I grew up in a cult and, upon leaving in early adulthood, read a lot about the mind control tricks that cults use to keep people in them. Attribution error is high on that list because having an enemy to demonize is part of what makes a cult successful in its "us vs. them" outlook.
Cults have now pervaded not only religion but politics, business, social "justice," and other areas of life. Attribution error is everywhere.
Bob, you are a lone but necessary voice in talking about this, and here have written another great distillation into the ways humans delude ourselves into thinking we have a complete picture of a situation when it's anything but.
In sum, attribution error leads to disposition—personal character—as a reason for bias against a person or group, rather than examining the situational circumstances to achieve understanding and positive solutions. Cognitive empathy is a way to work toward eliminating attribution error.
Cast in a slightly different framework, since it is our human nature to always achieve as much control as possible, the question to ask is: what and who is involved in a situation where there is contention for control? I would suggest that attribution error arises from personal psychological and cultural processes or from deliberate propagation of the error primarily by a social organization in order to achieve its goals—or, usually, a combination of one reinforcing the other.
How to get around that? Cognitive empathy, as Bob suggests, which is a matter of bringing awareness of an alternative into the control situation: asking what is trying to be controlled by all involved, persons and their organizations. What is trying to be achieved, who is specifically involved, what are the methods of interaction, what is the timeframe for action, etc? These are all situational circumstances that cognitive empathy can utilize to help turn control efforts from zero-sum to non-zero-sum strategies.
If these elements of control can be delineated, then you are on the road to walking in the shoes of your perceived opponents. And if you ask yourself the same questions about your involvement in a situation, an even greater understanding is achievable. Actually, this step is quite necessary since positive non-zero-sum gaming requires compromise, and you need to know not only what is at stake for the opponent but also for yourself.
As always, a huge educational task, but knowing what is involved can help break down communication barriers.
I agree that bob is systematically taking all his concepts and culminating into a worldview. Control as you said is a strong point worth a chapter. Survival of the fittest requires trying to survive your environmental circumstances.
But we are all impermanent bundles of causes and conditioning so there is no "true" disposition, no "other" to hate or demonize, just causes and conditions to meet as they are.
This is a life's lesson that i constantly try to remember by correcting the statement that "so and so is an idiot" to "so and so is acting idiotically." 😁
Yes, there's definitely a sense in which Ross, with his emphasis on attribution error, is being very Buddhist. Both he and Buddhism are anti-essentialism. In fact, in my Buddhism book I connect attribution error to the Buddhist concept of 'emptiness.'
I fully agree with the description of and the many problems of attribution error. If I'd been given a penny every time I committed it, I'd be long retired. It runs very deep and usually starts way before our doorstep.
For instance, when someone is doing or saying something negative about my family, my first impulse is to side with my family, even if they are the source of the transgression (say, my kid did something not very nice to another kid), because my loyalty is with them--they're the good ones no matter what (unless they do something bad to *me*--because doing something bad to a good guy like me just doesn't wash).
If I try to break that pattern (say, by agreeing with a mechanic's well-reasoned statement that it's a good idea to replace the axle bushings on our car, contrary to my spouse's assertion that this can wait for a little while longer), I may incur a punishing glance, followed by a later comment along the lines of "whose side are you on?"
It's very tricky to spot and thwart the myriad ways in which attribution error can pop up. And magnified by a factor of a million or more, this default (or imposed) stance moves people to war or peace.
I'd say recognising it in oneself, journalists, and, most importantly, elected officials, is probably the best way to ensure that this error is kept at a minimum because when it's unchecked, it'll inevitably come back to hurt ourselves.
I recently read Robert Cialdini's excellent books, Influence and Pre-suasion, about how we are influenced by our automatic responses to certain stimuli; words, pictures, etc. Attribution error itself is an automatic response, one that helps maintain our beliefs and remain consistent in our thinking and reasoning (such as that may be).
I think this strong desire for consistency, especially concerning one's stated beliefs and opinions is a pretty good explanation for how deeply driven the former guy's supporters feel. Hard to admit you were so wrong about so much. Better to suck it up they believe, double down and scream for a recount.
Excellent post and discussion! The 'fundamental' question is: Can a leopard can its spots? Attribution Error (and other cognitive biases) has served us (humans) well, as evidenced by our dominance. Buddhism has not. Monotheism has engendered that dominance, so far.
How does a leopard change its spots? Advantageous mutation combined with natural and sexual selection. Try selling that.
Oh, you have? And how many 'likes' and 'views' have you gotten?
Another question is: Would you rather be happy or right?
"It Ain't My Fault" (song by Brothers Osborne).
ain't My Fault my fault" (Song by the Osborne Brothers).
So often, there is not even agreement on what the “bad guys” did or didn’t do. For example, the CCP does not admit it is abusing the Uygurs. So, trying to have a dialog with them about why they are abusing the Uygurs is going to go nowhere.
