"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.

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. 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?

Internal: Some folks learn just fine 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.

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).

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".

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.

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

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.