The Thinkers' Club

This Halloween, we’re trading philosophy for fright! 🎃👻 We’ll begin with some of the creepiest urban legends — like poisoned candy, the vanishing hitchhiker, the babysitter and the man upstairs, and the mirror-dwelling “Bloody Mary" — and consider what these tales reveal about shared anxieties and social fears. Then, we’ll shift to sharing our favorite scary stories, whether they’re drawn from folklore, literature, or personal experience. It’ll be a night of eerie fun and a chance to reflect on why we’re so drawn to stories that scare us.

The concept of locus of control refers to how people perceive the causes of events in their lives — whether they believe those outcomes are primarily the result of their own actions or shaped by external forces. Developed by psychologist Julian Rotter in the 1950s, this idea plays a key role in psychology, motivation, and personal development.

• Internal locus of control: Individuals believe they have agency over their circumstances. They attribute successes and failures to their own choices, skills, and efforts. This perspective is often associated with higher self-efficacy, proactive behavior, and resilience.
• External locus of control: Individuals believe that outside factors — such as luck, fate, powerful others, or systemic forces — largely determine outcomes. This perspective can lead to feelings of helplessness or fatalism, but it can also reflect a realistic understanding of external constraints.

While often presented as two ends of a spectrum, most people fall somewhere in between. Context also matters, as someone may feel in control in one area of life (like career) but not in another (like health or relationships). Understanding one’s locus of control can influence how a person approaches challenges, makes decisions, and finds meaning in their experiences.

• How would you define “control” in your own life?
• Does having an internal locus of control always lead to better outcomes (motivation, mental health, success)?
• Is it ever rational to adopt an external locus of control? When might this serve us?
• How does one's locus of control relate to the concept of personal responsibility?
• Is believing in free will a prerequisite for an internal locus of control?
• Is believing in personal control inherently empowering, or can it also be a form of self-deception?

Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions (first published in 1987) explores how many political, moral, and ideological disagreements stem from two fundamentally different ways of viewing human nature: the “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions. Sowell argues that these contrasting visions act as deep frameworks — often operating unconsciously — that shape people’s beliefs about law, justice, economics, and government.

• The Constrained Vision views human nature as inherently limited and self-interested. Because people cannot be perfected, stable societies rely on institutions, traditions, incentives, and checks and balances to manage those limitations. Justice is procedural, emphasizing fair rules rather than guaranteed outcomes.
• The Unconstrained Vision sees human nature as more malleable and capable of moral and rational improvement. It emphasizes social progress through reason, education, and deliberate action. Justice here is substantive, focused on achieving equitable outcomes and reducing or eliminating injustice.

Sowell also highlights how these visions influence the way people think about trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision tend to prioritize practical mechanisms and the unintended consequences of policies, while those with an unconstrained vision emphasize ideals, intentions, and the potential for improvement. These differing perspectives don’t fit neatly into political party lines, but they help explain why debates often feel like deeper clashes of worldview rather than just disagreements over facts or solutions.

• Sowell argues that political disagreements are often rooted in “visions” rather than facts. Do you find this idea convincing?
• Can you identify any current political issue (e.g., healthcare, education, climate policy) where these two visions clearly clash?
• The constrained vision emphasizes fair procedures, while the unconstrained vision prioritizes equitable outcomes. Which do you think leads to a fairer society — or are both necessary in balance?
• If these visions run so deep, is genuine compromise between them possible? What might it look like in practice?
• Have your own political beliefs shifted over time from one vision toward the other, or do you find yourself holding elements of both?