system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People are not exclusively mouthpieces of their social and economic upbringing

Jordan Peterson was talking on the Joe Rogan show about how his view of the views of academics such as Derrida and Foucault was that they thought people are pretty much only mouthpieces of their social and economic upbringing rather than having an authentic, individual voice. Although there is of course some influence from environment (a white male from USA is likely to have more similar views to another white male from USA than a female from a tribe in the Brazilian rainforest).

Many people would probably say me bringing up Jordan Peterson whose main audience is white males proves that I am a mouthpiece for that social group, however my view is that people can have a valid view on any other social group or a valid opinion on politics if they are well enough informed and should not be dismissed simply due to being in a particular box society has delineated. The view is not particularly about white men, that just seems to be the current example at least according the media who probably sensationalize it a bit.

Away from the social justice side of things and at a smaller scale, Yuval Noah Harari talks about the idea of 'dataism' and that biological phenomena such as the brain are based on algorithms and therefore the data inputs to these algorithms would lead to products based on the inputs with no 'ghost in the machine' to give an individual voice. I guess this one is harder to argue against although surely there is room if not for free will to formulate individual opinions, at least the machinery to observe other social and economic phenomenon and make a personal opinion based on valid data?

&#x200B;
gpt
What does a glass of water consist of? Is it a liquid, or is it a ball pit of bonded hydrogen and oxygen atoms bouncing off of each other? 

Really, it's both, it's depending what your purposes are, and what level of detail you are looking for.

You are right, that the output that a single brain makes, is essentially best described as a kind of "free will". That's why we punish people who commit crimes, or reward people who act excellently. Even if there is no "ghost in the machine",  as long as you have a working brain, that brain, and the body that it controls, is for all practical purposes a moral actor that appears capable of reason, self-control, and judgement. 

The problem with Jordan Peterson style approach is that it doesn't just say that individuals *have free will*, but keeps applying it to the field of sociology where large scale demographic trends are simply more relevant. 

If you try to interpret demographic trends like "why do poor people commit more crime?" or "Why are women pursuing less profitable careers than men?" then the answer that "they are making personal choices" will be profoundly useless, because these groups are not hive minds that decided to do this or that in the same way as a single brain does. 

Answering questions that way, essentially invalidates the field of sociology by it's unwillingness to investigate what could be the variable that is pushing one subset of people in a different direction than another one.