Internal
{{ row.short }}
{{ row.selectedStatement }}
{{ row.readNote }}
{{ chartLead }}
{{ lane.note }}
{{ row.selectedStatement }}
This run did not include any internal-leaning picks, so the strongest signal is external control across the full proxy.
{{ row.selectedStatement }}
This run did not include any external-leaning picks, so the profile stayed fully self-directed on every paired item.
{{ proxyLead }}
The visible ledger keeps the chosen statement and score effect aligned with the exact pair you answered.
| # | Prompt | External lane | Picked statement | Effect | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} | {{ row.short }} | {{ row.externalLaneLabel }} | {{ row.selectedStatement }} | {{ row.effectLabel }} |
This payload includes the proxy inputs, control tilt, lane scores, and item ledger for the current run.
Locus of control describes where people tend to place the main explanation for what happens in their lives. An internal orientation emphasizes personal action, preparation, and follow-through. An external orientation emphasizes forces outside the self. Some models split that external side further into chance and powerful others, because luck and gatekeepers do not feel like the same kind of outside force.
This page uses that three-lane structure. It compares Self-direction, Chance, and Powerful others through twelve paired statements. Each item asks which explanation feels closer to your usual default. That makes the result less about right or wrong answers and more about which story you instinctively reach for when outcomes need explaining.
The result is useful because externality is not one thing. Some people mainly blame timing and luck. Others mainly expect outcomes to depend on decision makers, institutions, or gatekeepers. Distinguishing those two external lanes makes the profile more practical.
The output is a control-orientation proxy, not a diagnosis and not a fixed character judgment. A stronger internal tilt does not mean everything really is controllable, and a stronger external tilt does not automatically mean helplessness. The page is describing explanatory habit, not objective reality.
The proxy contains twelve items. Each item offers two statements: statement A is the internal-leaning explanation, and statement B is the external explanation. The four answer choices let you indicate whether A or B is only a little closer or much closer.
The scoring gives 2 or 1 points to the chosen side. Responses 1 and 2 contribute internal points. Responses 3 and 4 contribute external points. Six items feed the Chance lane and six feed the Powerful others lane. Internal points are converted to a percentage out of 24 possible points. Each external lane is converted to a percentage out of 12 possible points.
| Lane | Meaning on this page | Max points |
|---|---|---|
| Self-direction | Personal leverage, preparation, habit, and follow-through | 24 |
| Chance | Luck, timing, randomness, and the break you happen to get | 12 |
| Powerful others | Gatekeepers, approval paths, sponsorship, and people who hold power | 12 |
| Band | Lower | Upper | Meaning on this page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong internal tilt | 35 | 100 | Personal leverage clearly leads the explanatory style. |
| Internal-leaning profile | 12 | 34 | Self-direction is ahead, but external explanations still matter. |
| Mixed / shared-control profile | -11 | 11 | Internal and external explanations stay relatively close. |
| External-control lean | -34 | -12 | External explanations are leading but not overwhelmingly. |
| External-control tilt | -100 | -35 | Chance or powerful others clearly lead the explanatory style. |
The page also tracks profile spread, prior tilt, and a recheck interval. The Control Belief Radar plots the three lane percentages, while the tilt score summarizes whether the internal lane or the blended external lanes are currently leading. The finished result can be exported as CSV and JSON, and the response code in the URL can restore the session later.
The strongest first read is to separate Chance from Powerful others. Both are external, but they imply different next steps. A chance-led pattern often points toward uncertainty tolerance, contingency planning, or how much randomness you expect. A powerful-others pattern says more about institutions, approvals, hierarchy, and whether you expect access to depend on gatekeepers.
Read the top lane and the tilt together. A mixed profile can still have one lane slightly ahead. A strong internal tilt means self-direction clearly outruns the average of the two external lanes. A small tilt means the explanatory habit is more shared and situational.
A practical trust check is simple: ask whether the dominant external lane matches the kind of frustration you usually describe. If the page says Powerful others dominates but your real language is mostly about timing and bad luck, revisit the item choices.
The main question is not whether internal is “better” than external. The better question is which explanation you reach for first when something important succeeds, fails, or stalls.
A strong internal style can support agency, but it can also encourage over-responsibility when real barriers are structural. A strong external style can reflect realistic recognition of systems and luck, but it can also shrink perceived leverage more than the situation actually requires.
Example 1: A profile shows Self-direction 75%, Chance 17%, and Powerful others 25%. That yields a strong internal tilt. The person mainly explains outcomes through action, preparation, and follow-through.
Example 2: Another profile shows Self-direction 33%, Chance 67%, and Powerful others 25%. That is an external lean driven mostly by chance, not by hierarchy. The person is more likely to describe outcomes as timing-dependent than permission-dependent.
Example 3: A mixed profile with high Powerful others and moderate Self-direction can fit someone who believes effort matters but also expects institutions and gatekeepers to decide whether that effort can land.
No. It is a disclosed proxy inspired by the internal versus external idea and the chance versus powerful-others split. It uses original paired statements.
Not necessarily. It means personal leverage is the main explanation you reach for. Whether that is realistic, useful, or excessive still depends on the actual situation.
Because luck and gatekeepers create different kinds of external explanations and imply different follow-up choices.
Routine scoring stays in the browser. The main privacy caveat is the restorable response code in the URL and any exports you create.