+1 for coming up with such an interesting argument
I think it’s helpful to define terms for something like this. I realize you linked to another post describing them, but just to avoid any confusion:
internal locus of control—believing that my decisions are under my control
external locus of control—believing that my decisions are not under my control
“Things under your control” (more generally, free will) is an ill-defined concept: you are an entity within physics; all of your actions and thoughts are fully determined by physical processes in your brain. Here, I will assume that “things under your control” are any things that are controlled by your brain, since it is a consistent definition, and it’s what people usually mean when they talk about things under one’s control.
Involuntary responses are not under your control and are not “determined by physical processes in your brain”, but are considered actions. Voluntary responses are also influenced by factors occurring outside your brain. If you’re tired, you are not likely to do any heavy exercise although you are able to choose to do so. If you see an explosion in front of you, you are likely to drop to the ground or run away.
maybe add physical traits, like height or attractiveness to the “internal factors” category
Yes, internal locus of control factors such as clothing, diet, or hair style are a major influence on attractiveness, but height; I have never heard anyone make that argument before. How is height under my control or what sort of arguments could be made in favor of such a belief? I recognize you are not actually arguing this is the case, but I’m not sure how you could even consider this to be a plausible argument.
It’s true that one can measure his IQ, and that IQ rarely changes much, but still: if you consider IQ fixed and external factor out of your control, then you must consider your thought processes restricted to some set and therefore, not totally under your control. … You shouldn’t consider any functions of your current brain state as external when discussing locus of control, since such viewpoint is actually counterintuitive and, therefore, makes you prone to errors.
IQ places a limit on your ability to learn new things, true, but you are still able to determine what you choose to learn. I do not have a limitless amount of money, but I am still able to choose what I buy. Are you saying that income must also be considered completely internal, and if not the things I buy must be external? Everything is limited by something. I consider the limit to be external and out of my control, and the choices I make within those limits to be internal. I don’t think that the limit and the choice are one and the same or grouped in some fashion that requires them to be kept together.
Involuntary responses are not under your control and are not “determined by physical processes in your brain”, but are considered actions. Voluntary responses are also influenced by factors occurring outside your brain. If you’re tired, you are not likely to do any heavy exercise although you are able to choose to do so. If you see an explosion in front of you, you are likely to drop to the ground or run away.
I see now (after reading yours and janos’ comments), that my definition isn’t perfect; but I think if you exclude some brain parts and include some other systems, my argument against seeing IQ as external will still hold (at least if your definition still includes brain parts which affect IQ).
Yes, internal locus of control factors such as clothing, diet, or hair style are a major influence on attractiveness, but height; I have never heard anyone make that argument before. How is height under my control or what sort of arguments could be made in favor of such a belief? I recognize you are not actually arguing this is the case, but I’m not sure how you could even consider this to be a plausible argument.
I’m not arguing that height is under your control; that would be strange indeed. But the physical factors are sometimes considered properties of a person, so I included things as height as an example of what considered “internal factor”.
I tried to analyse the locus control question in the most general case, that is, define two categories, “internal” and “external” (whatever that actually means), and then find out which is the most important.
Basically, I argued that you can’t have IQ in one category and brain in the other.
+1 for coming up with such an interesting argument
I think it’s helpful to define terms for something like this. I realize you linked to another post describing them, but just to avoid any confusion:
internal locus of control—believing that my decisions are under my control external locus of control—believing that my decisions are not under my control
Involuntary responses are not under your control and are not “determined by physical processes in your brain”, but are considered actions. Voluntary responses are also influenced by factors occurring outside your brain. If you’re tired, you are not likely to do any heavy exercise although you are able to choose to do so. If you see an explosion in front of you, you are likely to drop to the ground or run away.
Yes, internal locus of control factors such as clothing, diet, or hair style are a major influence on attractiveness, but height; I have never heard anyone make that argument before. How is height under my control or what sort of arguments could be made in favor of such a belief? I recognize you are not actually arguing this is the case, but I’m not sure how you could even consider this to be a plausible argument.
IQ places a limit on your ability to learn new things, true, but you are still able to determine what you choose to learn. I do not have a limitless amount of money, but I am still able to choose what I buy. Are you saying that income must also be considered completely internal, and if not the things I buy must be external? Everything is limited by something. I consider the limit to be external and out of my control, and the choices I make within those limits to be internal. I don’t think that the limit and the choice are one and the same or grouped in some fashion that requires them to be kept together.
I see now (after reading yours and janos’ comments), that my definition isn’t perfect; but I think if you exclude some brain parts and include some other systems, my argument against seeing IQ as external will still hold (at least if your definition still includes brain parts which affect IQ).
I’m not arguing that height is under your control; that would be strange indeed. But the physical factors are sometimes considered properties of a person, so I included things as height as an example of what considered “internal factor”. I tried to analyse the locus control question in the most general case, that is, define two categories, “internal” and “external” (whatever that actually means), and then find out which is the most important. Basically, I argued that you can’t have IQ in one category and brain in the other.