Locus of Control

[Deck Knight]

If you have had any introduction to psychology you have probably heard the term "Locus of Control." What it boils down to is whether you attribute internal or external factors for your success and/or failure.

Internal factors would be those factors you are in personal, cognizant control over.

External factors would be those factors that you are unable to influence, either directly or indirectly.

Locus of Control is a critical element in explaining philosophies. On one end of the scale you have self-determination, which assumes the vast majority of your life outcomes are based on decisions that you have control over. On the other end of the scale is determinism, which assumes all events over the course of anyone's life are predetermined before they are born, and we are just chemically "going through the motions."

In your personal life, Locus of Control is often applied differently to successes and failures. For example, many people attribute their successes to decisions they made directly and their failures to factors outside their control.

The point of all the previous was merely to establish Locus of Control's existence and application generally. What I want to get into is how philosophies handle locus of control.

Now my philosophy is free-market oriented religious conservatism. It rests on the premise that internal locus of control is the predominant factor in all of life's ups and downs. How you handle events and other people is directly related to how much effort you put in studying the human condition and acting in accordance with it. Morality is the collective knowledge of human history of follies guided by a creator who, through the faculty of reason, has made the value of human life inherent and worthy of protection. Whenever there are disasters outside of your control, you can limit their negative impact through personal perseverance.

There is minimal need for an overarching structure in my world view. Provided a basic system for administering laws and punishing criminals, you are then responsible for your own lot in life and when you see the suffering of others you are supposed to get involved to whatever extent is both possible and comfortable with the suffering (or sometimes uncomfortable, if it is a serious matter). You are entitled to nothing for which you did not work, especially at someone else's expense. Conversely, everything you do work for is yours in the absolute, to do with as you see fit. If you take large risks you should be able to reap large rewards or suffer a large failure unimpeded.

Summarized, internal locus of control is at the very center of my philosophy and interactions with others.

Other philosophies exhibited here place a large degree of their premise on external locus of control. Any time you hear something along the lines of "the system" being blamed for something, that is external locus of control. The premise relies on the idea that a group of individuals or collectives have gamed a system in such a way that the individual action of anyone not part of that system is irrelevant to their ultimate result. It is not your fault you have been wronged, but rather the system that must be fundamentally altered. Often in ironic fashion, the actors who are supposed to fix the system are the same ones that gamed it in the first place, thus why in some circles the only cure for government overspending is a government commissioned panel on government overspending. Or, in other words, relying on the external force to fix itself organically. You can debate whether this works or not, I happen to think otherwise because it does not alter the locus of control. Ultimately, you are equally unable to alter the force personally, now all you have is a guarantee that force is "working on it."

The question boils down to determining who has responsibility for outcomes. If you believe somebody or some group other than yourself is responsible for providing your basic needs, you support a philosophy that tends toward external locus of control. If those things are not provided for you then you have been wronged by the system and not your own poor decisions. Conversely if you believe you are responsible for your basic needs and you fail in that task, you suffer whatever fallout is resulting.

While external locus of control is comforting in that sense, it robs people of their independence. If someone else provides your basic needs and you see someone who lacks them, will you be compelled to help them personally of your own stock or to direct them to your caretakers? Individuals make that choice every day, but a philosophy has to remain internally consistent. You cannot have an outside force provide for the needs of its benefactors while at the same time those benefactors do not direct persons outside of that system to it. Such a philosophy eventually suffers breakdown. The converse can be said for when you believe people are personally responsible and then directing them to a third party.

My contention is that western society as a whole has shifted too far towards philosophies based in external locus of control to maintain themselves. There are now too many systems that people rely on, none of which they can personally impact. It is no longer a safety net but rather an unnavigable web that individuals get caught in, to the detriment of long-term societal solvency.

 

[Hipmonlee]

A little drunk at the moment, I only kinda skimmed your post.

But I think I agree.. The thing is about freedom is it robs people of their excuse, and I think people need an excuse for when their lives dont match their childhood dreams. So they look elsewhere.

If you never had any chance of making it to begin with, not making it probably seems a hell of a lot more palatable.

Have a nice day.

 

[Yuelia]

This is an interesting idea, but the problem is that it seems to assume that the two are distinct. This is not the case. I would say that if you have indirect control over something, more often than not that would be considered an external factor despite your degree of control, and that even situations where your work seems to have paid off are in reality assisted by external factors. To use your example of government overspending - are you not the one who voted for said government in the first place? Granted this is mostly external, but it does show how there is no such thing as an entirely external factor. To give an example of the other case, let's say you are given a promotion at work. Most would say this is your hard work paying off, but you must bear in mind that you do not fully control how much of this hard work your boss notices - a major factor in said promotion.

