I thoroughly disliked this post, which was a surprise since I agree with its conclusions. It's frustrating because it feels like this should be a post I like, but somehow misses the mark.

The structure, I think, is what put me off. The post goes more or less as follows: link to a paywalled study; allusion to the"dubious" Libet study (if it's dubious, why cite it); repeat the conclusions of Custers & Aarts; autobiographical anecdote with overview of possibly related work; rant about how it feels to be a self; more ranting with movie reference; vaguely related conclusion.

The paywalled link is particularly irksome, since the rest of the post stands or falls on whether the study constitutes evidence one should update on. Without seeing what the study is about, having to take on faith that "people's brains make decisions and set goals without [...] being consciously aware of them" with no more detail about what decisions (which is really the crucial question), nothing else in the post can be argued with.

So we're left with, basically, a rant - only made entertaining by the George Clooney reference. Paul the Octopus would work just as well.