= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on In Defense of the Fundamental Attribution Error - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
No, I am just pointing out that you don't necessarily have to form the dichotomy "evaluate the person" vs "evaluate the situation". The joint evaluation of the (person, situation) set bypasses the whole FAE problem but with obvious costs (the number of cases) and limitations (you still want to forecast what person X will do in situation Y).
Granted. A complete consideration - provided you have time to do one - is always going to be more accurate than an off-the-cuff conclusion. I'd call that the "theoretically correct approach".
The pragmatically correct conclusion would be the situation where the result matters little enough that the off-the-cuff conclusion is sufficient, and thus most cost-effective.
Is that the distinction you wished to draw? Or am I reading something into the parenthetical (theoretically) that isn't there to be read?
There isn't really much there. Basically I had a wee little itty bitty tiny epiphany that considering things jointly is not only the theoretically-correct approach, but also successfully dissolves the FAE issue. I agree that like most theoretically-correct approaches its usefulness in practice is limited.