MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417411567 · doi:10.56028/aehssr.15.1.433.2025

No One Can Make You Feel Inferior Without Your Consent:Free Will, Inferiority, and the Limits of Choice

2025· article· W4417411567 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Education Humanities and Social Science Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetFeelingSet (abstract data type)Prosocial behaviorAttributionIdentity (music)Sign (mathematics)NarrativePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of people may have experienced inferiority at some point in life. Roosevelt’s declaration defines inferiority as a matter of choice—meaning that it can be accepted or denied. Still, many studies find that when individuals are exposed to repeated negative feedback, social comparison, and cultural stereotypes, they can end up diminishing their self-worth even if they try not to believe it. This essay argues that Roosevelt’s dictum oversimplifies the psychological reality of inferiority. The question of free will has long been debated in both philosophy and psychology, and classical debates set up a tension between viewing humans as products of forces versus as authors of their lives. In recent decades, psychologists have investigated belief in free will as a measurable individual difference factor, and these experiments suggest that when people feel their choices don’t matter, they may not put effort into prosocial behavior. The inferiority complex originates from the work of Alfred Adler, who proposed that such a complex often has roots in repeated failures and comparisons where the child always comes up short. With the rise of social media, curated online profiles create constant opportunities for upward comparison, and studies have linked frequent social media use to increased feelings of inferiority and depressive symptoms. Analyses of three stages—attention, interpretation, and identity—show that external forces can override “consent” and allow inferiority to be internalized. A growing body of experimental and neurocognitive evidence proves that the “cementing” of inferiority is neither inevitable nor permanent; interventions such as attribution retraining, growth mindset programs, and narrative identity work can effectively block the shaping of negative self-schema. In conclusion, perfect emotional sovereignty is an ideal to strive for but rarely reflects reality. Not everyone has the equal ability to reject feelings of inferiority, and withholding consent to inferiority takes time, support, and effort to develop. Overcoming and preventing feelings of inferiority is not just an individual endeavor; it’s a societal one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Education Humanities and Social Science ResearchSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207