BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Roger Houston at
wrote on 10/16/05 9:03 AM:

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Heh. I don't buy into the the locus pocus myself.

Well, you really don't have to buy into anything. The "locus pocus" is a
theory that "professionals" in behavioral science have used to help to
explain something they've observed.

Bah.

They know they are
overweight. They know they need to eat better. They know they need to
exercise more. But they've bought in (and it's easy to buy in, since all
that is required is laziness) to the culture of professionalization, which
states that no matter what it is you are too lazy to do, it's not your
fault, the problem is you haven't yet hired a professional.

In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you said
here.

I a loose an innacurante sense, imo.

In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational definition
of the theory. If you talked long enough, you'd reveal that your
theoretical framework is parallel to that of the professionals who observed
behavior and postulated the theory of locus of control.

Don't believe it?

No.

Internal: Some folks learn just fine on their own, others don't.

I disagree.

Some folks know that they can learn on their own, others don't.

External: Some folks learn by observing others, choosing the things they
saw others do that worked and adopting them to their own performance, and
discarding, or not attempting in the first place, the things they've seen
others do that didn't work.

All folks are capable of doing this. Some don't believe that they are, and
as a result their own thinking makes it impossible for them to do so.

Powerful other: Some people figure they can never do it on their own and
seek professional instruction, often assigning guru-like attributes to the
instructor. (Not deterred by many instructors who assign guru-like
attributes to themselves).

See above.

So, in a sense, you have provided a reinforcement of this theory by
'publishing' your observations in this forum and defending your thesis
against the "other side" (using your dichotomy), and bolstering the
observations and theory of "professionals".

I disagree. I don't think my "theory" is not even close to being a parallel
to the theory you have described.

You don't buy into the "locus hocus pocus" yet you've arrived at similar
conclusions on your own but have chosen to call the described domains by
other names. Put another way, you've "discovered" something for yourself
that "professionals" have written about for others to learn without doing
the experiments you've done.

I'm aware of al those theories, and I don't agree that I've arrived at the
same conclusion. But there are definitely other types of formalized theories
that would indeed resemble my thoughts on this issue. What you've described
just doesn't fit the bill, imo.

Other theoretical work to which your philosophy alludes (and which you could
look up) would be found using the phrase "learning style".

LOL. I'm well aware of those too. That's not what this is about, in my
opinion. Learning with a professional instructor only is not a learning
style. Whether you are a visual learning, hands-on learner, etc has no
bearing on the argument that people are capable of learning without
professional instruction.

The dead horse in this particular line of discussion is that the theories
aren't laws, exceptions can be found for each, and you'll continue to point
out the exceptions -- often using yourself as an example.

No generalization is worth a damn -- including this one.

The reason I dismiss the "locus pocus" as an explanation is that I believe
anyone who has arrived at an "I can't learn without a professional"
conclusion is a victim of distorted thinking.

It's not about learning styles or any of that internal/external crap either.
It's simply untrue that one can't learn without a professional instructor,
that's "all or nothing" thinking, and I'm sure there are about a dozen other
thinking fallacies someone could assign to it.

I'd ask such a person...is it really true that you can't learn without a
professional? Here's task x. Give it a try. What happened? OK, now try it
again. What happened this time? Was it different? Right! So if you try it a
third time, what will you do? OK, go ahead. Great, that worked a lot better,
didn't it?

Guess what, you are learning. It's part of being a human being. Only
distorted thinking can prevent it from happening.