If someone else provides your basic needs and you see someone who lacks them, will you be compelled to help them personally of your own stock or to direct them to your caretakers? Individuals make that choice every day, but a philosophy has to remain internally consistent. You cannot have an outside force provide for the needs of its benefactors while at the same time those benefactors do not direct persons outside of that system to it. Such a philosophy eventually suffers breakdown. The converse can be said for when you believe people are personally responsible and then directing them to a third party.

If I were to see someone who lacks basic needs, I would do whatever was in my power to help them. If that means directing them to a third party, so be it. If that means helping them of my own stock, so be it. I would choose the option that would be best for us both, which may not always be the same in every case. I honestly do not see how it is that a flexible philosophy lacks internal consistency; could you (or anyone else for that matter) please explain this to me?

 

[Objection]

I'm unsure about this whole "locus of control" thing. Arguably, the end result of our actions could be influenced by literally everything, even that which seems completely irrelevant (eg, because there are an even number of leaves on the tenth-tallest tree in the Amazon rainforest, I got a D for Music). Of course, I'd have to actually explain the step-by-step process by which the even number of leaves results in a D for Music for my claim to have any validity. Not to mention that there will be some things that have more influence than others, and I would argue that you doing the action has the greatest influence on the result of that action: no action = no result of action.

 

[Phantom_IV]

I gave your post a detailed skim, and I have come up with this:

We agree on self-determinism; our successes and failures are largely due to our own efforts or lack thereof. However, that does not define my political philosophy. I would describe myself as relatively liberal, with a belief that the government should help raise the average quality of living even if it is each individual's fault he is not successful. I do this for two reasons:

1. Out of kindness. Even if someone has made some errors, I still think that they should enjoy some of the happiness of life. A lesson I've taken from God perhaps.

2. Because it benefits me. Personally, I would rather live in a society that is not immensely stratified to the point where some are destitute and others are well off. I would prefer the masses to be entertained and content, especially since we live in a democratic society, where an unhappy majority causes instability.

People differ on the Locus of Control, but that does not necessarily guide their political leanings. I would venture to say that the most successful of this country believe it is from their own hard work and perseverance. However, it is a fact that the more educated and wealthy are also more liberal.

 

[cantab]

External factors would be those factors that you are unable to influence, either directly or indirectly.

I do not believe there are any such factors. We are all able to exert at least indirect influence on all aspects of our lives. The most obvious means are by voting in elections, and by choosing how to spend our money.

Even when it comes to natural disasters, they don't just strike anywhere. It's not hard to find out where is disaster-prone. Moving may be harder, but cases where it is obstructed by force are I believe uncommon.

As Malkyrian alluded to, there is not a division between what we can and can't control, but a spectrum, from factors that are almost entirely under our direct control, to those we have. To give an example:

How many jobs I applied for when I was unemployed. This is primarily under my control. However, an important factor in applying for jobs is owning a computer and internet access, and knowing how to use it - without them, many opportunities are closed. I have those things because my student funding, and more recently my unemployment benefit, was enough to pay for them, and I have a parent willing to let me live in her house thus saving me the expense of commercial rent. My control over the amount of money I received was very low. I know how to use a computer because I have learnt, and I have learnt because I find them interesting; what one finds interesting is outside one's control.
To get to the point - someone with no computer, no financial capability to obtain a computer, and a disinterest in learning how to use one would have a far harder time applying for work than I did.

tl;dr: Life is not fair.

Of course we know that. But some people think society should strive to make it fairer. Hence, the economic left wing.
Of course a balance needs to be drawn. Robbing the wealthy blind is itself not fair. An idealised communism, where money is shared equally regardless of work done, is not fair. But an anarchic capitalism, where the child of a single crack-addict gets no education because his mum spends what money she has on drugs and no-one else will pay, that's not fair either. (Yes I know that is not a society Deck Knight advocates. The point is that both extremes are deeply unfair - fairness can only be found by a compromise.)

 

[billymills]

First, I will say that I completely agree with Malkyrian in that Internal and External Locus are not mutually exclusive. Nearly everything can be associated with both.

However, there is one point which is completely based off external factors: I am human. That means a few things, I need clean water, clean air, food, shelter, and I can die quite easily to a variety of causes.

That is what I depend on others to provide for me (i.e.: government). Outside of those things (and what they entail), I don't see a purpose for the government, because I am entirely responsible for what happens to me. (I still think quantum determinism is true, but that has no effect on how I should act.) I see administering laws as unnecessary and punishing people as barbarous.

I'll agree with you in part that the External Locus robs people of independence. I think it's more important that people few the issue as outside the Internal Locus. It doesn't matter if an issue is affected by External factors, but can it be affected by internal factors?

 

[ivar]

How is this different from the free will thread?

 

[lati0s]

I see administering laws as unnecessary and punishing people as barbarous.

