Who's in Charge Here?

Why do some people seem to be chronic “blamers” while other people accept the tough situations the world throws at them? Is it possible that those with a certain psychological profile exhibit a greater propensity towards blame? If so, a possible place to begin looking is within a concept called “locus of control.” Largely attributed to Julian Rotter’s work in the 1960’s, locus of control essentially means that some people view their experiences as a result of forces outside of themselves (an external locus of control) while other people believe that they control their own destiny (an internal locus of control). For example, one traveler (external locus of control) who just missed his airline flight might believe that the cause was due to the traffic jam on the way to the airport, the long lines at security, and the date being Friday the 13th. At the same time the other traveler (internal locus of control) who missed the same flight is saying to herself, “I knew I shouldn’t have hit the ‘snooze’ button on my alarm for the third time.”

Rotter proposed that we all lie somewhere along a continuum. Those at the “external” extreme believe that events occurring in their lives are largely beyond their influence, and that fate, or destiny, or the gods, or luck, determine what happens. Those at the “internal” extreme believe that events are primarily due to the actions they’ve taken to shape those outcomes. Most people do not lie at the extremes, but probably do have a tendency to lean one way or the other. (There are several fun and informative online surveys you can take - some free, some not - to determine your own locus of control.) Try the one at:
http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/LocusofControl-intro.html

What might this have to do with blame? In general, those with an internal locus of control are less likely to blame others when things go wrong. They believe that their own actions have contributed to or shaped the current problem in some way and are quick to begin looking for how to change the situation instead of blaming. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to blame forces outside of themselves for the problem. They believe that some person or event is responsible for the problem and that they are merely the victims of circumstance.

Bert and Ernie were each recently issued speeding tickets while driving along a 4-lane boulevard in a commercial district. The speed zone was 25 miles-per-hour. They were both ticketed for going 40. Both were frustrated. However, Bert (an external) blamed the municipality for setting such a low speed limit on such a wide-open street; he blamed the officer for not considering the lack of other traffic at the time; he blamed the person whom he was driving to meet (if not for that appointment he wouldn’t have been there); and he blamed all the other speeding drivers who didn’t get ticketed. Ernie (an internal) said to himself, “Dang, I finally got caught.”

Next time you find yourself blaming someone else for your misfortune, think about whether you are feeling in charge of your destiny or feeling a victim of circumstance. Then, think about what you could have done to alter the situation.

Church Controversies and American History

Note: The post below was published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette. However, several key concepts were edited out. So here is the full, unedited version.

Today’s controversy surrounding the proposed mosque near ground zero has an interesting parallel dating back to colonial Boston. Most early Bostonian colonists were Puritans, having fled England to escape persecution by the Church of England. To emphasize the ideological canyon between themselves and Anglicans, Puritans called their places of worship “meeting houses” instead of “churches.” They also banned public Anglican worship within Boston. However, not every resident of Boston was Puritan. Royalists, who were typically appointees of King James II to various colonial positions, often remained faithful Anglicans. Naturally, they wanted their own place of worship.

By 1685 tensions between the Puritans and Anglican King reached a breaking point. The King revoked Massachusetts’ charter of self-governance, and installed a Royal Governor (Sir Edmond Andros) with full authority over the colony. Governor Andros quickly organized an Anglican congregation and demanded that Boston Puritans sell land from their first cemetery to the congregation for a church. The Puritans refused as the cemetery contained the remains of their first generation settlers and was thus considered sacred ground. Exercising his legal might, Andros used eminent domain to confiscate a portion of the cemetery, then dug up and moved the remains of those buried there.

A few years later, when King James was overthrown, Bostonians imprisoned Governor Andros, then, sent him back to England. But by then, the Anglican church had established itself and found acceptance within the community. Although the original wooden church was eventually replaced with a more elaborate granite structure, and the congregation evolved into America’s first Unitarian congregation, King’s Chapel, and its legacy, still remains a vibrant part of Boston’s community.

The older I get, the more I appreciate the lessons that can be learned from those who’ve gone before us. With each new crisis or controversy we face, there seems to be a relevant parallel in our not-too-distant past. Drawing from the story of King’s Chapel I’ve come to this conclusion:

Construction of this Muslim center is an important step in surfacing the underground debate about Islam in America. Visibility into the operations of this center will be unprecedented because of the publicity received. Why not allow its members to show us their true colors? We’ve been promised a multi-cultural center where all are welcome to come, learn, and share. Perhaps this becomes the place where an American brand of Islam takes root that publicly denounces Sharia, Jihad, oppression of women, stoning, and all the traits that run counter to American ideals. Evolution of other religions has pivoted on similar events. If this turns out to be true, then the “sensitivities of families of 9/11 victims” will have been unfounded – much as the paranoia towards Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. In this case we can score one for American-style freedom and the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the First Amendment.

If, on the other hand, this center becomes the breeding ground for radical elements of Islam, and anti-American sentiment, then Muslim credibility will have been seriously eroded, and we will need to begin debate on whether Islam is right for America.

Governor Andros, who defied colonial Boston, was disgraced and deported back to England. But the church once viewed as unacceptable to Bostonians has now become a celebrated part of its heritage. Let’s see what comes of the current project. This may be a defining moment for America, and for its Muslim community.

Not so fast!

This past Sunday eight people were killed and more than a dozen injured at an off-road race in California’s Mojave Desert. One of the competing trucks crested a hill, became airborne and lost control, then rolled into the crowd. Definitely a tragic Sunday for all involved. So, who’s to blame?

Let me be clear, I’m not asking, “Who’s to pay?” Lawyers will have a field day with this one, and damage awards will easily be in the tens of millions. Our tort system of legal liability dilutes our sense of personal responsibility, replaces it with a culture of victimization, and fuels blame for tragic incidents like this. Most likely those with the deepest pockets will pay, because that is the system of laws we have developed. But who is really responsible for the deaths and injuries?

The main players are: (1) The Bureau of Land Management who approved the race on federal property, (2) Mojave Desert Racing, who organized the event, and signed an agreement that they’d be “responsible for the safety of participants and spectators,” (3) Brett Sloppy, the driver, whose racing rules included “slowing to 15 mph when passing within 50 feet of any social group,” and (4) the hundreds of spectators, who ignored the 100-foot safety setbacks and stood within touching distance of the racing vehicles.

Watching the amateur video of the crash reveals this was a senseless tragedy. There was no evil terrorist intending to kill and maim people. Just typical human craziness. Off-road vehicles bouncing across desert terrain at high speed, combined with crowds pressing into the race course, seems like a recipe for disaster.

Seeing this, the event organizer likely sensed the risks. Calling off the race would have been the smart move. Why wasn’t it called? At the moment, that would not have been an easy decision. The promoter would have incurred the wrath of the racers, the spectators, and any live television coverage. And he would likely have faced personal financial losses in the six-figure range. Moreover, this type of situation had been occurring at many off-road races and had squeaked by without incident. Poor judgment – definitely. Contributory responsibility - certainly. But somewhat understandable.

The driver certainly knew that loss of control is common in such races. Why did he continue to push the limit when crowds were lined on both sides of his path? In the heat of competition race drivers tend to focus on one thing – winning. Slow down, even for a moment and you become the loser. Besides, other vehicles had passed through here in front of him. Poor judgment and contributory responsibility – definitely. But also understandable.

I really have to wonder, though, about the hundreds of spectators who willingly walked past the safety barriers and stood arm’s length from 2-ton chunks of iron hurtling past in uncontrollable conditions. Aren’t they ultimately responsible for their own demise? The lawyers seeking damages will portray these people as innocent victims. But if one ignores all sense of self-preservation is he still innocent? Doesn’t putting oneself into clear and present danger mean taking responsibility for the possible outcome? Certainly there was mob mentality at play: “Everyone else is doing it.” And I’m sure the adrenaline rush was extreme. But it seems that the spectators demonstrated no judgment at all, had the most immediate control over their own fate, and thus are ultimately responsible for the tragedy.

The Bureau of Land Management announced yesterday it would no longer permit this race in the future. In a world where we increasingly need to guard ourselves against liability for the dumb actions of others their decision is understandable.

If you take to the streets in the annual running of the bulls should you expect to blame the event organizers when you are gored by a bull? I suppose sooner or later that tradition will be eliminated as well. At one time or another we all seek thrills. And once in awhile we all do dumb things. Too bad we just can’t accept the outcome when it happens. I guess the option is to live in a totally padded, protected, and monitored world where all risks are systemically eliminated.

Am I Blue? (Jet Blue, that is)

Blame is influenced by a number of situational variables. One of those variables is the blamer’s degree of empathy with the situation. If the blamer is very familiar with a situation and the circumstances around it, the degree of blame attributed to the “culprit” is likely to be lessened or eliminated altogether. So, in Wisconsin, when someone slides their car off the road in a winter blizzard, most local folks don’t get too worked up about it because many have been there, and everyone has almost been there. They understand how it can happen.

In contrast, when a situation is foreign and unfamiliar, blame tends to be more severe. If a pilot slides his airplane off the runway in the same blizzard, even without noticeable damage or injury, a lot of finger pointing takes place. Most people aren’t familiar with the cockpit environment, and they don’t realize that it’s much harder to control a large airplane at 150 miles per hour on an icy runway, than a car at 50 on an icy road.

This week when a JetBlue flight attendant blew his cool, cussed at a passenger over the intercom, then opened the airplane door and jumped out the escape chute, reaction by the general public was pretty forgiving. Flight attendants are trained to be calm and collected, and are supposed to be the vanguard of in-flight passenger issues, coping with any kind of emergency that arises. Well, Steven Slater wasn’t. He also violated some pretty serious airport security regulations by running out onto the tarmac.

But instead of blame, the public made Slater a momentary folk hero. Within the day a Facebook page was set up honoring Slater, and thousands of fans weighed in. News commentators on all the networks shared humorous quips about the incident. Why? Because anyone who has flown more than once or twice can relate with the crazy intensity that accompanies boarding and de-planing on today’s airlines. Even a routine flight requires a solid dose of patience to cope with people cramming the overhead bins with their oversized carry-ons, then trying to jump out of their seats 15 seconds before the plane docks to grab that carry-on and heave it to the floor (before anyone else can even stand up). So, even though Slater is the one who lost it, most of us have secretly harbored thoughts of playing out similar reactions.

If a baggage handler who got fed up with overstuffed bags popping open on the tarmac decided to park his tow motor in front of an arriving airliner, and blocked it’s access to the gate, we might be more inclined to blame him for his actions. We’re simply not as familiar with the frustrations of the job.

I certainly don’t blame Slater for his actions. They’re perfectly understandable to me. And the passenger involved in the altercation probably had it coming. However, you can have accountability without blame. And this is a good example.

Slater was a 20-year veteran of a job that requires enormous self-discipline. His actions totally disregarded the interests of all the other passengers on the plane. We can all appreciate the exhilaration of the moment. But Slater should be terminated from his job, and pay whatever appropriate consequences result from his security infractions.

Decisions Have Consequences

Assigning blame for something that has gone wrong feels like the righteous application of accountability. We believe we have identified the “culprit” who caused the problem, and punishment solves (or at least resolves) the problem. This is understandable since, when things go wrong, we feel victimized. But in reality we are often victims of our own choices and decisions. Blame then becomes the abdication of personal responsibility for the event.

Recently a middle-aged woman competing in a triathlon suffered a massive heart attack during the swimming portion of the event, and died. The family is now suing the event organizers, blaming them for the death, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The petitioners allege the event organizers did not have enough life guards stationed along the swim route to respond quickly enough to save the woman.

The pain of the family, and their sense of victimization, is understandable. Mom was taken from them in the prime of her life. But are the event organizers truly to blame for this death? When one competes in an intense activity aren’t the risks implied? If someone bungee-jumps off a bridge and is injured or killed, should the bridge owner be held liable for not providing adequate medical response? To what extent are we responsible for the outcome of our own voluntary behaviors and choices? If we stick our finger in a flame we know it will get burned. But if we stick our finger in the flame of a gas stove, and it gets burned, why do we blame the stove manufacturer?

Each year an organization called The Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch holds a contest and awards recognition for the wackiest warning labels that have resulted from lawsuits predicated on victimization and its abdication of personal responsibility. When a five-inch fishing lure with three large steel hooks requires a label that reads, “Harmful if swallowed,” or when a washing machine at a Laundromat requires a label that reads, “Do not put any person in this washer,” or when a baby stroller requires a label that reads, “Remove child before folding,” then we have evidence that we’ve become a society that abdicates personal responsibility in favor of blame.

So, the next time you are about to blame someone for something, ask yourself, “In what way did I contribute to this outcome?” You may discover that you are the victim of your own decisions.