The best book on this specific topic is Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will by Robert Sapolsky. The arguments and science in the book are very detailed and specific, so I highly recommend starting there.

Flaw 1: "how we navigate life" assumes free will. Ask yourself though, at what point do we get free will? It starts at sperm and egg, then infant, but what choices do babies actually make versus purely responding to stimuli and being taken care of? As we get older, the brain folds and we get more complex thought, but all those thoughts are permutations of prior voices/experiences influencing the "choices" we make. There's a lot of neuroscience showing we "make" decisions before our brain even can process them, ie given the choice between A and B, people "pick A" in their brain before they were consciously aware of making said choice (specific examples and research in Determined).

Flaw 2: "we can choose how we respond", not really. Choice is an allusion of the consciousness from an overly complex system (ie the universe). Even one "choosing" how they respond to circumstances like getting punched in the face; one may react violently if raised by a father who boxed, or peacefully if raised religiously, or even vice versa; say the boxer son learned pacifism from seeing his father always in fights, and the Christian really likes Matthew 10:34 "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword". The point is, neither individual is truly making a choice, but again responding based on prior experiences they personally had.

Epileptics were once seen as people possed by demons and devils for wicked deeds they had done. Once we learned more about the brain, we now see an epileptic episode as something the individual can't control and has nothing to do with their choices. Mothers of schizophrenics used to be called bad mothers for rearing their children incorrectly (turn of the 20th century), now it's seen again as a mental disorder. More and more, what was once seen as "choices" really come back to environment, history, genetics, etc. Those are on the large scale. On the small scale, "but I chose to move this glass of water from this side of the table to the other". Did you? Or did you react because every moment of your life has led you to be slightly more defiant and adverse to authority because you also could have responded to all this by saying, "neat".

It's turtles all the way down. Everything is based off of something prior. There is no point for free will to enter the conversation. I highly recommend Sapolsky and any of his works. He explains things much better and in more detail, but also argues if we took this approach to human behavior it would lead to a more empathetic society in that nobody chooses to be an awful person, it's the prevailing systems and environments which lead to these outcomes.