL ASSUME EGOIC OPEN-FUTURE DOMINO-CHAIN DETERMINISM (NOT ETERNALISM):]

“Items extracted from the Fatalistic Determinism subscale from the Free-Will and Determinism (FAD-plus) questionnaire1 used for this study.

  • My future has already been determined by fate
  • No matter how hard you try, you can’t change your destiny
  • Fate already has a plan for each of us
  • What will be, will be-there’s not much you can do about it
  • Whether we like it or not, mysterious forces seem to move our lives

“Items extracted from the Free-Will subscale from the FAD questionnaire1 used for this [Timmermann 2021] study:

  • People have complete control over the decisions they make
  • People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to
  • Criminals are totally responsible for the bad things they do
  • Strength of mind can always overcome the body’s desires

Why didn’t Timmermann use items from FAD-plus’s “Scientific Determinism” subscale? search: FAD-plus “Scientific Determinism” Paulhus
https://www.google.com/search?q=FAD-plus+%22Scientific+Determinism%22+Paulhus

Strange: Fino writes “Paulhus and Carey (2011) developed the Free Will and Scientific Determinism Questionnaire (FAD-Plus)”

You can get a glimpse/ peek at FAD in the Timmermann Supplement.

This PDF might provide a glimpse into an early, 1994 version of FAD:
Roczniki Psychologiczne
2018 | 21 | 4 | 345-364
The Free Will and Determinism Plus (FAD–Plus) scale: The validity and reliability of the Polish adaptation
Blanka Kondratowicz-Nowak , Joanna Duda , Jakub Wierzbicki , Anna Maria Zawadzka
Full texts: https://ojs.tnkul.pl/index.php/rpsych/article/view/7107/6966
http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-dd1029b7-a736-4d80-b647-0f4aa31e1ef4 – it cites “Paulhus, D. L., & Margesson, A. (1994). Free will and scientific determinism (FAD-4) scale. Unpublished instrument, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.” –

“The FAD-Plus by Paulhus and Carey (2011) consists of 27 items, making up four scales: Free Will, Fatalistic Determinism, Scientific Determinism, and Un-predictability.

“Seven items refer to belief in free will (e.g., “People have complete control over the decisions they make”).

“Seven other items make up the Scientific Determinism scale (e.g., “People’s biological makeup determines their talents and personality”).

“Further five [all are listed above] items concern fatalistic determinism (e.g., “I believe that the future has already been determined by fate”). [read: egoic-conceptualized, ordinary-state based, domino-chain causality] [“fatalistic determinism” is entirely different than eternalism!]

“The last scale, measuring belief in the unpredictability of events, consists of eight items (e.g., “No one can predict what will happen in this world”).

“Subjects respond to each item on a five-point scale (from 1 – strongly disagree, to 5 – strongly agree).”

Reference #4 in Timmermann: Paulhus, D. L. & Carey, J. M. The FAD-plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. J. Pers. Assess. 93, 96–104 (2011).

The 4 Scales and Their 27 Items, of the FAD-Plus: Free Will and Determinism Questionnaire Cited in Timmermann [in Polish btw 😊👍]

You can view all the FAD-Plus items in plain Polish: 🤖 robota:

Free Will [7]

  • 1) People’s decisions are up to them.
  • People must take full responsibility for all the bad choices they make.
  • 2) People can overcome any obstacle if they really want to.
  • 3) Criminals are fully responsible for the bad things they do.
  • People have complete free will.
  • People are always to blame for their evil deeds.
  • 4) The power of the mind can always subdue the desires of the body.

The items Timmermann used in English are numbered. Four of those items, in presumably the original English, for checking round-trip accuracy of the above wording:

  • 1) People have complete control over the decisions they make
  • 2) People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to
  • 3) Criminals are totally responsible for the bad things they do
  • 4) Strength of mind can always overcome the body’s desires

Fatalistic Determinism [5] (Egoic Domino-Chain Determinism)

  • I believe that the future has already been determined by fate.
  • No matter how hard you try, you cannot change your destiny.
  • Fate already has a plan for everyone.
  • What will be, will be – there’s not much you can do about it.
  • Whether people like it or not, their lives seem to be run by mysterious forces.

Original English per Timmermann’s Supplement doc:

  • My future has already been determined by fate
  • No matter how hard you try, you can’t change your destiny
  • Fate already has a plan for each of us
  • What will be, will be-there’s not much you can do about it
  • Whether we like it or not, mysterious forces seem to move our lives

Scientific Determinism [7]

  • Talents and personality depend on the biological nature of a person.
  • Psychologists and psychiatrists will one day figure out all human behavior.
  • Your future depends on your genes.
  • Science shows how the environment you grew up in shaped your current intelligence and personality.
  • Human behavior is always in accordance with the laws of nature, just like the behavior of animals.
  • The character of children depends on the character of their parents.
  • The environment from childhood determines a person’s success in adulthood.

