Theory of Control
This is one of the most important ideas I've come across for understanding people
I am a big fan of The Status Game by Will Storr. I talk about this book all the time, every chance I get, and everyone who’s read it at my recommendation agrees that it’s an important book.
Will Storr is also an author, and like many authors, he’s an acute observer of the human condition. So I read another book by him, one entitled The Science of Storytelling. In this book, he talks about many things such as the importance of change to our brains and how this figures into good writing and good characters. But, perhaps even more importantly, he talks about how all characters (and real humans) develop a “theory of control.”
In a nutshell
A theory of control is an individual's set of beliefs, habits, and strategies developed over their lifetime to navigate the world, meet their needs, and achieve their goals. This personal framework shapes how one interacts with their environment, makes decisions, and responds to challenges. It evolves through experience and can be adaptive, leading to personal growth and effective problem-solving, or maladaptive, resulting in recurring difficulties and stunted development.
Where does our theory of control (ToC) come from?
You can think of ToC as similar to the stages of cognitive and moral development. One good example is the temper tantrum. Consider the child whose parents always give in when the child has a temper tantrum and never push back. If this pattern continues through several critical developmental stages (e.g. until they are 8 or 9 or so) then they will more or less be “set in their ways” and might default back to the temper tantrum whenever they aren’t getting their needs met. We see this often enough in candid videos posted online of adults having pedantic meltdowns in public. In many cases, I suspect they are enacting a childlike regression, throwing a literal adult temper tantrum because they learned this is how to get their way, and they did not have good enough boundaries as a child. In such cases, part of the adult’s theory of control is “if push comes to shove, I can just become emotionally dysregulated and start screaming and shouting to get what I want.”
This sort of thing happens enough that people even make compilations of it. I suspect that parenting theory during the childhood of Boomers has a lot to do with this pattern. The prevailing parenting theory in the 50’s and 60’s, when boomers were young, including three primary ingredients: strict discipline, clear hierarchy, and emotional distance. This authoritarian parenting can explain a lot about that generation. Corporal punishment was also more commonplace.
Conversely, imagine the child who throws a temper tantrum and then learns that this behavior results in timeouts, punishments, or other consequences. In this case, the child learns that temper tantrums don’t get their needs met, and so they may default to other behaviors, such as begging or nagging. In some cases, this behavior is preferable to parents and they’ll eventually give in, thus reinforcing this behavior. You might see this at the grocery store with a parent studiously ignoring the child’s begging and pleading, which can also be a form of abandonment protest (being ignored as a child is physically painful and a form of emotional punishment). However, if the parent habitually gives in at this behavior, they will learn the theory of control that begging and cajoling is the best way to get their needs met. Many of my own peers engage in this style of parenting, where temper tantrums are not tolerated, but rather than engaging with the child, they studiously ignore the calls for attention, at least until they get to a certain threshold of insistence. This paradoxically teaches the children to just beg harder and be more annoying in order to quickly get their needs met.
The best approach, for this stage of childhood development, is to pause what the parent is doing, address the child directly, engage with them and their needs, and work with them so that they understand the best way to get their needs met, while also teaching them boundaries. This is called authoritative parenting, which might sound very similar to authoritarian parenting. Children raised with authoritative parenting tend to have better sense of safety and better attachment patterns. An example of authoritative parenting, in this case, would be to put down a boundary with a child e.g. “I don’t like it when you beg like this, it’s annoying and distracting, so stop doing it. Instead, use your words to politely ask for what you want.” And, in cases where the answer is still “no” explaining why, but standing firm. This teaches the young child that respecting boundaries and using clear communication is how to get your needs met.
These patterns of behavior and belief might be influenced and anchored in childhood, but many people learn through social conditioning later in life. For instance, bullying in school, establishment of social norms and pecking orders, and the institutional behaviors of schools and workplaces will further shape theory of control.
Developmental Stages
Children are entirely dependent upon parents, so their theory of control starts off, primarily, based upon interactions with the parents. If, for instance, parents are always busy or tired or otherwise unavailable, (e.g. absentee parenting) the theory of control the child develops will be one of self-reliance. They may learn to make their own breakfast and lunches, get themselves ready for school, and so on. Somewhat sadly, absentee parents will often feel a sense of relief at this adaptation and reward the behavior by becoming even less available. Such people learn to be self-reliant throughout life, and often reject notions of community, family, and support from outside sources. In other words, they learned from a very young age that help would not be forthcoming, and to only rely on themselves.