Administering laws is the number one way that a government protects the rights of its citizens. How can a government say it is protecting its citizens right to life if it makes no effort to dissuade, reform, or remove murderers.

I would agree that punishment for the sake of "I want to see this person suffer because they did something wrong" is barbarous. However, there are legitimate reasons for punishments.

-It attempts to reform criminals.
In behavioral psychology punishment is applying undesired consequences to an action to condition against it. In this way punishment helps to stop people from repeating crimes because they have learned that it is not good for them. Our current system is unfortunately somewhat poor at this becuase punishment is most effective when it occurs immediately after or during the action that it is attempting to modify.

-It dissuades people from doing criminal acts
If there was no punishment people would have less reservations about acting impulsively and doing things that are damaging to society. For example, knowing that you will probably spend 20-30 years in prison if you shoot that guy you walk in on sleeping with your wife you are less likely to act on your impulse.

-It removes damaging people from society
When people are in prison they cannot cause more harm to society. The majority (If my psychology professor is to be trusted, 80-90%) of felons have some form of antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder often mellows out around middle age so removing these people from society for 10-20 years by putting them in prison prevents them from harming society.

 

[billymills]

Administering laws is the number one way that a government protects the rights of its citizens. How can a government say it is protecting its citizens right to life if it makes no effort to dissuade, reform, or remove murderers.

Hence unnecessary and not wrong or otherwise.

I would agree that punishment for the sake of "I want to see this person suffer because they did something wrong" is barbarous. However, there are legitimate reasons for punishments.

-It attempts to reform criminals.
In behavioral psychology punishment is applying undesired consequences to an action to condition against it. In this way punishment helps to stop people from repeating crimes because they have learned that it is not good for them. Our current system is unfortunately somewhat poor at this becuase punishment is most effective when it occurs immediately after or during the action that it is attempting to modify.

-It dissuades people from doing criminal acts
If there was no punishment people would have less reservations about acting impulsively and doing things that are damaging to society. For example, knowing that you will probably spend 20-30 years in prison if you shoot that guy you walk in on sleeping with your wife you are less likely to act on your impulse.

Not really, when you can have a far more laissez-faire justice system. You won't do anything stupid, because it's good for you. Someone will come after you, in a method far more efficient and effective than the government.

-It removes damaging people from society
When people are in prison they cannot cause more harm to society. The majority (If my psychology professor is to be trusted, 80-90%) of felons have some form of antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder often mellows out around middle age so removing these people from society for 10-20 years by putting them in prison prevents them from harming society.

Great, why not just kill them? They aren't doing any good in prison. I'd rather not pay for them to live 20 years. (Note: I'm not actually endorsing killing them, I'd much rather they be put to use. In certain circumstances, e.g. live imprisonment, it'd be better to treat them as slave labour.)

I'd rather not imprisonment, because it's good for extremely little and it is rather costly. The only reason I can see it used over something more productive is the first thing you mentioned: people want to see others suffer.

 

[Metalman]

\

Not really, when you can have a far more laissez-faire justice system. You won't do anything stupid, because it's good for you. Someone will come after you, in a method far more efficient and effective than the government.

Although I do oppose a very strict justice system, there are problems in the presented alternative. First, most severe crimes are either crimes of passion or done by someone with mental problems, in which case "knowing what's good for you" doesn't apply. Of course, this doesn't include such things as organized crime, but this is kept to an extreme low by strict law enforcement. If not for law-enforcement, power would be held in the hands of crime syndicates, and injustice would be amok.

However, you do present the idea of having vigilantes take care of law-breakers. But, again, this is faulty, as there is no universal moral code that dictates "correct" retributivism, meaning that differing ways of handling situations can lead to an opposition of such methods by other parties, and so on in an endless chain, eventually leading to complete chaos among people trying to justify their beliefs, and destruction of the society.

Having a government dictate and enforce laws is like a compromise, in that we agree and disagree with certain aspects of it, but ultimately, because there lies a general consensus of what can and cannot be be done (due to law enforcement), there can exist a functioning society.

Great, why not just kill them? They aren't doing any good in prison. I'd rather not pay for them to live 20 years. (Note: I'm not actually endorsing killing them, I'd much rather they be put to use. In certain circumstances, e.g. live imprisonment, it'd be better to treat them as slave labour.)

Yeah, I understand you don't mean to actually kill them, but surprisingly, it actually costs less tax money to keep a criminal in prison for 20 years than to kill them. In any case, I would propose a system in which prisoners are actually studied by doctors in order to determine if there is an actual mental state of instability that causes one to commit crime, so subsequently, one can prevent another from committing crime in the future.

