

Fundamental Attribution Error - nate_martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

======
cristianpascu
This looks like the old _"Don't judge and you will not be judged"_. Whenever I
read an explanation about why not judge, it basically boils to this: you don't
know the context of someone else's acts.

However, regarding every day matters, I think that we always make judgements
about different facts based on partial information. That's the way things are
and there's no way around it. Most of the time, a driver running the red light
is a _bad driver_. If in a particular instance he was a husband taking his
pregnant wife to the hospital, that's a different story.

~~~
ajuc
So it should be: "Judge, but include error bars in your judgament".

------
peter_l_downs
I feel like there have been a lot of psychology-related Wikipedia articles
submitted lately without any sort of context. Not a complaint -- I always find
them interesting -- just an observation.

~~~
venus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias>

------
minopret
The very idea reminds me of the bitter joke that when people say "it's not
you, it's me", they mean "it's you". And that some speakers have said "It's
not the circumstances, it's you," for example here:
([http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Its-Not-the-Circumstances-Its-
Yo...](http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Its-Not-the-Circumstances-Its-You)). So:

Summary of fundamental attribution error: If you're pointing at people and
saying "It's not the circumstances, it's you," often enough it is actually the
circumstances.

You will be performing "correspondence inference" when supported by evidence
and committing "fundamental attribution error" when not supported. To avoid
fundamental attribution error you need to take care to obtain sufficient
evidence. You have to consider and control for confounding factors,
correlation in the absence of direct causation, and sheer coincidence.

~~~
eiliant
How do you distinguish between circumstances and the person himself?

~~~
chad_oliver
By knowing the circumstances, and how other people normally respond.

------
PeterWhittaker
The first example is someone running a red light with "good reason", e.g.,
taking a patient to a hospital, and how if "Alice" knew this she would not
consider the "runner" a reckless driver.

Bollocks.

Never drive in haste. Ever. Unless you are trained driver of an emergency
vehicle operating under emergency conditions.

Otherwise you are being a reckless idiot and endangering others.

Alice is right to conclude the other person is reckless. Distracted by an
emergency perhaps, but reckless nevertheless. (Trained responders are trained
first to not put themselves in danger: The "runner" was in the business of
creating more victims....)

------
loup-vaillant
Seeing those submissions, I'm really tempted to link <http://lesswrong.com/>
material.

But I wouldn't know where to start.

------
pnispel
The reverse case <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias>

------
vanni
Probably you'll like this post of mine with some good resources about logical
fallacies:

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/113250814961864918365/posts/XUa7...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/113250814961864918365/posts/XUa7J5k3tzy)

