Dennet has a great book on the topic if you're curious). We have a form of compatabilist free will. Choosing freely isn't about somehow being outside the causal chain when making a decision. We are embedded in the causal chain, a part of it. Being somehow outside of it doesn't even make sense - your thoughts, beliefs, desires should cause you to choose certain things. It wouldn't be freedom at all if that weren't the case. Imagine if decision-making were causally-independent of your beliefs and desires. That you believe you heard your baby crying upstairs, that you care about your baby, that you want to to go check on your baby, but instead of those thoughts and desires causing you to decide to go check on your baby, you instead decide to run out into the street and do cartwheels. That's not freedom. We need to be embedded in the causal chain to have freedom, to have control over our decisions and behavior.
The world around us influences us (by influencing our beliefs, desires), and we in turn influence the world (by deciding to do action X). Acting freely is about acting in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, and desires. When someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do X, we say you are not doing X freely because you are not doing X in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, desires. You are doing it against your will.
In the case of addiction, a person may develop competing desires - a desire to quit in addition to a desire to, let's say, smoke. The person will only successfully quit smoking indefinitely when the desire to quit (the desire to avoid the health problems, the bad teeth, the smelly clothes and house, the cost) outweighs the desire to smoke (the desire to experience the pleasurable feeling, the relaxation, etc that comes with smoking) indefinitely.
The reason addicts relapse is because our desires and beliefs change over time, they ebb and flow. When an addict relapses, it's not because some subconscious, reptilian part of his brain has taken over control of his hand and is forcing him against his will to drive to the gas station and buy a pack of cigarettes and light up. It's because his desire to smoke has temporarily surged and exceeded his desire to quit, probably due to some external factor like stress. In that moment, he wants to smoke more than he wants to quit. He's still acting freely. No one has a gun to his head. His reptile brain hasn't taken control of his movements. Afterwards, his desires may ebb back they way they came, he may regret the relapse and want to quit again.
I do agree with your assessment on people having tribal mentalities. Imo, as a species, our next greatest leap in evolution will be the overall ability to think on a universal level instead of being stuck with a tribal mentality. This is perhaps the most limiting factor of the human mind. Also, the human ego needs to shrink a lot as well, lol.
There's a current trend to excuse addicts of their behavior because we've found a physiological basis. That they can't control it because it's physiological. But that's simply a mistake. Their ability to control it, their "will" is just as physiological. So that's no barrier at all. They CAN control it. Understanding that you're not powerless to your addiction is key to overcoming it. And everyone that has overcome an addiction without needing brain surgery to repair some faulty physiological wiring is proof of that.
Unfortunately, there are those that run with this idea in the wrong direction. Telling an addict he is weak because he has not yet overcome his addiction isn't productive because it tends to make the addict believe he is weak and feel worthless, undeserving of redemption. No one that feels that way about his or her self is going to overcome much of anything.
I voted rootabega ...for obvious reasons...
Now...I've never played that game, though I'm aware it's pretty popular on Facebook. But that's only because I'm more the kind of person who likes MMORPG's. I get more enjoyment out of killing some other human's in-game character in a brutal, devastating manner...while doing my very best to avoiding the same happening to me. I'm afraid Candy Crush would seem rather tame to me.
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada email@example.com
An example I use is the kind of market research they do at malls where they buy you lunch for watching a commercial and getting your feedback/response. Lets say its a commercial for minivans aimed at soccer moms. But when tested it not only doesn't make those soccer moms want that minivan it makes them actually hostile to not only minivans but the company that made them.
One would think that would be a bad thing, and it is for that particular commercial. But that commercial will be dissected to discover what pissed those soccer moms off.
For the next time a client wants to piss off soccer moms. When someone wants soccer moms pissed at a political candidate.
Using algorithms to determine the rate of rewards in a game to maximize addiction isn't the same thing as making an enjoyable game.
It crosses a line.
And a good number of them work whether one is aware of them or not.
A hundred years of market research, which is simply human stimulous/response patterns, databased and cross referenced with the advent of the computer provided predictable, repeatable methods. The field of cognitive linguistics as well. Now watching your brain work in real-time.
Would you feel differently if they were secretly adding just enough heroine to your breakfast cereal that you could never get enough? Because that is the cognitive equivalent of a lot of techniques in play. They slide right by our "filters".
I don't advocate censorship, but education would go a long way towards providing defenses against these techniques and would allow our society to decide what level of subconscious manipulation is acceptable.