4 ms·

So in your case, the FAE is "guy is an asshole" rather than "acted like an asshole". I'm pointing this out because I thought it was interesting that you still a

• freshhawk 12y ago
  While FAE is a common bias, I think this is misusing it. This is not the cliche example of "driving like an asshole", which everyone does at some point for a variety of reasons. FAE requires an alternate explanation where the behaviour is justified and the assumption it's the result of a character flaw is the error. You can drive like an asshole because you are racing to the hospital or late to a big job interview or something similar. At the very least he was being sexually aggressive in a business context with a person over whom he had substantial power. There are no charitable explanations based on unknown circumstances we can reasonably assume here. Your character is determined by the totality of your actions, not by some imaginary inner version of yourself - although that's a very common delusion we all use to avoid acknowledging our character flaws.
  • dlss 12y ago
    > FAE requires an alternate explanation where the behaviour is justified and the assumption it's the result of a character flaw is the error No. FAE is pointing out that no one internally says "I'm an asshole, therefore I should drive faster." ie FAE points out that character determined action is a mode of reasoning that's guaranteed to misunderstand the other person. For a different classic example, consider a negotiation where you determine the other person is "greedy". If you catch yourself committing the FAE, you might instead determine "the other person seems to want money for something", and inquire. Perhaps by making sure they get the thing they think they need (which may or may not require as much money as they thought), you can cause them to no longer be "greedy" in your eyes. It's very rare that a person actually wants as much money as possible to be spent on nothing in particular (ie is actually greedy) > Your character is determined by the totality of your actions, not by some imaginary inner version of yourself - although that's a very common delusion we all use to avoid acknowledging our character flaws. I think the point of FAE is that human action is context dependent, and not some enduring trait. How someone acts in college basically isn't predictive of how they will act when they have grandchildren. If character traits really existed, this wouldn't be the case. > There are no charitable explanations based on unknown circumstances we can reasonably assume here. As I already said: dlss> For example, you're assuming that the actions were intentional on his part and that he understood OPs wishes/desires/state-of-mind I think if you assume the hug's outcome was not intentional, or assume the investor was mistaken about OPs wishes/desires/state-of-mind it's quite easy to come up with charitable explanations. Did you try this?
    • freshhawk 12y ago
      The opposite of FAE is the actor-observer bias, were we overestimate the role of circumstances and underestimate the role of personality traits in our own behaviour. Both of these biases are defined in a framework where actions are the effects of a personality operating in specific circumstances. We tend to misunderstand other people a little in one direction and ourselves in the other direction. > I think the point of FAE is that human action is context dependent, and not some enduring trait. That is a view people have, it's just not one I find convincing, and it's not the one in which these types of cognitive biases are defined or studied. Personality/Character evolves, often quite a bit, as people age but still exists. > I think if you assume the hug's outcome was not intentional, or assume the investor was mistaken about OPs wishes/desires/state-of-mind it's quite easy to come up with charitable explanations. Did you try this? I considered it for quite a while. Did OP not notice he had a prosthetic arm? Did he have severe nerve damage from an old motorcycle accident? Has he left his hand resting on his mothers or grandmothers breast when hugging them? Like I said, nothing we can reasonably assume here. And I'm a bit disgusted by the second part of your statement. He was being solicited for investment money at a business event, and offered it. It doesn't matter if she was flat out propositioning him, it doesn't matter what the genders involved are. There was a large power differential, it was a business event, he combined making a pass with offering her 50K. There are no circumstances which defend this. And those facts are not in dispute. I an now having a really hard time not making the fundamental attribution error in evaluating what type of person you are. But I assume if you thought about what you just said you would realize the mistake.
      • dlss 12y ago
        > Personality/Character evolves, often quite a bit, as people age but still exists. If it evolves, why is it preferable to circumstance when explaining things? To my mind, the benefit of character traits vs circumstance was that distinction. Also: do you believe that character primarily evolves based on circumstance? > I considered it for quite a while. Did OP not notice he had a prosthetic arm? Did he have severe nerve damage from an old motorcycle accident? ... nothing we can reasonably assume here. Hmm, I find reasonable examples very easy to come up with: he might have been jostled by another bar patron, been surprised by OP rotating, been surprised by how slender OP was, or simply failed a dexterity check. In these hypotheticals he either didn't notice (he was distracted by having been jostled for example), or did notice but was too embarrassed to apologize / allowed OP to quickly change the subject. > I an now having a really hard time not making the fundamental attribution error in evaluating what type of person you are. But I assume if you thought about what you just said you would realize the mistake. Your position, if I'm understanding you here, is that there exists no reasonable set of circumstances on the part of the investor where he genuinely believes he didn't try to proposition OP. Based on you including OP not noticing the touch of a prosthetic arm as your most likely alternatives, I'm guessing you think he's 99% likely to be guilty. My position is that, given the evidence at hand, the chance the investor is guilty is less than 50%. This is also the view taken by US civil court -- if this was an employer/employee situation, OPs statement on its own wouldn't satisfy the preponderance of evidence requirement for a harassment claim (aka greater than 51% chance of guilt).