| |
|
You're not being a killjoy, ibis - that's interesting and relevant.
For the record, my results on some on-line 'locus of control' tests (Rotter etc) seem to come out as pretty firmly internal. Which isn't to say that I don't still have a strange way of looking at life, of course. But I have to say that I don't think I fully understand the dichotomy. I'd have thought that pretty much all broad attributions have internal and external elements. I'd attribute winning a race to a combination of my talent, training, fitness etc (internal), and a dearth of the same in my competitors (external).
I have the same issue with the idea that you only procure things, never 'get' them. Isn't total acquisition normally a combination of the two? Some things come by dint of effort - one's wages, for example. Some things you just get things without having to go to any particular effort procure them: Again, wages - if you're pointless and uncalled for; otherwise gifts, lottery wins, 2nd prize in a beauty contest...
I suppose what I meant by desert is whether your total acquisition was commensurate with effort. Although what desert *is* is an open question, and one I'd be happy to explore. But if we just looked at one's wealth, a person who grafts hard for a minimal wage might feel ze's in desert deficit; a lottery winner will probably count hirself in surplus, I'd have thought.
Maybe I'm missing something. I’m just thinking out-loud.
I think one of the problems I have with both the internal/external locus of control, and the idea of desert generally, is that most things - if not eveything - can be attributed to external control at some point in the chain of events. Are all of one's personal attributes internal by definition? If I were beautiful, would the status and advantages that that often confers be attributable to internal of external loci? Which dis/abilities are internal and which are external?
But, like I say, thinking out-loud. Quite possible that I misunderstand the theory. |
|
|
