Internal Locus of Control

Post Reply New Topic

My intent is this. I am writing a series of writings that collate my thoughts together which when put together will be my manifesto. I will not call it a manifesto since the term is associated in a negative light. There comes a point in time in which certain people’s values and standards have to be challenged. My intent it to spark critical thought into these things. There are certain things I see as wrong with American society and culture and I think it is time for the underlying tenets and assumptions that coalesced to create our culture to be questioned and examined.

All of us are unique which means that everyone will have different perceptions based upon their own experiences and genetics. This includes identical twins as well. People today do many things that would be considered wrong or immoral. Even by doing nothing they have still chosen to do something. Why do some people’s action’s lead to negative outcomes not only for themselves but for others. In some people’s mind they believe they are doing good. I wrote a paper about responsibility and I will refer to it here. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt212381.html

Any action a person commits will be based upon his experience, his knowledge, his biases, and his thoughts. No person has absolute knowledge of everything about reality and existence. All we can do is make reasonable approximations based upon our interpretations of reality and of facts. This begs the question, if none of us have 100% absolute knowledge of reality and existence then how is it possible for a person to commit wrong intentionally in some cases?

Based upon this can a person always determine the set of outcomes of his or her choices? In fact, since no person has absolute knowledge of reality and existence can a person always determine all of his choices in a given moment in time. If everything I say is true then I can be reasonably certain that the answer is no. It is claimed by psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals that those on the autism spectrum engage in black and white thinking. The legal definition of insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. If this is so then does this mean that those who claim shades of grey do not know nor discern the difference between right and wrong in different moments in time? If this is so, does this mean that the world is insane at given moments in time?

If it is true that none of us have absolute knowledge of existence and reality which include knowing right from wrong in all possible scenarios of existence then how is it reasonable to make someone responsible and accountable to something he was not able to discern whatsoever. If what I have said and I have logically derived is true then how is the internal locus of control which is widely accepted in America based upon sound reasoning? How is it possible for a person to have the level of control over his or her life and destiny that many people in The United States of America seem to believe we have? This is where the idea of “pull yourself by one’s bootstraps” comes from. How exactly does one pull himself by his bootstraps? Why is this an inherent requirement?

Moral Right/Wrong is a matter of judgment and opinion, not fact.

ruveyn

Okay Ruveyn, then based upon my judgment and opinion then I believe American cultural beliefs are faulty with erroneous assumptions that when examined do not hold up in merit and weight. Even a lot of aspies seem to accept them w/o question or reservation.

I already know I will not change the minds of those who've already made up their minds. Why do I write this stuff? To answer this question, why does a chicken go cock a doodle do and why does a lion roar?

No doubt. One of the reasons our economy is so mediocre is that too many people believe in The Money Tree. They think wealth is something that is harvested a gathered rather than produced by hard work and thorough thinking.

ruveyn

I do agree with you on thorough thinking. Personally I do think hard work is sufficient but not a necessary condition for success. Why wouldn't a person or group of people make a process more efficient so they wouldn't have to work as hard? Why is hard work harped upon so much and overblown and finding ways to make things more efficient and easier is downplayed? This is another thing I do not grasp.

Of course money does not grow on trees. Why is it so inherently wrong for select group of people to come together and work together and achieve a common goal? What is wrong with a select group of people coming together to help uplift each other up? Why do you believe in competition so much like it is a religion? Why is it considered noble to up one another and out do each other instead of seeing that the sum of the whole is greater than its parts?

How does a society function when it is every man for himself and the hustler's mentality is in place today? We may have all of this material wealth but what good is it for our souls? You claim this is socialism and communism. There is one major difference between what I advocate and what socialism and communism advocates. I am not for either but I am not for capitalism that exists today as well. What I am for is for people to choose to uplift each other and help each other out in a literally, voluntary manner.

What I am for has to come from the inside out not from the outside in. Communism and socialism is about force which is what I am against. Just because I am against capitalism in its' current form and this business, hustler mentality does not mean I am for communism and socialism. What I desire is for the average joe in a given society to take a homeless man into his home feed and clothe him and care for him until he is able to be on his own two feet. This is one example of what I am advocating and conveying.

I don't entirely agree with this Chinese proverb. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

You have to nourish the man back to health first before he is able to be in shape to learn to fish.

Just because communism and socialism is faulty does not mean your belief system is that great either.

I already know I am not going to change your mind or most American's mind either. I'm only speaking to and preaching to the choir. Even those who claim to be Christian spout this mantra when it is unbiblical. Christianity as stated by Jesus Christ is anathema to what is practiced today. Christians today ignore what they do not like.

What I see in America is a cult of comformity to extreme individualism.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyenRCJ_4Ww[/youtube]

This is an excellent example of what American culture is. The culture proclaims individuality but is collective and cultish in nature about it. American culture is like the Borg but more insidious and more covert.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 04 Apr 2013, 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wasn't that Maimonides and his highest level of giving? (Not literally, of course, but figuratively)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

Anyhow, here is the locus of control argument as envisioned by its creator Julian Rotter.



I don't have studies to corroborate the claims made about the effects of the 2 views, but my initial guess is that an internal locus of control will produce better life outcomes for individuals and more prosperous societies because it encourages productive behaviour.

Wasn't that Maimonides and his highest level of giving? (Not literally, of course, but figuratively)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

Anyhow, here is the locus of control argument as envisioned by its creator Julian Rotter.



