Please note that we are NOT the original writers of this blog post. All credit goes to the original writers. Find the original post as published at this link: http://mdpofsd.blogspot.com/2014/05/hyper-advocates-and-two-types-of.html
There are many ways in which people try to solve problems in their lives and on earth. But, there are two widely used methods that take opposite approaches. The method used is usually a function of the person’s Locus of Control. He has the ability. He uses the shift within himself to address his problem(s). Concerning personal safety, training and self-defense instruction is an instance of Internal Locus Problem Solving. The solution comes from within. This system is also referred to as Bottom Up problem solving.
External Locus Problem Solving (ELPS) — Someone with an External Locus of Control sees the solution to the problem stemming from the activities of others. They see the problem on a global scale. The issue stems from the environment. Therefore, to solving the problem, the solution comes from changing the environment. In terms of personal safety, self-defense is not the solution. Reducing behavior is the solution. This method is also referred to as Top Down problem solving.
Theoretically, these two methods should be complimentary. They should work together solving the problem from both ends. Unfortunately, in the real world of ideology and advocates, many occasions proponents of these methodologies spend an enormous amount of time and resources disparaging the other methodology as being unsuccessful.
The simple thought process behind ILPS, is that societal problems can be solved with the amount of the unique actions of individuals. Social change occurs when a critical mass of individual behaviors change society, think about drops in a bucket, a ripple in a pond, the butterfly’s wings, etc..
Depending upon the technical problem at hand, this method may or may not be effective. But, since the actions begin with the individual, there is less of chance for unintended scale side-effects. The goal is to begin by changing society. The thought process behind ELPS is that other individuals usually in the form of government or social institutions, need to become involved (come to the rescue). They have the capacity to effect change. So as to get these entities involved, the issue must be regarded as wide scale, and to be as threatening as possible. The first step of ELPS isn’t accurately identifying and describing the issue, it’s to make the problem appear as big as possible in order to get attention.
It is here that hyper-advocates using ELPS become part of the problem they want to solve. Hyper-Advocates are unwilling to specify the limitations (extent) of the issue. They promote the issue as being everywhere and it occurs all the time. They use terms such as”guys do so” or”girls do that” with the implication being that ALL men to this, all of the time or ALL girls to that, ALL the time.
What the Hyper-Advocates don’t know is that if ALL people do something, then it’s ingrained human nature that is very unlikely to change. It is when SOME people do something and others don’t do it, that there’s hope to change behaviors.
To be able to draw out attention, Hyper-Advocates do not need to promote an accurate description of the problem. They would like to promote an inflated view of the problem. They don’t want studies that are accurate. They want inflated studies.
An effective method to inflate studies is to co-mingle different data while making it look as through the information is similar. By way of example,”last year in City X of 50,000 people, there were 1,000 murders and assaults“. That appears to be a dangerous town. In this case, the city does not have a killing problem, it has a spitting problem. If you really need to solve a problem, you will need to know precisely what the problem is, and WHO IS effected by the problem, and who’s NOT effected. The more accurate the information, the better. Accuracy provides. That is what epidemiologistsdo.
For instance, stating that Town X has a”Spit Culture” and indicating that everybody in Town X is a Spitter will not help solve the issue if the vast majority of spitting assaults came from a few people that were serial spitters, AND that many of the victims of these assaults had certain elements in common, AND that the conditions of spitting assaults also had certain elements in common.
Assume the Vast Majority of Town X consists of Non-Spitters. Town X doesn’t have a Spit Culture. It’s a culture where the majority Non-Spitters do not know how to handle and control the behaviors of the minority Spitters. Along with the Hyper-Advocates keep clouding the issue by asserting that Town X includes a”Murder and Spit Culture” in the hopes that a government entity will pay attention and come to the rescue of the town.
In addition, whenever someone tries to correctly assess the factors involved in the spitting problem, including examining factors specific to the victim and their behavior, the Hyper-Advocates squash this research as”Victim Blaming” and label the person as a Murder and Spit Denier. These Hyper-Advocates have a very strong External Locust of Control. They basically believe that other people’s actions and behaviours are the source of the problems. Thus, the only solution is for others, not them, to alter.
As a result of the activities of the Hyper-Advocates, nobody really knows what is going on. There’s absolutely no accurate comprehension of why the Serial Spitters spit and why the Non-Spitters do not. But there are plenty of ideologically driven theories. There is minimal comprehension as to why certain people seem to get assaulted why others don’t. With little understanding and accurate data, problem solving methods are doomed to fail. The Hyper-Advocates in their endeavor to demonstrate the problem is happening everywhere, focus their attentions of Town Y and Town Z, labeling them also Murder and Spit Cultures.
While my example may involve some satire, the Internet has provided those who wish to solve social problems with a means to band together and a delivery system for their methods. Those that unite ILPS with ELPS have the best ability to solve society’s problems. On the other hand, the Hyper-Advocates of ELPS are a huge part of the problem they claim to want to solve.
