31–40 of 58 posts
The fundamental attribution error is the number 1 most important lesson I learned from Psych classes growing up. Being aware of it is the easiest way to be less of an asshole to people around you. I really can't overstate the importance.
Yeah, that's a useful remediation. An even easier way to not act like an asshole is to be raised by parents who teach you to be thoughtful and polite by default.
(I don't mean to denigrate either idea by the use of that term, it's just that you need a term to describe scientific ideas that have a following outside of their expert group.)
If you think someone has a fundamental issue, you'll never try to change it. If someone is just an asshole, you can avoid them, but not change them. Similarly if you think you're "bad at math" and that this is some kind of unchangeable quality, there's no point in trying to learn.
With both ideas, the key is there's a belief that you can alter outcomes by changing the situation.
However I see a missing element in the usual commentary. The error (or bias) goes both ways, yet only one is emphasised. To quote the article: "most people don’t take the power of circumstance seriously enough" (in regards to understanding other people). This bodes well with the popular notions that "We are all the same", and "Everyone can do anything if just given the chance".
Yet the flip side is also valid: Not taking into account the power of disposition when looking at one self (or one's tribe). For example, the reason I just cut in line is because I am, at least somewhat, generally a jerk. This obviously is a harder pill to swallow and perhaps more fatalistic, but perhaps just as important to increasing world (and inner) peace: I should give Others a break, not only because they might be faced with circumstances that I perhaps am not, but equally because I might actually be just as much of an a*hole as I perceive them to be.
> Sure, the people in your tribe may do bad things, but only in response to extraordinary circumstances. Attribution Error gets doubly dangerous when combined with another cognitive bias, the Out-group Homogeneity Effect[0], which leads to the Group Attribution Error.[1] This latter error leads people into thinking the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole, so "When some…
> Sure, the people in your tribe may do bad things, but only in response to extraordinary circumstances. Attribution Error gets doubly dangerous when combined with another cognitive bias, the Out-group Homogeneity Effect[0], which leads to the Group Attribution Error.[1] This latter error leads people into thinking the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole, so "When some…
Aside from attribution errors, it could just be a political play to push responsibility of the behavior of certain individuals on groups. That is a common and deliberate political strategy that happens without anyone making an error.
- Sir Humphrey Appleby
The problem with so many of these cognitive improvements we can make for ourselves is that they are often cognitively speaking weaknesses. In other words many kinds of wisdom actually reduce our effectiveness. I would always choose knowledge over power but for many people the important thing is to think in the way that rewards them, not in a way that increases their insight.
> Sure, the people in your tribe may do bad things, but only in response to extraordinary circumstances. Attribution Error gets doubly dangerous when combined with another cognitive bias, the Out-group Homogeneity Effect[0], which leads to the Group Attribution Error.[1] This latter error leads people into thinking the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole, so "When some…
Don't make the mistake to believe others are thinking wrongly, that their conclusions rely on errors. Such insights are valuable to correct your own thinking and you can share the insights you have gained. Aside from attribution errors, it could just be a political play to push responsibility of the behavior of certain individuals on groups. That is a common and deliberate political strategy that happens without anyo…
Here's a question that I've been wondering about for a while: What happens if your fundamental attributions grow up from proximate personal narratives into a social philosophy? Perhaps one where you understand yourself as some worthy ingroup whose shortcomings are primarily functions of imposed circumstance, with the shortcomings of outsiders primarily being functions of their character failings? (Yes, you can see th…
It could cause conflicts with those that don't use the same axioms.
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 possible. Causes are themselves effects for their cause and so on to infinity. The big bang might be true cause to everything, but I would not conclude from that that you can't judge anybody as being a jerk. Going back to one of the examples in the article "Clerics and criminals rarely face an identical or equivalent set of situational challenges". Ok, but one could argue that disposition can be a valid explanation/cause for why one is a criminal and the other a cleric in the first place.
Taking the huge amount of time and energy to understand the real cause could leave you vulnerable to keep being wronged while you're in a decision paralysis. Biases can be very useful tool to navigate life.