4 ms·
Useful article, but I tend to think that the split between external/internal factors is misguided. It's seeking to explain away decisions based on personality
by esotericn 6y ago
Useful article, but I tend to think that the split between external/internal factors is misguided.
It's seeking to explain away decisions based on personality as if a personality based decision is any less prone to being temporary, erroneous, or that it's somehow a decision of the human (and so can just be discounted).
In reality, the human brain is not a perfect machine. We have a sense of what is 'neurotypical', sort of, but realistically everyone exhibits symptoms of some disorder at some point whether they're diagnosed or not.
A disorder also implies some sort of inability to function. Way below that are variations in mental state that still allow people to get by in a world formed for 'neurotypicals' (read: set up for less than 50% of the population, so realistically the 'typical' word there is kind of misleading).
We don't all see the world in the same way. We might see the same colours or the same patterns or whatever, but the extents of our emotions and our reactions to them (trained over decades) differ a lot.
- elbear 6y agoWell, people tend to believe that character traits are immutable or very hard to change. So the fundamental attribution error makes us something that the culprit is rotten to the core. That's why they did what they did. My hypothesis is that the fundamental attribution error exists so that we feel less bad for punishing others for wronging us. We don't spend time weighing all the possible reasons for which they hurt us. We just retaliate because they're bad and they will always be bad.