I am not talking about bodily limitations, I am talking about the body's influence on will. An example might be discussing how getting aroused can influence a person's choices or how addiction can cause unbearable cravings. When we talk about different personalities, temperaments and so on or the effect of being tired, angry or hungry. The culmination of which is a mix between two effects, firstly that your will is a construct of your psychobiological self and secondly that the freedom of your will is compromised by numerous and potent influences affecting it. — Judaka

I do not see the point. At every time you can judge how much your doing actually reflects your will. If not then you simply do not know what you want, have no will and there is no need to dicuss anything.
It is no argument that you have to make concessions to feel well. Of course you do not really want the concession but what it achieves.
Simple example: A sadistic madman ask a mother which of their children he should kill. If she doesn't chose, all get killed. It does not mean she wants one of her children to die if she chooses one.

When you commit to something, that is you trying to exercise your will but when you later decide it's not worth it, I think that's also your will. — Judaka

I would say that none is, actually. You are trying to "decide" if coffee or tea pleases your taste. Such a thing cannot be known in advance. Drinking coffee or tea is not what you are trying to achieve either.

Certainly, people can make the choice to quit smoking and succeed but consider how many emotions and desires have been coded into us or become present as a result of our circumstances and how hard it can be to change these things. — Judaka

And how could you want to change something if you take your will as not being your will? Makes no sense. You are losing your head about how to do things but claim to not even have an idea about what you want to achieve. Happiness? Tea or coffee?

I really do not know why you keep trying to shift focus to me, everything I have said has been generalised. Which means that there's no reason to assume that I see you as an exception to my understanding or characterisations. I was sharing my thoughts about free will, not lamenting about it. I am very comfortable with my understanding of my will and my views aren't causing me any grief.

I also don't think you've correctly understood me, your examples tell me that you are not understanding my points. I think I've been misunderstood to the extent to which I see this discussion as doomed and I am going to give up on it now.

Is anyone willing to learn here? Or are y'all determined to win. It does seem to me that the more one grits one's teeth determinedly, the less free one is.

Play with the words a little Have you ever been weak willed or strong willed? Is one more free than the other? When do you feel freest? Alone or in company? Is it possible to be free one day and not the next? Can one be a slave to one's own desire or is one's desire identical at all times with one's will. Is addiction a state of freedom? Have you ever been to Alice's restaurant? Why is Alice the exception?

I think that it is indeed important, as suggested by the starting post, to define what is the free will we want to discuss about, before discussing it. Among many possible definitions of being free, I think the most significant is feeling free. But since we want to get (at least partially) out of solipsism when discussing in a forum, I would like to go for:

Is it in principle possible to use science to predict choices (or the probability of choices when quantum mechanics is involved) with arbitrary low uncertainty?

The question is of course ambiguous in many ways, but it's a starting point.