99% of our behaviour is automatic

The 16th century writer Michael de Montaigne, widely considered father of the essay wrote those who have compared our life to a dream were
right... We are sleeping awake, and waking asleep (book 2, Ch.12). The idea that we may not have total control over our behavior has been
pondered for centuries if not millennia; circumstances of automatic reflexs in times of crisis seen as prevalent examples, but is this anywhere close
to the total extent that automatic behaviours control our lives? By exploring what constitutes human behaviour and how control is placed upon this I
aim to begin to appreciate how almost all behaviour is indeed automatic.
Behaviour is one term, almost impossible to classify. Dictionary definitions range from observable activity in a human or animal to the aggregate
of responses to internal or external stimuli. Whilst no two definitions appear to concur all seem to relate to the ideas of action and reaction; these
themselves suggesting both controlled (action) and uncontrolled (reaction) strands. From these attempts to define behaviour I believe that the
underpinning theme is that of stimuli, not just the first conjured thought of a physical environmental stimuli such as a threat but any range of stimulus
that leads to our bodys performing some sort of action. As Wikipedia sums nicely these actions could be internal or external, conscious or
subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary. Whilst many may disagree with these views on behaviour assuming it only to be that
which is observed in humans as responses, for the purpose of this essay I will deem human behaviour to be, in short; a response to a stimulus.
From this wide reaching idea of behaviour stems the immediate thought that not all of these actions are controlled in even remotely similar ways.
However if we think in purely physiological terms they suddenly seem to be tightly linked, all forms being processed through either the human
nervous system or human endocrine system. It is widely agreed that in our thinking state we do not have control over most of our internal actions
as many of these are pre-determined by our genetic make up. Actions such as temperature regulation, acidity regulation and electrolyte regulation
are left by us to our bodies and are therefore automatic, and hence our percentage of behaviour that is automatic starts to rise. Other actions like
breathing that may stem both internal and external we knowledgably control. However, do we really control our breathing? Whilst at times we can
control our breathing consciously do we actually take control over the breathing or rather a single step of the mechanism; the inch of air movement
into the mouth or nose. Yes we can stop ourselves for a period of time from breathing by clenching our lips, closing our nasal passages but is this
really stopping the act of breathing? Nether the less after some time we cannot hold our breath any longer and the body once more takes control of
us to make us breathe. Therefore making even the tasks such as breathing that seem controllable largely uncontrollable.
What then is not automatic? Those decisions we make about our behaviour on the surface level; deciding to engage in conversation, deciding to
move by running or walking, or whether to complete preps on time (moreover; time distribution). All these tasks are governed by our choice to
undertake them, our own choice to engage in such behaviours. Note however that the action itself once chosen for our behaviour is not necessarily
non-automated. Walking for example we no longer think about as an action, a learned skill and therefore automated. On the other hand throughout
completing prep the mind is consciously engaged in the activity but yet smaller elements become automated, the physical act of the writing for
instance. Summed up nicely by the roman poet, Horace; The pen is the tongue of the mind.
Having looked at what may or may not be automated a theme that beneath every non-automated or conscious action lies a vast array of automated
actions seems to be appearing. For the most part examples seem to show that the now automated actions were commonly once conscious nonautomated actions. Actions like walking or talking were once impossible to us, as we grew we learned how to achieve these behaviours, consciously
learning how to achieve results so that after time the action can be completed with thought and then gradually the thought behaviour is removed
leaving us with a more and more automated action. Does this not therefore mean that the longer we exhibit any behaviour for, the less we think
about it and therefore the less conscious and more subconscious it becomes. Even academic attainments become automatic, the act of counting,
the learnt actions of sanding wood or driving a car. As we complete tasks more there is seemingly less to focus on and so we are becoming more
automatic in these tasks.
Going back to our initial definition of a response to a stimulus we can now look at the stimulus itself. Natural reflexes to harmful foes such as fire or
a sharp object are inbuilt to our central nervous system allowing us to subconsciously react in order to attain a position of safer standing. Whilst
these are natural reflexes we can interfere with their action through conditioning. In classical conditioning a stimuli is replaced with a different stimuli
over time by associating the two. In 1920 Watson and Rayner undertook the little Albert experiment. Little albert; a 9-month old child was shown
various animals and showed no emotional fear. When later shown a white rat a steel bar was struck with a hammer, which stimulated Albert to cry.
This was repeated until after 7 sessions Albert only had to see the rat and he would cry, whilst he had no change in reaction to the other reactions.
This classical conditioning shows that automatic behaviour can be taught and influenced, this is used to the advantage of advertising companies
and schools alike to enforce positive ideas of their products. Some children can develop a fear to a certain aspect of school however; through
bullying, teacher abuse or such like, leading to an irrational phobia of entire subjects or even schools themselves which can follow them throughout
their lives.
Whilst it now seems that our controlled behaviour is that which we think about consciously and make decisions on before or during action are these
in fact truly non-automatic and unconditioned? For this we look to social norms and the ideas of core faith and culture. The institutionalisation of
norms shapes our behaviours, we would not go out and murder because we know it to be morally wrong. In similar ways all aspects of our lives are
influenced by external factors such as geographical dialects and accents, religion or philosophy and culture. Do these not then shape how we act,
how we behave and how we speak? These actions which appear free are now seemingly encapsulated by a lifetime of conditioning to how each
person now thinks. Emotions are learnt and then experienced, many of these aspects become so familiar that we no longer recognise them to be
not our own choices. If an accent is learnt through conditioning what does a totally accent free voice sound like and could it even exist at all?
It is now seeming that all actions have some level of automation to them if not totally automatic in their entireties. The idea that learnt actions can
become automatic suggests another interesting idea, by way of combining two principles. Firstly that over time actions that were once conscious
glide into the realms of the subconscious and secondly that the rate at which we learn new things decreases with age as is commonly told does that

not mean that as an aggregate the level of our bodies automatism is steadily increasing so that the percentage of behaviour that is automatically
controlled would never stop rising but would simply slow in rate.
Many things I have looked at may at first have appeared to be consciously controlled, but now are seeming more and more automated through
deliberation. As we lead into a conclusion it seems clear to me that the levels of automation in our behaviour are indeed high but how high? If we
are becoming more automated with time then it must be fair to say that at some point we are exactly 99% automatically controlled in our behaviour.
The larger question stemming however is when we are at this 99%level and what is the rate of increase. Are we born at 98.99999999998% and over
most peoples lifetime the rate of increase is so accumulatively slow that we are always around or at the 99% level or instead do we start far below
only reaching these levels at more senior ages? Therefore In final conclusion I would agree with the statement 99% of our behaviour is automatic
in its purpose of showing automation to be to great extents but cannot find any way of accurately assigning a value and so would be happier leaving
with the thought most of our behaviour is automatic.