I don't understand how this can be a "world-saving idea". I think it's another case of pop science taking things out of context and presenting them as much more

I don't understand how this can be a "world-saving idea". I think it's another case of pop science taking things out of context and presenting them as much more than they really are. The original paper tells us we have a general tendency to think it's disposition. It is NOT proving (and it does not pretend to) that it's always situation. Getting to the bottom of the "true" reason somebody wronged you is not always possible. Causes are themselves effects for their cause and so on to infinity. The big bang might be true cause to everything, but I would not conclude from that that you can't judge anybody as being a jerk. Going back to one of the examples in the article "Clerics and criminals rarely face an identical or equivalent set of situational challenges". Ok, but one could argue that disposition can be a valid explanation/cause for why one is a criminal and the other a cleric in the first place. Taking the huge amount of time and energy to understand the real cause could leave you vulnerable to keep being wronged while you're in a decision paralysis. Biases can be very useful tool to navigate life.