I feel like referring to this as 'error' is a mistake. It's not an error, it's a bias. As stated in the article, it can cut both ways, depending on your valence

I feel like referring to this as 'error' is a mistake. It's not an error, it's a bias. As stated in the article, it can cut both ways, depending on your valence towards the person you're evaluating. Sometimes an action is a consequence of a person's character, sometimes its situational, and sometimes it's a mixture of both. What we should do is recognize the bias, and try to weaken its grip a bit. We live in a comparatively low threat environment relative to what that prior is tuned for, and so it's reasonable to tone it down. But that isn't the same as treating character attribution as uniformly wrong, or uniformly right.