Unpredictability [8]

  • The history of mankind seems to be influenced mainly by random events.
  • No one can predict what will happen in the world.
  • Life seems unpredictable – like rolling a dice or a coin.
  • People are unpredictable.
  • Life is difficult to predict because it is almost always driven by chance.
  • Whether people are lucky or not has a big impact on their lives.
  • What happens to people is a matter of chance.
  • The future of people cannot be predicted.

Fundamental Limitations of the Attempted List of Different Philosophies

Timmermann’s article about applying FAD-Plus questionnaire makes the primary axis or concern, Materialism vs. Idealism — instead of making it, more appropriately, Possibilism vs. Eternalism.

They misunderstand, LETHEBY’S CONCEPTION OF “PHILOSOPHY” IS MIS-FOUNDED FROM THE START, probably.

That’s like the huge, widely made mistake of making not Phenomenology the main concern, but making Epistem/Ontology the main central concern and division.

The right type of main axis on which to draw a contrast that matters, is Phenomenology: the two opposed experiential modes (this is a good train of analysis): the possibilism experiential mode vs. the eternalism experiential mode.

To all these various writers (ie everyone; the human mind before transformation), everything revolves around “Materialism vs. Idealism” (various ordinary-state-based classroom debate positions about Epistemology/Ontology).

But instead, everything in fact — across the two states of consciousness — revolves around Possibilism vs. Eternalism, two models of control and time and the existence of future control-thoughts, and whether possibilities really branch or only faintly appear to, like wispy, perishable feather branching.

I have read Letheby’s Precis summary of the book in full, but need to double-check that point/realization.

The Stanford Philosophy site articles – cited by me & Johnson – are same: they fail to grasp and comprehend which of the 3 models of time are the contrasted two, that are contrasted across the ordinary state of consciousness vs. ASC.

All of the “different positions” that are listed in Timmermann & Letheby’s article “Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs” (2021) are drenched in egoic possibilism-thinking.

All these allegedly contrasting positions are ordinary state of consciousness-based.

NONE OF THESE WIDELY DIFFERING POSITIONS ARE ETERNALISM, and even if one were, it would still be a Possibilism-premised, possibilism-drenched version (misconception, misrepresentation) of eternalism.

There’s a table of “different” philosophies in Letheby & Timmermann’s article.

To what extent is Timmermann’s article about FAD, 100%??

Motivation for this Article

I am breaking out this page from page “Rejecting Confused, Unhelpful Explanatory Constructs: Naturalism, Ego Dissolution, Neuroplasticity, Unity, Default Mode Network” because I struck ore – Matthew Johnson’s introduction article for the Metzinger special issue on Chris Letheby’s book Psychedelics of Philosophy cites this FAD-Plus questionnaire.

The first version of this FAD q’air was 1994, and focused more on scientific determinism (my genes made me do it) than on later-called / later-differentiated “fatalistic determinism“, which was added in the 2011 v2, FAD-Plus, by Paulhus.

Don’t Be Fooled: “Fatalistic Determinism” is ENTIRELY Different than Eternalism, and Is a Version of Egoic Open-Future Possibilism-Thinking

This point is so important, I’m keeping this heading in a couple articles.

See also:

Article title:
Rejecting Confused, Unhelpful Explanatory Constructs: Naturalism, Ego Dissolution, Neuroplasticity, Unity, Default Mode Network
Section heading:
Irony: All Scientific Questionnaires on Philosophy Positions Forcefully Default to Possibilism
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/rejecting-confused-unhelpful-explanatory-constructs-naturalism-ego-dissolution-neuroplasticity-unity-default-mode-network/#Default-to-Possibilism

See Also

To find any of these citations of any books & journals & articles that my articles mention, either:

  • Use the Find text box in this WordPress site. eg this will find subheadings within a long page.
  • Go to my Site Map & then (if you know key words that are in the title of my article/page) Find in the Site Map page.
    Site Map
    https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/

Rejecting Confused, Unhelpful Explanatory Constructs: Naturalism, Ego Dissolution, Neuroplasticity, Unity, Default Mode Network
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/rejecting-confused-unhelpful-explanatory-constructs-naturalism-ego-dissolution-neuroplasticity-unity-default-mode-network/

Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs
Christopher Timmermann & Chris Letheby
2021
Cited by Johnson’s review of Letheby’s book.
https://www.google.com/search?q=timmermann+%22psychedelics+alter+metaphysical+beliefs%22
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34815421/
Open-access .pdf
Auto citation:
Timmermann C, Kettner H, Letheby C, Roseman L, Rosas FE, Carhart-Harris RL. Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs. Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 23;11(1):22166. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01209-2. PMID: 34815421; PMCID: PMC8611059.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01209-2
Direct link to Supplement:
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/10. 1038/ s41598- 021- 01209-2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01209-2
That’s a landing page where you can download the PDF of the Supplement:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-01209-2/MediaObjects/41598_2021_1209_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
10 pages.
The browser tab says Microsoft Word. Top of page says:
Supplementary Information for
Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs
“This PDF contains:
Supplementary Methods
Supplementary Results
Supplementary Tables S1 to S2
Supplementary Figures S1 to S4″
I dl’d it and named it:
“Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs – Supplement.pdf”
Printed and stapled to the article.

Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment