Internal Locus of Control

Post Reply New Topic

More often than not, "good intentions" are rationalized and reinforced by willful ignorance. While being initially misguided is an honest mistake, being constantly dismissive of anything that challenges your ideals is no excuse for self righteousness.

Life is inherently full of uncertainty. Although there's all sorts of definitions of good and evil, all definitions of evil involve selfish motives which willfully disregard others. The situation itself doesn't determine how well you're able to judge this for yourself.

The gray areas do blur the lines somewhat, but this doesn't mean the lines are blurry enough to consider insanity a momentary lapse.

You're asking for specific answers to vague and abstract questions. I don't know what type of answer you're looking for. I think you're overanalyzing and looking for a perfect answer or some kind of silver bullet to make sense out of all the vagueness. But anyways I'll try my best...

I think the faulty assumption you make behind the whole post is that if you don't absolutely see every contingency behind your knowledge then that will blur the line so much that you'll set yourself up for situations where you find dilemmas lurking behind every corner. There is no foolproof formula that foreshadows all contingencies. You just have to rely on your ability to judge as you go along.

As for internal locus of control in the US, I think the political spectrum measures locus of control and essentialism vs social constructivism more than anything else. It seems the further left you are, the more external your locus of control is and the stronger your belief in social engineering is. Likewise the further right you are, the more internal your locus of control is and the stronger your belief in essentialism is. So on top of the US having a very internal locus of control, there is also an essentialistic view on things like perseverance and morals. This is what makes it an inherent requirement. And how exactly does one pull himself by his bootstraps? Well the assumption behind that statement is that if there's a will there's a way. It isn't meant to be taken as a guarantee, but as something that stacks the odds in your favour.

Anyways, I have an internal locus of control for the most part, but not to the extent where I believe everyone can just will themselves to be rich. The most important thing we have control over is our own thoughts and feelings. What gives us the illusion that we don't is our tendency to settle within our comfort zone. Now, I'm not saying you can just snap out of it but that our negativity is a product of what we habitually think and focus on and that we reinforce this negativity by settling for the devil we know rather than taking on the devil we don't.

In response to my incredibly long post about NTs overwriting memory and thereby forgetting about having lied to themself and thereby believing that lie. Too long to quote.

My initial answer which you quoted contained my theory that NTs have worse episodic memory than Aspies and therefore have an easier time forgetting things. This theory was based on observation of my daughter- who remembers many things I forget- and also posts on WP. Marshall doubted this difference in episodic memory. I looked in google for research papers that would show autism confers superior episodic memory but instead I found many research papers saying just the opposite, that in memory tests of episodic memory, NTs did better (matched for IQ). So that shot down that theory. But I did find something else.....
http://lifehacker.com/5867049/nine-stub ... by-science

It's an article debunking various myths about the brain. The myth that interested me was the one the one that episodic memory is accurate. In the debunking of that myth I found this bit:



Episodic memory is not accurate because people tend to remember the broad outlines of what happened but not the details and fill in the details later as a best guess. This made me think of something else I read often in WP posts and that actually is backed up by research. That is the fact (confirmed by research) that NTs are more likely to notice the overall picture of what they experience while AS people (Aspies and auties both) are more likely to notice the details, perhaps even at the expense of getting the overall picture. That made me spin a new theory based on that observation- that the reason NTs more easily forget (and thus can actually believe a self-told lie) is that NTs are more likely to remember their overall thoughts but not remember details. AS people are more likely to remember the details. Thus NTs are more likely (perhaps) to fill in the gaps (as the quoted research says) and those gaps will be filled in by the self-told lie and thus it will be believed. If AS people are remembering more details that would explain how believing a self-told lie would be harder or even impossible- the particulars of that lie would be a remembered detail. If the details are more noticed by AS people but the big picture is missed, this could also explain the research finding worse episodic memory (if they tested the big picture rather than very specific details).

That research also explains why people you talked to would absolutely believe that d,e,f happened when you remember the details that it was a,b,c. They remember what happened in broad outline but not the particulars but their brain filled in plausible particulars which were not accurate. They weren't bullshitting according to this research. They were filling in the details wrong. This research has had profound effects in the courtroom because it means eyewitness testimony is not 100% reliable. Defense lawyers have used this research to exonerate their clients.




According to that research----yes. That is exactly what it means. Now you are going to ask how long that window of time is but I have no idea. It probably varies from person to person.



According to the research it isn't a talent or even a conscious choice so much as it is a consequence of how memory works. If NT people are less likely than AS people to take in all the details in the first place and instead fill them in later with plausible versions, that means NT people will more easily forget the absolute particulars of what happened and more easily overwrite memories. If AS people more easily remember specific details (and that seems to be the case) that would also mean that those specific details won't be overwritten as readily. It looks like a consequence of top down versus bottom up processing. That's my theory of the moment.



