3 ms·

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 t

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).

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).