Human Psychological Autonomy: Reflections on the Debates about its Understanding in Modern Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article addresses the centuries old but recently revived topic of human autonomy and its relation to people’s functioning: physiological, psychological, and socio‐cultural. It provides a review of current debates about status, nature, and perspectives of studying autonomy, agency, free will and self‐determination in neuro‐ and cognitive sciences, motivation, personality and cultural psychology. This review starts with the theoretical definitions of the concepts and differentiates personal, intrapsychic, and motivational autonomy as well as behavioral freedom ; delineates the distinction between autonomous and controlled forms of human agency; and relates all these concepts to the notion of human happiness and optimal functioning. It supports the idea of the universality of psychological autonomy as a fundamental capability of human species and argues that this capability is a real natural power that does not contradict the principle of determinism. Special attention is paid to the debates about the role culture plays in enabling and regulating human autonomy. The idea of dialectical relations between culture and human autonomy is presented and defended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".