Fundamental Attribution Error |
||
Fundamental Attribution Error
I guess it would depend on the type of farm. My first thought was involving animals, pigs, cows, chickens, horses, which don't always fit a shy personality (chickens will walk all over you if you give them the chance >.>).
This is one of the things I hate the most about human interactions.
Statistically it would be the farmer. the ratio of male librarians to male farmers is like 20 male farmers for every 1 male librarian.
Asura.Ina said: » I guess it would depend on the type of farm. My first thought was involving animals, pigs, cows, chickens, horses, which don't always fit a shy personality (chickens will walk all over you if you give them the chance >.>). But a chicken won't judge you! You ever try to catch a goose by the legs before? It's an experience everyone must have. As a professional driver for twenty years with over a million logged miles I take offense to your illustration. /captain nitpicker hat
First off, regardless of the why the driver in front of you is weaving uncontrolably in and out of his lane, passing someone swerving at any distance is incredibly stupid. Both of the examples are wrong. You should hit the brakes and get away from them by slowing down, using your hazard lights if you go below the posted speed limit, pull over or exit the highway or make a turn or whatever. Just get the hell away from them. Second, It's none of your business why the person ahead of you is driving recklessly they could be drunk, or spilled coffee in their lap or a million other reasons. If you are focused on psycologically analyzing yourself or other people while you are driving you aren't paying enough attention too driving and you are going to get me killed. Knock it off! Third, few people understand the physics and true risks involved lashing around the highway in a 3,500 lbs jagged metal gasoline bomb and NOBODY considers YOU or any other driver whatsoever. They aren't "riding your bumper" they are just bad drivers, they are simply riding the bumper of the person in front of them because they either don't know or they just don't care and it just so happenes to, in this case, be you and you need to get the hell away from them Again the "why" someone is doing something reckless isn't nearly as important as the "what" reckless act they are doing and "how" you can best avoid getting in an accident with them, which if you haven't picked up on by now, is geting as far away from them as you can safetly and in the shortest time possible. If someone rides your *** for any reason ie: "for going to slow" and you respond by intentionally going slower you are guilty of antagonizing an already wreckless driver and therfore guilty and partially responsible for accidents they may be involved in the future because what you did was on purpose and reckless and stupid. /shame finger I don't really think it's a matter of wrong or right driving etiquette...it's an illustration of this:
![]() The fundamental attribution error can be for the most part as automatic as breathing so as for "just not doing it" it's not necessarily always possible. I typically drive defensively, so I do agree with what you are saying about what should be the primary focus in regards to the driving example, but the etiquette is only as relevant as driving is to the term at hand. Sidebar on what seems to be response to my slowing down remark previously: Shiva.Nikolce said: » Driving stuff Shiva.Nikolce said: » so much delicious ragesauce Ramuh.Vinvv said: » Statistically it would be the farmer. the ratio of male librarians to male farmers is like 20 male farmers for every 1 male librarian. Even more likely, statistically, that both the farmers and the librarians play Farm Town. :p But bringing up the point about statistical likelihood does confound the original point brought up in your OP a bit. The 'error' of fundamental attribution error is the jumping to the conclusion about dispositional origins of causal factors rather than examining possible situational causal factors, in the absence of direct empirical knowledge of a situation, thus leading to a potentially intolerant/biased/emotionally-driven reaction. But now introducing statistics into the equation, it is not so cut-and-dry no? Perhaps the observer's "bias" isn't so much based on their own dispositional attitude as it is a quickly-calculated statistical analysis of the observed behaviour... So in the driving case, maybe a split-second (emotional) assumption that the driver is just a poor/crappy/crazy driver isn't being made insofar as a lightning-fast internal statistical analysis (ratio: crazy/crappy drivers to sick/ill/dog-jumped-on-their-lap/getting-a-hummer-but-not-from-their-dog drivers) no? :p If it is acceptable to view the statistical likelihood of Steve being a farmer as a valid assessment of his (unknown) livelihood, then it should be acceptable to consider the statistical likelihood of red-car-driver as being "derp" instead of fully considering every possible reason for bad driving, perhaps? ^_- And maybe it's not necessarily an intolerant reaction to not consider the specific individual case histories of every 99% occupier/protester, when the viewer is simply running an internal self-assessed statistical analysis of likelihood of (ratio: slacker/welfare-leech-on-the-system to bonafide-victim-of-circumstance) right? :p Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » Driving stuff 1.) I never follow the flow chart. 2.) The behavior is important, not the cause Because I'm the guy in the lane you are pulling into to get away from swerving guy. Whether you used a dispositional or situational attribution is irrelevant when the consequences of your thought process are your car and my car colliding at 65 mph. Fenrir.Schutz said: » Ramuh.Vinvv said: » Statistically it would be the farmer. the ratio of male librarians to male farmers is like 20 male farmers for every 1 male librarian. Even more likely, statistically, that both the farmers and the librarians play Farm Town. :p But bringing up the point about statistical likelihood does confound the original point brought up in your OP a bit. The 'error' of fundamental attribution error is the jumping to the conclusion about dispositional origins of causal factors rather than examining possible situational causal factors, in the absence of direct empirical knowledge of a situation, thus leading to a potentially intolerant/biased/emotionally-driven reaction. But now introducing statistics into the equation, it is not so cut-and-dry no? Perhaps the observer's "bias" isn't so much based on their own dispositional attitude as it is a quickly-calculated statistical analysis of the observed behaviour... So in the driving case, maybe a split-second (emotional) assumption that the driver