Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

nonzero.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#51

Post by mistermann »

wombatmobile wrote: post #24

The "fundamental attribution error" is an example of projection, a psychological phenomenon generated by a neural substrate, that humans do a lot. Indeed, what is remarkable about human "consciousness" is firstly that so many humans spend so much of their time projecting reality instead of sensing and decoding it, and secondly, that they are unaware they do this. We see things not as they are, but as our model predic…

> Indeed, what is remarkable about human "consciousness" is firstly that so many humans spend so much of their time projecting reality instead of sensing and decoding it, and secondly, that they are unaware they do this. We see things not as they are, but as our model predicts.

Even more remarkable is that so many people find specific instances of this behavior to be a very big deal, often dangerous and believe "something should be done!!!"...but hardly anyone considers the ~abstract phenomenon (all instances and variations of it that occur within society) to be a big deal - it's rare to find anyone in the mainstream who even finds it interesting.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#52

Post by Sharlin »

iNane9000 wrote: post #47
Sharlin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, someone is making an error if such political play is successful, it just may not be the speaker. Populist rhetoric is all about telling people what they already want to hear, that is, exploiting and amplifying existing cognitive biases in the target audience.

Here’s the definition of populism: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” Does that not describe both of our political parties?

I can't say, I live in a country with a multi-party system.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#53

Post by NateEag »

trabant00 wrote: post #40

I don't understand how this can be a "world-saving idea". I think it's another case of pop science taking things out of context and presenting them as much more than they really are. The original paper tells us we have a general tendency to think it's disposition. It is NOT proving (and it does not pretend to) that it's always situation. Getting to the bottom of the "true" reason somebody wronged you is not always po…

A behavioral pattern can be useful but immoral.

Stealing is an obvious one.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#54

Post by dalmo3 »

charles_f wrote: post #15

> These exceptions are the reason I say there is no single “fundamental” attribution error I think the "fundamental" reports to the "attribution", rather than to the "attribution error": behavior is erroneously explained by fundamental attributions to the person, i.e. "he's a jerk". In this sense there is no debate of having a "fundamental" attribution error. But I'm probably wrong.

The Fundamental Adjective Error.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#55

Post by pwinnski »

mistermann wrote: post #49
nextaccountic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but then @dang informed me that improvements to human behavior in the future are impossible because people will continue to behave the way they do indefinitely, regardless of rules. This is surely an argument for dropping the whole guidelines then? Anyway I agree that attribution error should be unacceptable, the real issue is that it's very hard to point out when someone is making this particular mistake vs. other…

> This is surely an argument for dropping the whole guidelines then? If one is considering it using logic rather than heuristics, yes. Full conversation is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 Another funny/ironic part....one of my suggestions was: > Some sort "cultural mode" for threads of certain kinds, which might include things like "epistemic strictness". So for example, for culture war (politics)…

> So when dang wholesale dismisses the idea that improvements can be made (essentially, a claim that HN as it is today is 100% optimal)

What an incredibly weird exercise in mind-reading you're doing there. Really, an extraordinary mis-extrapolation from his actual statements in that thread. The irony, it burns.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#56

Post by jacquesm »

pwinnski wrote: post #55
mistermann wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is surely an argument for dropping the whole guidelines then? If one is considering it using logic rather than heuristics, yes. Full conversation is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 Another funny/ironic part....one of my suggestions was: > Some sort "cultural mode" for threads of certain kinds, which might include things like "epistemic strictness". So for example, for culture war (politics)…

> So when dang wholesale dismisses the idea that improvements can be made (essentially, a claim that HN as it is today is 100% optimal) What an incredibly weird exercise in mind-reading you're doing there. Really, an extraordinary mis-extrapolation from his actual statements in that thread. The irony, it burns.

This guy is a total troll and I'm seriously surprised he's managed to hold on as long as he does. Check his comment history for some pretty obvious proof.

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#57

Post by mistermann »

pwinnski wrote: post #55
mistermann wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is surely an argument for dropping the whole guidelines then? If one is considering it using logic rather than heuristics, yes. Full conversation is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 Another funny/ironic part....one of my suggestions was: > Some sort "cultural mode" for threads of certain kinds, which might include things like "epistemic strictness". So for example, for culture war (politics)…

> So when dang wholesale dismisses the idea that improvements can be made (essentially, a claim that HN as it is today is 100% optimal) What an incredibly weird exercise in mind-reading you're doing there. Really, an extraordinary mis-extrapolation from his actual statements in that thread. The irony, it burns.

Me:

> You don't think HN users are capable of realizing when they are engaged in mind/future reading, even if it was an explicit rule? You surely know the userbase better than me, but this seems unlikely.

> If you want nothing to change, so be it, but the idea that functionality changes cannot have an effect is very frustrating.

dang:

> Correct. Not only HN users but humans in general—I just don't think we work that way. The way we work is that we have our preference on X and then we propagate that preference through every edge in our mental graph of associations from X.

> One can imagine a user saying something like "Although I personally am against nuclear power, since this is the 'optimism' thread it isn't the best place for my counterarguments so I'll post them in the 'pessimism' thread instead". However, such people are somewhere between vanishingly rare and unicorns. Statistically they may as well not exist.

I can see how you might (correctly) take exception with a strict interpretation of "wholesale" in my comment, but is it not true that he is asserting at the very least that people cannot stop engaging in mind/future reading, and that functionality changes cannot have an effect (as well as other things if you read the discussion)?

And as for mind reading: how is it that dang has obtained accurate knowledge about the maximum potential of many thousands of people, in the future, under conditions that have not been tried?

Re: Lee Ross and the “Fundamental Attribution Error”

#58

Post by mistermann »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
pwinnski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So when dang wholesale dismisses the idea that improvements can be made (essentially, a claim that HN as it is today is 100% optimal) What an incredibly weird exercise in mind-reading you're doing there. Really, an extraordinary mis-extrapolation from his actual statements in that thread. The irony, it burns.

This guy is a total troll and I'm seriously surprised he's managed to hold on as long as he does. Check his comment history for some pretty obvious proof.

I would be interested in you linking to some of your most convincing proofs.
Post reply on HN