Ethnic integration - Locus of Control

Ethnic integration - Locus of Control

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thank Tree5Thanks
  • 1 Post By aus2020
  • 4 Post By shamwow

This is a discussion on Ethnic integration - Locus of Control within the General Psychology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; I thought I'd bring up the topic of ethnic integration in the US, in relation to locus of control, since ...

  1. #1

    Ethnic integration - Locus of Control

    I thought I'd bring up the topic of ethnic integration in the US, in relation to locus of control, since I haven't seen this mentioned before.

    American culture values: independence, personal success and entrepreneurship. Essentially, a society that highly favours an internal locus of control, a belief system that relates one's success or failure to internal factors, such as ability and hard work, as opposed to external factors, such as luck or difficulty of task.

    An internal locus of control is often correlated to: educational achievement, promotions and in turn, higher income.

    During the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, various laws were passed in the US, which discriminated against chinese in the US, such as the: naturalization act of 1790, which limited citizenship to whites only, the 1882 chinese exclusion act and the immigration act of 1924, which banned chinese immigration.

    However, discrimination and laws are not constants, as they are determined by current events. Fast forward to the current era.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/h...13-9?r=US&IR=T

    Conversely, there appears to be more discrimination towards ethnicities, with an external locus of control:

    Poll: Muslim-Americans face the most discrimination among ethnic/religious groups « Hot Air

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelsw...us-of-control/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556562/

    There are numerous factors which can determine the successful integration of any ethnic minority group into a majority culture. However, I believe locus of control is an important factor in income attainment and discrimination reduction, as it pertains to the United States.
    nam thanked this post.



  2. #2

    "Aw, what the hell, I don't got that long a lifespan anyway..."
    -Rocket Raccoon

    I'll answer this question and then we'll see how much poop hits the fan.

    There are 3 major factors which likely make up the majority of the difference between the average incomes of the different races (and it's unfortunate Jews aren't considered a race because they make the examples even more stark). I won't claim to know to what degree each of these contributes as it would take a lot of scientific research to determine and an unbiased source of such research would be completely impossible in the political climate of any Western country. Locus of control makes up part of my Reason #2, but only a part and I think in general while it is indeed very important it is still just a piece in a much larger puzzle.

    Reason #1: The genetic stock of all races in the United States is the result of external forces of artificial selection which very likely mean the genetic stock of each race in the US is not entirely representative of the genetic stock of that race in their original home country. In the case of Whites and Asians this is due to self-selection as people of these races chose to immigrate to the US. This results in a self-selection process because obviously it is only a certain type of person who is willing to uproot their lives and move halfway across the world (especially further back in time before the advent of airplanes). Unfortunately the genetic stock of the Black race in the US has a darker History as it wasn't the result of self-selection, but of artificial selection due to slavery. However the end result is again that the sort of person who would be chosen by slavers and who also could physically survive the transportation to the new world and the grueling life of a slave isn't necessarily representative of the genetic stock of Blacks in Africa. Whereas Whites and Asians self-selected based on their perceived ability to succeed in the New World Blacks were artificially selected due to the ability to due physical work. To what extent does this result in the current differences between the races in 2017? Again, I can't say because research into this field would never in a million years find unbiased sources of funding nor would it ever be accepted by those who have vested political interests in the answer (AKA: every single person in the US).

    Reason #2: While the different races today certainly don't have monolithic cultures there are still pretty significant cultural differences between the different races in the US. Asian culture generally values education, hard work and success. Again, to what extent this is a result of Asian culture in general or the fact that Asians coming to the US are coming here specifically to find financial success or get educated is an open question, but at any rate the Asians here generally value the things listed above and therefore have the strongest internal locus of control of all the races. Whites are much less monolithic as white culture in the NorthEast is somewhat different than Appalachia which is somewhat different than the Pacific NorthWest, but in general a majority of whites value education, hard work and success even if not quite as much as Asians. Blacks unfortunately rarely value education and hard work and often have a victim complex or otherwise believe their problems are not their own (for instance I've noticed an absurd percentage of blacks actually believe in things like the Illuminati). Blacks are much more likely to value athletic achievement over academic and at their worst glorify, "ghetto culture" which is essentially an honor culture and incredibly regressive (values violence and criminality). Part of the issue is that Blacks have a high external locus of control, but again black culture is even more flawed than that as it not only lacks a good internal locus of control but also actively glorifies anti-social behaviors like drug use, criminality, violence against women, not taking care of one's children, etc. and actively ridicules pro-social behaviors like hard work and education. To what extent culture plays a role in the average income of each race is again an incredibly open question due to political issues, but, I consider it no coincidence that the races line up in terms of income and Educational attainment in the same way that they do in terms of locus of control. Nor do I consider it a coincidence that criminality by race is inversely proportional to income and Educational attainment.

    Reason #3:
    There are Historical issues that even today affect the average income by race. This is because Economic mobility in the US is rather lackluster and therefore it can take several generations for past differences in income to even out. Blacks have Historically had lower incomes (due to racist laws and hiring practices) and obviously that won't change overnight. On the flip side most Asians currently immigrating to the US come from well off family back in their home countries and therefore start off with an advantage. Once again the extent to which this affects the average income by race is very much in the air although this one DOES get a lot of research because there is a huge political push to try and justify the income differences purely based on this one reason and to ignore the other 2.

    Ok, so there you have it. Locus of control is certainly a significant factor when it comes to success and the differences in locus of control between the races almost certainly explains a significant portion of the differences in income between the races, however there are many other issues to be considered and also we will never know to what extent each issue contributes to the overall issue until we stop trying to politically weaponize scientific research (PROTIP: this ain't happening any time soon).

