5 ms·

It is true that a situation will mostly determine what a person will do. But it is also true that different people will act differently in very close situations

It is true that a situation will mostly determine what a person will do. But it is also true that different people will act differently in very close situations. So how do we separate and weight how much the situation and the personality influence on the outcome? Not having a way of doing this and just saying 'our tendency in most situations to downplay the role of circumstance' seems oddly shallow and irresponsible

tpmoney 2y ago
I would ask how often making that distinction actually matters. I grew up in a rather conservative household, so went into the world with a pre-disposition to be against welfare programs and the like, stemming from an attribution error that most people on said programs would if not at first, then later on behave in ways intentionally designed to retain the benefits. In this way I was ascribing motivational intent to what could almost always be a circumstantial behavior. As a result felt that such programs or ignoring that potential when building such programs would be irresponsible. Yet over the years I have had encounters with many people on such programs in many different places and walks of life. And some of those people have indeed confirmed that belief that people would act in that way. But many more have not, and even those that have in many circumstances have done so in response to the nature of the benefit programs that encourage such behavior by implementing policies that ironically are intended to discourage that behavior. By overweighting the necessity to distinguish the “good” intentions from the “bad” intentions, we’ve designed programs that not only encourage more bad behavior, but equally do harm to those that need the help of those programs. If instead such programs were designed to assume good intent / circumstantial behavior rather than nefarious intent, yes we might waste some money and effort on people we otherwise shouldn’t. But is that irresponsible or just the cost of doing maximal good with the resources we have?
mistermann 2y ago
> Not having a way of doing this and just saying 'our tendency in most situations to downplay the role of circumstance' seems oddly shallow and irresponsible Epistemic soundness tends to be rather boring and unattractive. Maybe that's why people are so susceptible to facts that lack proof, or are unknowable (as is the case here).

tpmoney 2y ago

I would ask how often making that distinction actually matters. I grew up in a rather conservative household, so went into the world with a pre-disposition to be against welfare programs and the like, stemming from an attribution error that most people on said programs would if not at first, then later on behave in ways intentionally designed to retain the benefits. In this way I was ascribing motivational intent to what could almost always be a circumstantial behavior. As a result felt that such programs or ignoring that potential when building such programs would be irresponsible. Yet over the years I have had encounters with many people on such programs in many different places and walks of life. And some of those people have indeed confirmed that belief that people would act in that way. But many more have not, and even those that have in many circumstances have done so in response to the nature of the benefit programs that encourage such behavior by implementing policies that ironically are intended to discourage that behavior. By overweighting the necessity to distinguish the “good” intentions from the “bad” intentions, we’ve designed programs that not only encourage more bad behavior, but equally do harm to those that need the help of those programs. If instead such programs were designed to assume good intent / circumstantial behavior rather than nefarious intent, yes we might waste some money and effort on people we otherwise shouldn’t. But is that irresponsible or just the cost of doing maximal good with the resources we have?

mistermann 2y ago

> Not having a way of doing this and just saying 'our tendency in most situations to downplay the role of circumstance' seems oddly shallow and irresponsible Epistemic soundness tends to be rather boring and unattractive. Maybe that's why people are so susceptible to facts that lack proof, or are unknowable (as is the case here).