Later in life, such as once children become pre-teens and adolescents, a huge amount of their control is rooted in social rank and social dynamics. They are no longer as concerned about basic needs, such as food and clothing, and are much more socially conscious. This is developmentally appropriate and likely rooted in our evolution. In other words, once a child is on the cusp of adulthood, it is time for them to find their place in the broader society. This is where children become much more interested in sexual and romantic relationships, as well as much more status-conscious, both with their peers, and how they are perceived by adults they look up to.
Consider the socially-climbing popular kid who learns that dressing right, speaking right, and having the right hobbies is the best way to get in and stay in with the “cool kids.” They may learn to bully lower-status kids, suck up to the kids in superior rank, and engage in whatever status games are being played by their social segment. In some cases, that means getting the best grads, dating the most attractive peers, or collecting accolades as status signifiers. Their theory of control becomes “conform to the social norms of my peer group.” This gets them status, praise, sex, attention, and so on.
Now, in other cases, teens learn entirely different theories of control, depending upon the status games that emerge in their social groups. For jocks, it is all about physical dominance and athletic prowess. For the computer and robotics kids, it’s about technical skill. For the stoners and burnouts, it’s about cultivating the right vibe around music and drugs. Each of these social segments natural develop a comprehensive set of social norms and hierarchies, all of which teach the teen a set of rules, beliefs, and patterns of behavior about how to get their needs met.
This adolescent theory of control does not replace the childhood theory of control, but rather merges with it and transmutes into something new.
This pattern repeats for every phase of life: college, early career, Quarter-Life Crisis, midlife, and so on. Every phase of life brings new challenges, new social dynamics, new constraints, and new requirements.
The infamous Quarter-Life Crisis (QLC) which generally starts either during college-age or just after, is characterized by feeling totally lost and adrift. The institutional framework of school is gone, and suddenly the young adult has the freedom to chart their own course entirely. Friends leave for grad school or jobs, moving across the country or expatriating entirely. The one-two punch of loss of institutional structure combined with the disintegration of social support means that all prior theories of control (get good grades, join school clubs, etc) no longer work. Instead, the new games revolve around getting a good job, making money, and basically starting from scratch at the bottom of the pecking order (many corporate cultures are extremely ageist against young people). Friends and sex are harder to come by, and inflated sense of idealism and purpose collide with the mundane and tedious reality of the daily grind.
At this phase, many people turn more to distractions, be it substances, games, TV, or other hobbies. They may have some cognitive and temporal surplus, and have not yet started families, so they spend their idle time trying to find connection and meaning. The vortex of the internet is a waiting trap for many.
Default Strategies
As I’ve reflected on this concept of theory of control I’ve realized that many people cultivate some “default strategies” over the course of their life. Generally speaking, most people will have something that stands out about them, something that comes easier to them. Some kids, for instance, are total bookworms, so their default strategy is to reach for books to cope with every aspect of life. Whether fiction for escape and to learn social dynamics, or nonfiction to learn how the world works and how to navigate it. In other cases, people are gifted with social intelligence, so they rely on relationships, schmoozing, and even manipulation to get their needs met. Others are highly technical, so they double down on tech skills and STEM careers to get all their needs met.
For myself, I was constantly praised as a child for my intelligence. I don’t need to recount the stories, but suffice to say this was such a persistent theme throughout my childhood that it became my go-to belief about myself. I am smart enough to solve any problem, or so I’ve been told. So what did I do? I got into a problem-solving career. My primary theory of control was that I needed to know more, to understand everything. I was insanely curious as a child, and so my curiosity—my penchant for habitually wanting to disassemble everything to understand how it works—became the central pillar of my theory of control. Any problem I wanted to solve, whether it was to get a job, get a girlfriend, or solve a health problem, flowed from this theory of control.
As people confront the challenges of life, such as navigating school, work, marriage, family, and the myriad setback and travails that pop up (like the first time your car strands you in the middle of nowhere, or the first time you have a major house crisis like a flood or a fire) people will inevitably learn new ways of overcoming problems. However, depending on their theory of control, they may not have any tools in their toolbox to help them. Let’s imagine a person who’s learned to get most of their emotional needs met through sex and emotional intimacy. In this case, I’m not making comments on whether or not this is adaptive or maladaptive, just that this is someone’s primary theory of control. So let’s imagine this person is confronted with a major problem in life that this theory of control does not help them with—what do they do? They may reach for their comfort mechanisms, such as sex or emotional intimacy, in order to get a sense of control back.
I talked about theory of control more in the context of fiction and real life here:
I recognized at least two people from my circle in the text. Quite interesting and enlightening. Maybe I'll pursue the topic further.
I found your video a while ago and included it in a newsletter of my own. I like that you expanded upon it a bit here.