5 ms·

> Sure, the people in your tribe may do bad things, but only in response to extraordinary circumstances. Attribution Error gets doubly dangerous when combined

> 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 someone in my tribe does something bad, they're not really in my tribe (No True Scotsman / it's a false flag)" whereas "When someone in the other tribe does something bad, that proves that everyone in that tribe deserves to be punished". I think the author is not exaggerating by suggesting that solving Attribution Error could dramatically change the outcome of human civilisation, but just identifying it as a problem isn't even half the battle. Perhaps the best we can do for now is develop some sort of polite shorthand for saying "You might be Attribution Erroring", which can be used for calling out bad news reporting, bad social media posts, and unhelpful framing of issues when people are having conversations. Then we need to train our brains to always be looking out for this problem, like a bad "code smell" when doing a code review. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error

xsmasher 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the combination of those two is 90% of the "cyclists don't obey the law" meme. When a cyclist breaks the law they make the whole out-group look bad, but a driver who breaks the law is just "one bad driver." The other 10% is confirmation bias.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  From my time as a cyclist I can tell you that all car drivers constantly disobey the law. In truth all groups of road users consistently disobey traffic laws, the laws worth breaking just differ from vehicle to vehicle. It's easiest to condemn those that break laws that you aren't breaking, even if you yourself are no less innocent.
- concordDance 5y ago
  Possibly, but I think someone who didn't pass a driving test is going to know driving law less well than someone who did, so there'll probably be more cyclists violating the law. Also, a cyclist violating the law is much less dangerous than a driver doing so, the latter has over a hundred times the kinetic energy. So a cyclist might feel that those laws shouldn't apply to them.
  - Filligree 5y ago
    As a cyclist, I constantly break the law, and I’m aware that I do so. The thing is, most traffic laws are designed to keep drivers safe. They’re also designed for cars. Bicycles aren’t cars, and car drivers tend to be impatient and don’t pay attention, so we have to adjust—-which sometimes means, for example, running the red light a couple of seconds before it turns green. Or turning left on a red light, since I’m not crossing any lanes. Or treating a stop sign as a “slow” sign. (This is a left-side driving country.) All of that is necessary to keep my life expectancy up. As for the pedestrians, well, unlike a car I’m perfectly capable of spotting their existence. Nor is a slow-moving bike particularly dangerous.
a1369209993 5y ago
> Perhaps the best we can do for now is develop some sort of []polite[] shorthand for saying "You might be Attribution Erroring", which can be used for calling out bad news reporting, bad social media posts, and unhelpful framing of issues when people are having conversations. FWIW, we tried this against (what is now know as) political correctness, and now I'm starting to see people actively defend political-correctness-as-such. Not saying it can't work, but it might be important to make sure it's a impolite shorthand. Other than that, though, this sounds like a good idea.
mistermann 5y ago
> I think the author is not exaggerating by suggesting that solving Attribution Error could dramatically change the outcome of human civilisation, but just identifying it as a problem isn't even half the battle. Perhaps the best we can do for now... I used to think that it might be worth a try for forum administrators to define this behavior as unacceptable just like any other unacceptable behavior (racism, snarkiness, flamebait, etc) that occurs on forums, as noted in the HN Guidelines [1], but then @dang informed me that improvements to human behavior in the future are impossible because people will continue to behave the way they do indefinitely, regardless of rules. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- NateEag 5y ago
  Do you have a link to the discussion with @dang? FWIW, I think there's a good chance banning the fundamental attribution error would have no good effects. I think people mostly do it without realizing it's what they're doing. I suspect that when we notice we're doing it, we usually stop it. And the human tendency to defensiveness probably means that if someone else tells us "you're doing this," we'll come up with all sorts of plausible reasons why we're not. Keep in mind, too, that while fundamental attribution error is not a valid reasoning form and thus not legitimate for use in proofs, it is not guaranteed to yield wrong results. Even if you could ban it effectively, it might not actually change much, as there's always more than one way to skin a cat. People are masters of finding ways to believe what we want to believe.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    Conversation is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 I misspoke above, the conversation was much broader, encompassing not just fundamental attribution errors, but ~all errors and imperfections. > FWIW, I think there's a good chance banning the fundamental attribution error would have no good effects. It's possible, but it's also possible that it could have good effects - or, sometimes good effects, sometimes none, like most any other of the guidelines. > And the human tendency to defensiveness probably means that if someone else tells us "you're doing this," we'll come up with all sorts of plausible reasons why we're not. No doubt about it - once again, you could say the same thing about the other guidelines. My thinking is: just as the existing guidelines can be used as justification for punishment when broken, and set ~aspirations for behavior, is it possible that the list may not be perfect? Might certain other guidelines (or functionality) make HN even better? Dang's claim is that it is not possible, but this is a prediction of the future, and the future is unknown (or so people say, but only sometimes).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
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 anyone making an error.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  Eh, someone is making an error if such political play is successful, it just may not be the speaker. Populist rhetoric is all about telling people what they already want to hear, that is, exploiting and amplifying existing cognitive biases in the target audience.
  - iNane9000 5y ago
    Here’s the definition of populism: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” Does that not describe both of our political parties?
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      I can't say, I live in a country with a multi-party system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

xsmasher 5y ago

I'm pretty sure the combination of those two is 90% of the "cyclists don't obey the law" meme. When a cyclist breaks the law they make the whole out-group look bad, but a driver who breaks the law is just "one bad driver." The other 10% is confirmation bias.

