[bpatrianakos]

This is not a good thing. In the context of the article it seems more like a defense mechanism than anything else. Yes, it's good to take responsibility and people don't do it as often as they should but to take on the mentality that everything is your fault is unhealthy. In this context it looks like it stems from a need to be powerful and in control all the time.

The truth is, we can only control efforts, not outcomes. Sometimes things aren't your fault, you are the victim and while believing its your fault may shield you from feeling bad about it, it ultimately sets you up for failure. When you believe everything is within your control you're in for a rude awakening because a lot of bad random shit will end up happening. Once enough bad things pile up and you're still thinking its your fault, those feelings you're trying avoid by pretending you're all powerful will begin to bubble up and then you think "not only is everything my fault, but no matter how much I learn I just can't get most things right. So now I'm in control and suck at it".

This is classic avoidance. A defense mechanism. A more healthy attitude would be to identify what is in your control as well as realize and admit the things that are out of your control and cope with them as they come. By all means, take responsibility and he in control of your life because lord know most people aren't but also remember that there's no shame in admitting some bullshit happened that was out of your control and subsequently feeling bad about it.

What happens if there's a natural disaster? It's your fault you didn't predict it and lived or worked in a certain place? What about a key figure in your business dying suddenly? Are you at fault for not keeping good enough watch? The example of someone being rude right in the article is a great one! Of course it isn't your fault if someone is rude (at least not always)! Sometimes people have shitty days or attitudes and it has nothing to do with you! Besides being a defense mechanism you could argue that this attitude may stem from egomania.

[ivosaurus]

The mindset isn't simply about seeing yourself as the sole cause of all your problems, and going crazy there after.

That's the literal view of Derek's post, and it's completely naive one.

The opposite view is just as unhealthy - seeing yourself as the constant victim; it will equally get you nowhere. Civers is not a dumb enough guy to advocate either of these extremes.

It's about creating a mindset that enables you take to take more action in dealing with your own problems. Expanding your own view of your sphere of influence to its maximum potential.

TL;DR - the view isn't solely about anyone's fault, or some strategy of how to dole out blame; it's about maximising your own ability to make a difference.

[bpatrianakos]

I can agree with you, and the text supports your argument when he says:

"It's one of those base rules like “people mean well” that's more fun to believe, and have a few exceptions, than to not believe at all."

That part makes it seem alright but the way he talks about power and choosing this over forgiveness and the emphasis he places on having power as well as the importance he places on thinking of a situation in such a way that it avoids the realities of disappointment make it seem like its coming from an unhealthy place.

It's almost as if he's saying "I've found a way to avoid feeling bad about any negative thing that's out of my control" rather than what you're saying he means which would be something like "if you think of everything as being in your control then you'll find you actually do have more power over certain things than you think".

You can take either from this piece and I don't think it's naive at all to find an unhealthy attitude in this. It is very likely that he meant it in the way you say and that part I quoted backs that up. However, besides that one line, his tone and everything else he says in this piece comes off to me as someone training themselves to be avoidant in such a way that it can be construed as a virtue.

[Ygg2]

Yeah, I can see how he is taking a healthy worldview and stretching it to it's unnatural heights. I'm talking about a 'guy that stole 9000$' line. That example struck me as odd.

I've had my mother get mugged on her way to home (no money stolen, but some psychological trauma). Was there anything she could have done? Learn to defend herself? I doubt it. Sometimes things are still beyond our control.

[skybrian]

Natural disasters aren't a great example, because we can and should prepare for them. As the saying goes, "earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do."

[neumann_alfred]

I lost my father as a kid because he crashed into a truck that broke down on a freeway in fog and had defective tail-lights. Maybe there is something he could have done, but what exactly could I have done? Mind you, I am not complaining at all, and I'd rather loose a cool guy than live with an asshole father. But I also saw people die of cancer, and not just the obvious "smoke, get lung cancer" kind. And I could go on.

I still agree with the blog post and loved it to bits. Simply because blaming others seems to be a default position for many (I know it often is for me), and it truly is a trap. Seeing it from another perspective is refreshing and vital. And it is always, always true (that it's our fault) when it comes to our inner state, to how we feel and think about what happens, and, last but never least, of how we treat others. Of that we are truly the masters -- but even there you could mention deception, (involuntary intake of) drugs or brain defects. So, it's not that simple.

Life can also be cruel and random and there is fuck all you can do about it other than suffer and/or die. Accepting that and still saying yes to life is kind of a superpower, too.

[skybrian]

I think this goes to show that how much you have control over depends on who you are and what it is. The CEO of a company doesn't control everything but he has substantial control over the fate of the business. It's not helpful for him to dwell on things he can't control.

Traffic accidents are the sort of thing that, as a society, there is plenty that can be done to improve our chances that we're not doing yet. There are also a lot of things you can do as an individual to improve your changes (driving fast in fog is obviously a bad idea even though people do it all the time). But of course you can't control what other people do.

[bpatrianakos]

Natural disasters are a perfect example! You can plan and prepare all you like but in the end there are no guarantees that your planning and preparation will protect you. So if a natural disaster did happen and for the sake of argument you did everything within your power to prepare and did it perfectly yet still had something awful happen, is it your fault?

Consider too that natural disasters are not central to any number of locations. They can happen anywhere, any time, and come in any number of forms. You're not safe anywhere from them. That's why it's a perfect example. Because its something all people are prone to and that no amount of preparation can guarantee you safety from.

[skybrian]

You are right that there is some randomness but they're not that random. There are warnings about hurricanes. Floods hit low-lying areas. Earthquake risk varies a lot based on region, soil structure, and so on. Some structures are relatively safe and others aren't.

But I think they're a good example of things that we can't always prepare for as individuals - it requires a group effort and that involves politics. There is a lot of resistance against, for example, attempts to stop rebuilding in known flood zones.

I would say that plane crashes are a good example. We can talk about the odds of being in a plane crash but they're not really random - there are always reasons. Also, there is a reason why commercial flights are considerably safer than driving. It's not because flying is inherently safer, but because as a society we put a lot of effort into making them that way.

[rthomas6]

Planning and preparing won't guarantee your survival, but it will sure do a lot to increase your odds. If person A spends hours meticulously testing his building's structural integrity and invests money to reinforce relevant safety mechanisms, while person B does not, is it person B's fault if their house falls down while person A's does not? No, it's not really, but they could have done more.

There aren't ANY guarantees in life (except maybe this one), but I think the point of the article is to try to show the benefits of an internal locus of control. There will probably be things in everyone's life that they have little power over, but that does not mean they are completely helpless. Rare is a situation where any action on someone's part has a 0% chance of changing the outcome.

[jbranchaud]

I totally agree. It is important to take responsibility, but this is going to far.

Furthermore, this trivializes the situation of those that feel burdened by failure.