Perhaps in the initial processing, you got the details and missed the big picture (and so are more likely to remember the details accurately while not understanding the big picture). That's bottom up processing. On the other hand, NTs will get the big picture but not the details and later fill in plausible versions of what they think the details might have been. This would lead to getting the big picture but also not being accurate in episodic memory. You would see those innacuracies and think they are an intentional lie but they are actually a plausible guess. That's top down processing. You have gaps in understanding (from focusing on details), they have gaps in details (from focusing on the big picture) but think they accurately remember the details because their brains have filled them in wrong (according to that quoted research). It would also mean that an NT could more easily forget the detail that the happy memory they have is an intentional lie they told themselves and instead remember the big picture (happy memory) and incorrectly think it is accurate and not a self-told lie.

The source of friction is obvious. They are frustrated at you for not getting the big picture. You are frustrated at them for being absolutely wrong in their memory of a key detail- thinking they are wrong as deliberate deception rather than faulty memory. They think they are right because the brain fills in the missing details but does not label that file as "guesswork" but rather as "accurate memory". Oh my. How to handle this? You can't count on people to remember accurately. The research says they won't. So maybe your best option is documentation and recording. Get things in writing or take photos or write things in your smartphone/laptop/whatever device you use for recording things. Today's technology makes it easier than ever to make accurate records. People misremember but machines don't.

^^^

I'm not so sure it's about getting the big picture verses details either. I've had experiences of the opposite being the case, but it really depends on the type of situation. To me it seems NTs are more likely to ascribe intentions in the narratives they see while people on the autism spectrum don't. It's not just intentions of human beings either, they see overriding purpose behind events as well. When I look at the world I don't really see overriding purpose. I see processes unfolding. Maybe I can explain more later. Short on time at the moment.

Can you elaborate further please?

Here's an article related to the topic of autism and perception of agency. Unfortunately only the abstract is available.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11595266

This is mainly regarding perception of things, but perception of agency could also apply to the sense of "self". Internal locus of control is all about agency.

what is agency

Then we have a lot of willful ignorant people in America today. We are definitely self-righteousness and see ourselves as #1 no matter what the evidence says. If it is true that we're not #1 then we choose to believe a delusion based upon hype and consumerism.



What does determine how well I can judge it? Aren't there people in the world today who don't see their motives which willfully disregard others? Do they not see themselves doing good for others? Do they knowingly choose to be selfish or are their choices based upon ignorance?



My point to this is to show a contradiction of standards. The legal definition of insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is claimed by professionals that some things are shades of grey. If this is so then they do not know the difference between right and wrong in this particular instance. If there are many instances in which they do not know right and wrong then are they not insane in a lot of cases? Do we not have a certain level of insanity amongst the professionals who claim we are seeing things in black in white to much? How can we trust their judgment whatsoever if they do not know the difference between right and wrong a lot of times and there are many grey areas?




Am I overanalyzing or are others under analyzing? How do we tell which is which? There is a method to my madness and there is a point I am trying to make. The perfect answer and silver bullet is unobtainable. You're stating this as true am I correct? This is why I see the extreme internal locus of control that people in America believe in as extremely flawed. I see people being punished in an unreasonable manner and they are being judged based upon flawed and questionable beliefs and tenets. I see people not receiving help they truthfully need because the expectation is that they to work it out themselves and they are expected to pull themselves by their own bootstraps when truthfully they cannot. Unless I am misunderstanding what the bible says, there are a lot of Christians today who believe these tenets lock, stock and barrel when the very bible seems to go against these tenets.



If there is no foolproof formula that foreshadows all contingencies and if I have ignorance, biases and I am faulty then how is it possible for me to always rely upon my own judgment when I do not have all of the data and some of the data I do have will be faulty? How can one logically derive internal locus of control to the level that it is taken in the US? If I get things wrong then why am I punished and how is it reasonable to punish me for it through people's lectures especially the lecture of responsibility, their anger towards me and by other means especially if they will not examine with me what I did wrong? It is claimed that one controls his destiny and is the captain of his own ship. Based upon my logic and questions that comes from my own experiences and biases how is possible to be the captain of his own ship all of the time?



I do agree with having morals.



If this is so then why are people committed to mental hospitals and group homes? Why do so many people commit suicide? Why are so many people in America on anti-depressants? Why are there a lot of people in prison today?

You make the claim that if there is a will then there is a way. Let's put it into argument form.

Premise 1: if there is a will then there is a way
Premise 2: There is a will
Conclusion: There is a way

You're assuming that premise 2 is always true and holds up. What if one does have the will but he can't perceive or derive the way no matter how much will he or she has? What good is one's will without perception or derivability?

Let's say one is able to derive a way(s). What if all of his ways are negative in nature because this is all he is able to perceive or derive?

Do you remember the story of the man who robbed a bank for $1?
http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/20 ... ealth-care

He needed medical care and saw no other way obtain it. He had the will and the way to obtain medical care. Was the will and the way positive? How else could he have received it though?





Why would one choose to take on a devil he does not understand? Why wouldn't he attempt to understand the devil first that he does not understand and then choose to take the devil on when he is properly prepared.

Sun Tzu said in The Art of War



What your espousing makes no logical sense to me whatsoever. To me, it is like you're stating that one needs to climb the mountain with no training, no mountain gear, no supplies or knowledge and knowledge of how to obtain these things. I am not going to tangle with a devil half-cocked. I do not understand what you're trying to convey here. Can you clarify further please?