  3. #3

    Locus of control isn't the end all and be all predictor of success. There are many other factors, which can lead to a person to being successful. The argument that could be made is since the wealthy who are better off, the majority of whom have an internal locus of control, are more likely to succeed in life due to better resources and education, as compared to the poor, the majority of whom have an external locus of control and have less factors in their favour. Whilst that is true, an internal locus of control can be beneficial in terms of wealth improvement and success, irregardless of whether a person is rich or poor, black or white.

  4. #4

    External LOC, just like consequentialism, is a lie mostly. As mentioned in the other thread recently, this is all about BLAME.

    I will cut and paste here for clarity and ease:

    Blame is a very tricky, not very useful thing. So here are the blame scenarios:
    1) You blame yourself and forgive yourself - Acceptable
    2) You blame others and forgive them - Acceptable
    3) You blame yourself and do not forgive yourself causing worthlessness - Unacceptable
    4) You blame others and do not forgive other causing hatred - Unacceptable

    Do you see? All LOC issues are about assigning blame and all blame is useless except as a tool for analysis in terms of how to interact with that locus to CONSEQUENTIALLY yield better results.

    The only relevant issue in the 4 scenarios is whether or not you can forgive. Remember that if you think in terms of external focus or LOCs you actually can be prone towards losing your ability to forgive because you brainwash yourself into thinking that circumstances were 'beyond your control' or that worthlessness and hatred are acceptable emotions to wallow in (they are not).

    You have only 1 locus of control, yourself. You cannot control others because there is only one way to do that, to take away their choices, their free will. If you wish to control external elements like weather then it is often not the rote actions of the environment that will stop you and in any case that is a rote act of force and know how. It is precisely the sentient players, the at least partially morally aware, e.g. emotive entities that can really oppose you. You can only stop them by removing their free will, an immoral act.

    Now, I capitalized CONSEQUENTIALLY. That is because, after you and others choose and a pattern of others' choices becomes apparent, that is AFTER THE FACT, you can help suggest or enact group policy towards the end of encouraging more appropriate behavior from others. This AFTER THE FACT thing I keep saying is that with external LOCs, you need more time to see what they are going to do, before you decide how to deal with their actions. You cannot choose for them and you have to see what kind of person/entity they are. That way you can help arrange things in a way that encourages them to act wisely.

    When you do this consequential reasoning you realize that organizing the world in such a way as to help people choose wise action, is the act of ... GOVERNMENT. If we create wise policy it will catalyze wise action and belief. If we make unwise policy, it will catalyze unwise action and belief.

    Blurb: I recently saw the show about the dude who created the anarchists cookbook. He was in his gray years and no linger supported the message of his book. I was shaking my head all the way through the video.

    In his youth he was fiery and chaotic and wanted to catalyze change. But the change he was advocating was against the inflated control of governments and their unfair policies. He was 100% right about the concept. That is to say empower all people to make change. I do believe that his intent was that this change be for the GOOD. He realized and rightly so, that violence can be moral. He was courageous enough as a younger man to state this quite plainly and stand by it. He was rightly worried about the future because he had a long time to live yet before him.

    But then as an older man he copped out. He softened his anger and his desire for a brighter future and spoke publicly against his book. He was probably paid to do this, but he still chose to do it.

    Notice the left wing, P-chaos tendencies at both ages. A sense of powerlessness in youth that makes him advocate for violent revolution and a sense of worthlessness or lack of investment in the future when he is older that makes him advocate for peace at any price. In both cases he took bribes against his position which again is again a form of powerlessness or lack of dedicated belief.

    He does not understand that the central issue or statement made by the book is AWARENESS of how to empower oneself against more powerful external LOCs. That is a worthy internal LOC message and should not be forgotten or dismissed. The weapons and the damage they do will increase with technology and that DOES NOT MATTER. You cannot fight anti-wisdom without equivalent weaponry which includes all awareness, all resolve, and all possible violence. Understanding that violence can be moral shows a proper focus on internal LOCs as deontological truth, and external LOCs as only an after the fact consequential policy (not a moral truth). The only consequential moral truths are involved in the action and belief of setting up a group policy (government) that catalyzes wise action and belief in the internal LOC sense for everyone.



    Originally Posted by Clyme
    I'm not sure what locus an INTP would have. I would assume an internal one but I'm not educated on the matter.



    The tendency of P is external LOC. Their openness causes them to feel as if they are only a cog in the machine. This is a big reason for their chaos-love and anger issues. They often feel powerless and thus prefer to release control of their personal morals as a result. But they want the big soft well catalyzed external LOC to catch them when they fail.

    The tendency of J is internal LOC. Their need for structure causes an internal morality focus. They then fail at consequentialist morality. Because they accept internal LOC they deny any external LOC. They fail to realize that it is internally responsible to set up external controls that catalyze moral action and belief.

    Granted I stereotyped here. Enneatype is way MORE important than MBTI type to determine these tendencies and even then it's still a stereotype.

    ----

    So look at the immoral actions on both sides. Immoral internal LOC involves itself in worthlessness. Immoral external LOC involves itself in hatred.

    Consequentialism is a lie. Only intent determines the goodness of a person's action or belief.


 

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] What is your locus of control?
    By escapism in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2013, 07:39 PM
  2. [INFJ] External Locus of Motivation...
    By RomanticEditor in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:10 PM
  3. [INFJ] locus
    By Pacifique in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 12:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0