I just looked at the model you provided to me and I think I may have misunderstood the model. I thought that external locus of control meant that consequences occurred that was not due to one's behavior at all.

If this was the model envisioned by Julian Rotter then I will have to revise certain parts in my writings that I have written.

This model makes the assumption that all consequences that happen to a person are always a result of their behavior. I do not agree with this model absolutely. For this model to apply, if a consequence happens a behavior would have to be shown, proven, or derived to the person who is suffering the consequence. If a behavior can't be demonstrated or shown then how is it right to make a person responsible or accountable?

Thanks for this bit of information because this is going to actually strengthen my manifesto quite a bit.

In a nutshell, if one is accused of irresponsibility what are the premises that lead to this conclusion? If a person has done something wrong or has faulty thinking what did he do wrong and what is his faulty thinking? What are the charges against the accused and why are they brought forth? What is the underlying philosophy behind the said charges?

Let's go into this in depth. This makes the assumption that it is either or. Why can't a person believe he is able to do certain things as certain criteria are met? With respect to efforts to learn, if he is trying to do the same efforts again and again and still failing why would one continue to do this?

With respect to exercise, I tried to do the exercises in one video I saw and some of the moves I saw the trainer make I did not know how to make. Even when I have taken a class I am so lost as to what they are talking about. It is like utter gibberish to me and somehow everyone is able to coordinate themselves with each other. Again, why does everyone in America keep focusing on my attitude instead of what I am doing wrong? Why is my attitude so overblown in America and it is treated like one has control over time and space itself?

With greater efforts to learn if I am not getting something by a certain point in time why would I continue to do something in vain especially if it is not important? Isn't there a point in time that it costs to much especially in terms of mental health? Why wouldn't one switch gears eventually? Do we not reach the point of diminishing returns?

With respect to interpersonal relationships, this to me depends upon different factors. If one is not understanding the veneer he is and is costing him his physical and mental health why would he continue to seek interpersonal relationships especially with those he does not vibe with? Why continue to do the same thing over and over again when it has bared no fruit. Why wouldn't one give up on interpersonal relationships in one area and go to another?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 04 Apr 2013, 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I don't see a lot of discrepancy between your views and Rotter's views. It essentially boils down to: "Are outcomes due to actions under my control or actions beyond my control?" One's own behaviour is of course usually an action more easily controlled than external events (notwithstanding issues like insanity, intoxication etc. which might impair the judgement of an individual).


Bear in mind that locus of control can be viewed as a spectrum. In the most extreme case (under the assumption of 100 percent internal locus) everything that happened (and did not happen) would indeed be due to the action or inaction of the individual. I doubt even the most extreme individualists would hold this view, however...


There are actually several reasons for holding individuals responsible for their actions. Here are a few:

- The view that they are responsible (= internal locus of control)
- A pragmatic approach (i.e. "it works")
- Retribution/restitution/compensation (usually only in criminal cases. The rationale here is that someone else benefits from the sanctions)

With respect to intoxication, for the most part they do need to be prosecuted for this. This is where I see a problem. What if the person has been poisoned which resembles intoxication and he is trying to get himself to the hospital to get cured of the poison? This is why I don't agree with the extremeness of the internal locus of control. In addition, I may be having issues with the pragmatics of this. I do have pragmatics issues.




I did bare this in mind. I thought it was others who did not. Again, I guess this is where my pragmatic issues come into play again.

To me, America is to extreme with it and I think a more balanced approach needs to be taken.



I do have pragmatic issues with the English language so I apologize. I misstated my intent behind the questions. I have had moments in which I 've been accused of wrongdoing and I didn't know what I did wrong and even when I did know I did not know why. What I was trying to convey is that one has to be able to understand what he did wrong and why it was wrong in specific terms. If the interculator can't do this then I ask how is it morally righteous to hold someone to a standard that is unexplainable and the person can't derive.

For instance, I'm always accused of being negative. My negativity is an emotional reaction to a certain stimulus. It is treated as though that my emotional state is a muscle that can be moved. How is this possible? Fnord seems to see it the same way. I don't logically get it.

I will illustrate to you more by posting what I've written previously. https://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4838659.html

For me, people in my life seem to think I know more than I really do and understand more than I really do. This is an issue that I have with people and I do not know why.

For all I know, Reuven and Fnord could be correct but I don't understand why if they are correct. I do not understand the underlying belief system that he and others have and why it is the correct way to go.

Again, why is my attitude so over blown.

It seems these kinds of beliefs aren't about metaphysics. They're about norms and means of social control. People believe in an internal or external locus of control based on what is most convenient and useful for them to believe. Yea, it sounds nihilistic and depressing, but I can't help but notice that's what it is.

The questions I am asking are a combination of Epistemological and metaphysical questions. Americans believe in this extreme internal locus of control. This philosophy that Americans have is based upon how much a person is truthfully able to know or understand.

Is it worth considering that believing you are in control even though you know you aren't could be the healthiest solution? Is such doublethink ever health?

That's because it was never about truth. It's 100% about feeling.

Pretending to yourself, that a false thing is true, is never a good idea.

The feeling makes no sense. Here is why. Let's say there are x number of outcomes a person has in different points in his life. How would he or she be able to avoid all of the negative outcomes without having access to all possible data and being able to process all possible data that could exist in existence. One does have access to some of the data so one only controls his life and destiny only to certain extents. This extreme internal locus of control Americans have makes no sense to me. It has no basis in any reasoning I am able to grasp.