wongarsu 5y ago
From my time as a cyclist I can tell you that all car drivers constantly disobey the law. In truth all groups of road users consistently disobey traffic laws, the laws worth breaking just differ from vehicle to vehicle. It's easiest to condemn those that break laws that you aren't breaking, even if you yourself are no less innocent.
concordDance 5y ago
Possibly, but I think someone who didn't pass a driving test is going to know driving law less well than someone who did, so there'll probably be more cyclists violating the law. Also, a cyclist violating the law is much less dangerous than a driver doing so, the latter has over a hundred times the kinetic energy. So a cyclist might feel that those laws shouldn't apply to them.
- Filligree 5y ago
  As a cyclist, I constantly break the law, and I’m aware that I do so. The thing is, most traffic laws are designed to keep drivers safe. They’re also designed for cars. Bicycles aren’t cars, and car drivers tend to be impatient and don’t pay attention, so we have to adjust—-which sometimes means, for example, running the red light a couple of seconds before it turns green. Or turning left on a red light, since I’m not crossing any lanes. Or treating a stop sign as a “slow” sign. (This is a left-side driving country.) All of that is necessary to keep my life expectancy up. As for the pedestrians, well, unlike a car I’m perfectly capable of spotting their existence. Nor is a slow-moving bike particularly dangerous.

a1369209993 5y ago

> Perhaps the best we can do for now is develop some sort of []polite[] shorthand for saying "You might be Attribution Erroring", which can be used for calling out bad news reporting, bad social media posts, and unhelpful framing of issues when people are having conversations. FWIW, we tried this against (what is now know as) political correctness, and now I'm starting to see people actively defend political-correctness-as-such. Not saying it can't work, but it might be important to make sure it's a impolite shorthand. Other than that, though, this sounds like a good idea.

mistermann 5y ago

> I think the author is not exaggerating by suggesting that solving Attribution Error could dramatically change the outcome of human civilisation, but just identifying it as a problem isn't even half the battle. Perhaps the best we can do for now... I used to think that it might be worth a try for forum administrators to define this behavior as unacceptable just like any other unacceptable behavior (racism, snarkiness, flamebait, etc) that occurs on forums, as noted in the HN Guidelines [1], but then @dang informed me that improvements to human behavior in the future are impossible because people will continue to behave the way they do indefinitely, regardless of rules. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

NateEag 5y ago
Do you have a link to the discussion with @dang? FWIW, I think there's a good chance banning the fundamental attribution error would have no good effects. I think people mostly do it without realizing it's what they're doing. I suspect that when we notice we're doing it, we usually stop it. And the human tendency to defensiveness probably means that if someone else tells us "you're doing this," we'll come up with all sorts of plausible reasons why we're not. Keep in mind, too, that while fundamental attribution error is not a valid reasoning form and thus not legitimate for use in proofs, it is not guaranteed to yield wrong results. Even if you could ban it effectively, it might not actually change much, as there's always more than one way to skin a cat. People are masters of finding ways to believe what we want to believe.
- mistermann 5y ago
  Conversation is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414 I misspoke above, the conversation was much broader, encompassing not just fundamental attribution errors, but ~all errors and imperfections. > FWIW, I think there's a good chance banning the fundamental attribution error would have no good effects. It's possible, but it's also possible that it could have good effects - or, sometimes good effects, sometimes none, like most any other of the guidelines. > And the human tendency to defensiveness probably means that if someone else tells us "you're doing this," we'll come up with all sorts of plausible reasons why we're not. No doubt about it - once again, you could say the same thing about the other guidelines. My thinking is: just as the existing guidelines can be used as justification for punishment when broken, and set ~aspirations for behavior, is it possible that the list may not be perfect? Might certain other guidelines (or functionality) make HN even better? Dang's claim is that it is not possible, but this is a prediction of the future, and the future is unknown (or so people say, but only sometimes).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 5y ago

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 anyone making an error.

Sharlin 5y ago
Eh, someone is making an error if such political play is successful, it just may not be the speaker. Populist rhetoric is all about telling people what they already want to hear, that is, exploiting and amplifying existing cognitive biases in the target audience.
- iNane9000 5y ago
  Here’s the definition of populism: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” Does that not describe both of our political parties?
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    I can't say, I live in a country with a multi-party system.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]