= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on In Defense of the Fundamental Attribution Error - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
I think you need to hold fundamental attribution lightly, especially when you have a small sample.
If someone posts a badly thought out article, all you can be sure of is that they don't have reliable inhibitions against posting bad articles. If you see two or three in a row, you can make a stronger judgement of what their writing is likely to be like.
A problem with fundamental attribution is that once you've made a judgment about someone, you're at risk of looking for evidence that you're right. (Sorry, no cite, but this process is blatantly present once someone likes or hates a politician.)
It can be hard to know whether you have a good enough sample-- I'd been assuming that some store staff people were temperamentally grumpy, but the true situation was that I was shopping late in the day. They're much more cheerful if I show up early.
This confuses me. What's the difference between grumpiness and what you updated to after showing up earlier?
I know somebody who is -always-, for lack of a better word, grumpy - what I think you refer to as "temperamentally grumpy". Grumpy doesn't really describe that, though. My internal representation for "grumpiness" as a description of a person isn't "Always a grouch", it's a heavier weight on the rate at which people get grumpy. Same with anger.