I grew up in a cult and, upon leaving in early adulthood, read a lot about the mind control tricks that cults use to keep people in them. Attribution error is high on that list because having an enemy to demonize is part of what makes a cult successful in its "us vs. them" outlook.
Cults have now pervaded not only religion but politics, business, social "justice," and other areas of life. Attribution error is everywhere.
Bob, you are a lone but necessary voice in talking about this, and here have written another great distillation into the ways humans delude ourselves into thinking we have a complete picture of a situation when it's anything but.
In sum, attribution error leads to disposition—personal character—as a reason for bias against a person or group, rather than examining the situational circumstances to achieve understanding and positive solutions. Cognitive empathy is a way to work toward eliminating attribution error.
Cast in a slightly different framework, since it is our human nature to always achieve as much control as possible, the question to ask is: what and who is involved in a situation where there is contention for control? I would suggest that attribution error arises from personal psychological and cultural processes or from deliberate propagation of the error primarily by a social organization in order to achieve its goals—or, usually, a combination of one reinforcing the other.
How to get around that? Cognitive empathy, as Bob suggests, which is a matter of bringing awareness of an alternative into the control situation: asking what is trying to be controlled by all involved, persons and their organizations. What is trying to be achieved, who is specifically involved, what are the methods of interaction, what is the timeframe for action, etc? These are all situational circumstances that cognitive empathy can utilize to help turn control efforts from zero-sum to non-zero-sum strategies.
If these elements of control can be delineated, then you are on the road to walking in the shoes of your perceived opponents. And if you ask yourself the same questions about your involvement in a situation, an even greater understanding is achievable. Actually, this step is quite necessary since positive non-zero-sum gaming requires compromise, and you need to know not only what is at stake for the opponent but also for yourself.
As always, a huge educational task, but knowing what is involved can help break down communication barriers.
I agree that bob is systematically taking all his concepts and culminating into a worldview. Control as you said is a strong point worth a chapter. Survival of the fittest requires trying to survive your environmental circumstances.
But we are all impermanent bundles of causes and conditioning so there is no "true" disposition, no "other" to hate or demonize, just causes and conditions to meet as they are.
This is a life's lesson that i constantly try to remember by correcting the statement that "so and so is an idiot" to "so and so is acting idiotically." 😁
Yes, there's definitely a sense in which Ross, with his emphasis on attribution error, is being very Buddhist. Both he and Buddhism are anti-essentialism. In fact, in my Buddhism book I connect attribution error to the Buddhist concept of 'emptiness.'
Ok, sorry i would like to refer to your buddhism book so i would appear more informed but i gave it away in a fit of nonattachment 🤗
There's such a thing as too much non-attachment! :}
I fully agree with the description of and the many problems of attribution error. If I'd been given a penny every time I committed it, I'd be long retired. It runs very deep and usually starts way before our doorstep.
For instance, when someone is doing or saying something negative about my family, my first impulse is to side with my family, even if they are the source of the transgression (say, my kid did something not very nice to another kid), because my loyalty is with them--they're the good ones no matter what (unless they do something bad to *me*--because doing something bad to a good guy like me just doesn't wash).
If I try to break that pattern (say, by agreeing with a mechanic's well-reasoned statement that it's a good idea to replace the axle bushings on our car, contrary to my spouse's assertion that this can wait for a little while longer), I may incur a punishing glance, followed by a later comment along the lines of "whose side are you on?"
It's very tricky to spot and thwart the myriad ways in which attribution error can pop up. And magnified by a factor of a million or more, this default (or imposed) stance moves people to war or peace.
I'd say recognising it in oneself, journalists, and, most importantly, elected officials, is probably the best way to ensure that this error is kept at a minimum because when it's unchecked, it'll inevitably come back to hurt ourselves.
I recently read Robert Cialdini's excellent books, Influence and Pre-suasion, about how we are influenced by our automatic responses to certain stimuli; words, pictures, etc. Attribution error itself is an automatic response, one that helps maintain our beliefs and remain consistent in our thinking and reasoning (such as that may be).
I think this strong desire for consistency, especially concerning one's stated beliefs and opinions is a pretty good explanation for how deeply driven the former guy's supporters feel. Hard to admit you were so wrong about so much. Better to suck it up they believe, double down and scream for a recount.
Excellent post and discussion! The 'fundamental' question is: Can a leopard can its spots? Attribution Error (and other cognitive biases) has served us (humans) well, as evidenced by our dominance. Buddhism has not. Monotheism has engendered that dominance, so far.
How does a leopard change its spots? Advantageous mutation combined with natural and sexual selection. Try selling that.
Oh, you have? And how many 'likes' and 'views' have you gotten?
Another question is: Would you rather be happy or right?
"It Ain't My Fault" (song by Brothers Osborne).
ain't My Fault my fault" (Song by the Osborne Brothers).
This is good stuff, but…
So often, there is not even agreement on what the “bad guys” did or didn’t do. For example, the CCP does not admit it is abusing the Uygurs. So, trying to have a dialog with them about why they are abusing the Uygurs is going to go nowhere.