Critiques and Limitations: What This Framework Can't Explain

BY NICOLE LAU

No theory explains everything. The Internal Locus Convergence framework is powerful within its domain, but it has boundaries. This article honestly examines what the framework can and cannot explain, where it breaks down, what it oversimplifies, and what legitimate critiques exist. Because intellectual honesty requires acknowledging limitations, and a good theory knows its scope. This is not weakness—it's rigor.

What the Framework Explains Well

The framework's domain of applicability:

1. Psychological suffering rooted in External Locus: Depression from value vacuum, anxiety from fear of value loss, codependency, people-pleasing, perfectionism, imposter syndrome, identity confusion from chronic oscillation.

2. Self-knowledge development: How people come to know themselves, why some have stable identity while others don't, how practice accelerates self-understanding, why external opinions are unreliable guides.

3. Developmental trajectories: How childhood experiences shape convergence capacity, why adolescence is critical, how young adults find themselves, what wisdom looks like in aging.

4. Relational dynamics: Healthy interdependence vs codependency, how to maintain identity in partnership, why some relationships support growth while others don't.

Within this domain, the framework is robust and useful.

What the Framework Cannot Explain

Limitation 1: Neurobiological Disorders

What it can't explain: Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, severe clinical depression (biological component), ADHD, autism spectrum, dementia, brain injury.

Why the framework doesn't apply: These are primarily biological/neurological, not psychological. External Locus is not the primary cause. Building Internal Locus won't cure them (though it may help cope). Medical/psychiatric treatment is necessary.

The boundary: Framework applies to psychological suffering where External Locus is primary mechanism. Does not apply to neurobiological illness.

Limitation 2: Severe Trauma and Dissociation

What it can't fully explain: Complex PTSD, Dissociative Identity Disorder, severe developmental trauma.

Why the framework is insufficient: Trauma creates structural damage beyond weak Internal Locus. Convergence requires basic safety and integration first. Specialized trauma treatment needed before convergence work.

The boundary: Framework applies after trauma stabilization and basic integration. Not a trauma treatment protocol.

Limitation 3: Systemic Oppression and Material Constraints

What it can't explain: Poverty, systemic racism/sexism/oppression, lack of access to education/healthcare/safety, structural violence and injustice.

Why the framework is incomplete: These are real external problems, not just "noise." Internal Locus doesn't solve systemic injustice. Material needs must be met before self-actualization. Framework risks victim-blaming if misapplied.

The boundary: Framework applies to psychological self-knowledge, not to solving systemic oppression or material deprivation. Both/and, not either/or.

Legitimate Critiques and Responses

Critique 1: "This is just repackaged attachment theory"
Response: Yes, and it extends it with convergence dynamics, mathematical formalization, and broader applications. Not claiming to replace, but to integrate and expand.

Critique 2: "This assumes everyone has a 'true self' to find"
Response: Framework is pragmatic—whether A is discovered or constructed, the process of converging on authentic (vs performed) self is useful. Can work with either ontology.

Critique 3: "This could be used to blame victims"
Response: Framework is for psychological self-knowledge, not for solving systemic injustice. Both are needed. Must be applied carefully to avoid victim-blaming.

Critique 4: "This is unfalsifiable"
Response: Framework makes testable predictions (Internal Locus → less oscillation, more stability, better well-being). Can be empirically tested. Not unfalsifiable, but needs more research.

Critique 5: "This is Western/individualistic"
Response: Framework can include relational/communal identity in A. But may need cultural adaptation. Acknowledge Western bias, work to expand.

How to Use the Framework Responsibly

1. Know its scope: Use for psychological self-knowledge, not neurobiological illness. Use after trauma stabilization, not as trauma treatment. Use alongside systemic change, not instead of it.

2. Avoid victim-blaming: Don't tell oppressed people to "just build Internal Locus." Acknowledge real external constraints. Framework is tool for empowerment, not blame.

3. Integrate with other approaches: Use with therapy, medication, community support as needed. Not a replacement for other treatments. One lens among many.

4. Stay humble: Framework is useful, not complete. Acknowledge limitations. Keep learning, refining, expanding.

Conclusion

The Internal Locus Convergence framework is powerful within its domain: psychological self-knowledge, identity development, relational dynamics, and convergence on authentic self. But it has clear boundaries. It doesn't explain neurobiological disorders, severe trauma, systemic oppression, or material deprivation. It may oversimplify identity complexity and cultural relativity. It needs more empirical validation.

This is not weakness. This is rigor. A good theory knows its scope. Use the framework where it applies. Acknowledge where it doesn't. Integrate it with other approaches. And keep refining it.

No theory explains everything. This framework is powerful within its domain. Use it wisely. Acknowledge its limits. And keep seeking truth.