is just a poor/crappy/crazy driver isn't being made insofar as a lightning-fast internal statistical analysis (ratio: crazy/crappy drivers to sick/ill/dog-jumped-on-their-lap/getting-a-hummer-but-not-from-their-dog drivers) no? :p If it is acceptable to view the statistical likelihood of Steve being a farmer as a valid assessment of his (unknown) livelihood, then it should be acceptable to consider the statistical likelihood of red-car-driver as being "derp" instead of fully considering every possible reason for bad driving, perhaps? ^_- And maybe it's not necessarily an intolerant reaction to not consider the specific individual case histories of every 99% occupier/protester, when the viewer is simply running an internal self-assessed statistical analysis of likelihood of (ratio: slacker/welfare-leech-on-the-system to bonafide-victim-of-circumstance) right? :p A comparison between more likely and less likely as I see it. But I find that to be different than a rash judgement without any statistic behind it to lead the guesser one direction or another. I don't think the driving situation was necessarily a direction to say think situationally more often or dispositionally more often but more an illustration of the concept. The 99%-er reference....ehh I'd still say it's intolerant enough to generalize with less information on the table than one would have in regards to blanket judge drivers on the road...as I'd assume we encounter a lot more crazy drivers than drug addled hippies....did I answer this effectively or is there anything I've missed? I'm a bit here and there with this response at the moment. Shiva.Nikolce said: » Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » Driving stuff 1.) I never follow the flow chart. 2.) The behavior is important, not the cause Because I'm the guy in the lane you are pulling into to get away from swerving guy. Whether you used a dispositional or situational attribution is irrelevant when the consequences of your thought process are your car and my car colliding at 65 mph. okay to take it out of the context of driving let's just say it's a person walking down the street walking slow since you can't seem to get past that it's just an illustration of the concept rather than a concrete rule to do this or that. Ramuh.Vinvv said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » 1.) I never follow the flow chart. 2.) The behavior is important, not the cause Because I'm the guy in the lane you are pulling into to get away from swerving guy. Whether you used a dispositional or situational attribution is irrelevant when the consequences of your thought process are your car and my car colliding at 65 mph. I'm saying the whole concept is flawed because it's misfocused and it doesn't take into consideration all the other variables our minds consider in that instant. As an example if the swerving car was a beat up old hillbilly pick up truck with crap falling off the back are you going to pass it? (or since were are moving away from cars) if the guy walking looks like a homeless person and starts stumbling around are you worried if he is sick with the flu or if he is drunk? Either way, if you get to close he might throw up on you. What if he is wearing a business suit or carrying a baby or it's raining outside.... There are a million things that attribute to behavior and all the defining and refining and graphs and flow charts aren't ever going to get us any closer to why did one day the monkey sits in his chair and smiles and eat the bananna and the next day he cames out of the chair like a jack in the box and bites your skull open and paints the room with your brains. What is most important, why he did it? what he painted afterwards? or you being dead? Shiva.Nikolce said: » Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » Driving stuff 1.) I never follow the flow chart. 2.) The behavior is important, not the cause Because I'm the guy in the lane you are pulling into to get away from swerving guy. Whether you used a dispositional or situational attribution is irrelevant when the consequences of your thought process are your car and my car colliding at 65 mph. Yeah this is what I think, too, but I think that's kind of beyond the scope of the example. (I am finding.) I think you can just take the same example, but maybe instead of being a fellow driver, you're just watching it on TV. Is the offending driver a bad driver, or are they driving poorly? And now, I was reminded of when I was a kid. If I made a mistake - something silly, like, put cereal in the refrigerator and milk in the cupboard - I would say, "hahaha I'm so stupid." My parents hated that, and would be sure to make me correct it by saying that I had "done something stupid" instead. Guess they were on to something. Shiva.Nikolce said: » the concept of dispositional and situational attribution is irrelevant because it's not addressing variables. It wasn't meant to create an elaborate story to cover every whim and piece of imagination that comes to mind. It was meant to illustrate two terms in a generic manner that portrayed the terms that were being referred to. I don't disagree with you that it's a stunted perception of reality, but it wasn't meant to be a full on perception of reality, it was meant to illustrate the terms in question. Quote: You keep on directing toward the why of behavior when that's not really what the image was addressing in the first place. It's illustrating situational attribution and dispositional attribution. If you ignore those two terms you are ignoring the whole point of the post. Sure you can say both are useless, but that's totally beside the point. To cater to the rest of what you said: Sure be careful, *** the situation and take the proper course of action. That's all good and fine. Do you understand what the other examples are talking about or did you read them or just the car example? I can just toss the car example if it bothers you that much and then you can actually talk about the topic at hand. :D Ramuh.Vinvv said: » I can just toss the car example if it bothers you that much No, the car example illustrates my point perfectly. You would like to believe that "Driver A" is better, more caring, conscientious person than "Driver B" who is committing (in your viewpoint) the "Fundamental Attribution Error". But both drivers 1.) make the same fatal error of passing a swerving car on a curve. 2.) fail to help the driver swerving in front of them. Perhaps if "Driver A" folowed at a safe distance and alerted the police or something I could let it go but the passing him anyway thing just makes me mental. And no, clearly I "lost it" on the car example and never made it to the others.... I get the feeling it's more of the same, but I am wrong alot. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|