 

[billymills]

\

Although I do oppose a very strict justice system, there are problems in the presented alternative. First, most severe crimes are either crimes of passion or done by someone with mental problems, in which case "knowing what's good for you" doesn't apply. Of course, this doesn't include such things as organized crime, but this is kept to an extreme low by strict law enforcement. If not for law-enforcement, power would be held in the hands of crime syndicates, and injustice would be amok.

What exactly would organised crime be?—a militia?

What exactly do you want to happen to people with mental problems. Keep them under constant supervision for the rest of their life?

However, you do present the idea of having vigilantes take care of law-breakers. But, again, this is faulty, as there is no universal moral code that dictates "correct" retributivism, meaning that differing ways of handling situations can lead to an opposition of such methods by other parties, and so on in an endless chain, eventually leading to complete chaos among people trying to justify their beliefs, and destruction of the society.

Those that escalate violence would kill themselves off. Those that reduce it would survive.

Having a government dictate and enforce laws is like a compromise, in that we agree and disagree with certain aspects of it, but ultimately, because there lies a general consensus of what can and cannot be be done (due to law enforcement), there can exist a functioning society.

The consensus is always changing, which means we hardly have a consensus at all. I don't really like the idea of a government dictating anything either, unless again, it's related to the aforementioned areas.



Yeah, I understand you don't mean to actually kill them, but surprisingly, it actually costs less tax money to keep a criminal in prison for 20 years than to kill them. In any case, I would propose a system in which prisoners are actually studied by doctors in order to determine if there is an actual mental state of instability that causes one to commit crime, so subsequently, one can prevent another from committing crime in the future.[/QUOTE]

 

[Brain]

Not really, when you can have a far more laissez-faire justice system. You won't do anything stupid, because it's good for you. Someone will come after you, in a method far more efficient and effective than the government.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here, but such a system sounds like it would lead to many more innocents being unjustly punished. A justice system has to make sure that you are judged on what you did, rather than on what people think you did. A laissez-faire system would degenerate into public lynchings, unchecked vigilantes and/or mob wars - it would be utterly unstable and would leave innocents accused of a crime with no meaningful recourse.

Those that escalate violence would kill themselves off. Those that reduce it would survive.

First, that won't happen without casualties, and you want to avoid these at all costs. Second, it is more likely that the strongest group will simply seize power and will institutionalize whatever their methods are. This will be made all the easier by the fact people will be sick of the laissez-faire system's instability and will accept anything as long as it is stable. In the end you will almost inevitably end up with a police state.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Technically all our governments have grown out of a laissez-faire system..

Have a nice day.

 

[cantab]

Technically all our governments have grown out of a laissez-faire system..

Your point being? That statement could lead into arguments either for or against laissez-faire.

 

[Mr.E]

 

[Metalman]

What exactly would organised crime be?—a militia?

What exactly do you want to happen to people with mental problems. Keep them under constant supervision for the rest of their life?

Organized crime refers to things like crime syndicates, or perhaps the mafia is a good example of organized crime.

For people with mental problems, they shouldn't be under constant supervision always, but at the very least, they should be behaviorally studied for a period of time in order to better understand certain chemical imbalances and psychoses of the brain.

Those that escalate violence would kill themselves off. Those that reduce it would survive.

So are you advocating pacifism by supporting a system in which those that display violence should kill each other off? If so, that's a pretty iffy subject on its own, as violence in things such as war may be justified (at least in accordance to "Jus ad Bellum": just causes of war).

The consensus is always changing, which means we hardly have a consensus at all. I don't really like the idea of a government dictating anything either, unless again, it's related to the aforementioned areas.

Sure, the consensus is always changing, but most major changes occur over long periods of time, whereas less important changes to consensus may occur in a shorter time frame. I mean, it is, and for a long time, has been recognized that it is generally not morally justified to kill an innocent person. In aspects such as this, where a consensus really does matter, it is due to government to reinforce ideas similar in importance to this (although perhaps not quite as general).

For a more relevant example, how about a stop light? The way a stop light works has never really been changed, probably won't for a long time either. Sure it's a pain to be ticketed for accidentally running that red light, but it's for your own safety and the safety of others, as opposed to merely needing to be on time for an important meeting. Hence compromise.

To tell you the truth, I'm actually an anarchist, so I definitely oppose oppression by government. However, there must be steps on the path to liberation. Were we to, today, suddenly declare the US an anarchy, it would be horrible because our mindsets are those of capitalists. Achieving something like anarchy properly requires that we slowly repeal constricting laws and government control, combined with a change in culture to bring about a moral strengthening of things such as pacifism, reciprocity, and working not only for our benefit, but the benefit of others.

Technically all our governments have grown out of a laissez-faire system..

Sure, most governments have grown out of laissez-faire, but those most are mixed economies, not merely laissez-faire. With things such as subsidies, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, environmental regulations, etc, laissez-faire is destroyed by government intervention.