Talk:Fundamental attribution error/Archives/2017

Reckless driver example should be replaced

It is falsely asserted here that running a red light is not reckless, if you are rushing someone to a hospital emergency room. To the contrary, emergency responders of all kinds (from law enforcement; fire departments; ambulance services) are trained and required by policy to slow or even stop at red traffic signals or stop signs, and not to proceed until it is safe to do so. If they, or anyone else, were to simply run a red light, it would indeed be reckless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.9 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 July 2013

Hi 69.95.62.9, I agree with you! Would you have a better example? Lova Falk talk 08:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bump! I agree, terrible example. No good reason to go through a red light unless their pedal is stuck or brakes fail. ~unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.200.23 (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now: focusses on the character and intention vs situation contrast of relevance. Also deleted the redundant second example. Tim bates (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Are we missing the natural explanation for FAE?

(As this is my first substantive suggestion, I may be guilty of introducing a personal opinion - If so please remove it) I was surprised to see no reference to the natural explanation for FAE, ie that the observer is likely to be correct in many (most?) circumstances. In the example of the person running the red light, the observer is presumably using his judgement that in the majority of such cases, the "reckless" assumption will in fact be correct, and that the "situational" explanation will in reality be rare. Our survival has always depended on making snap judgements on the basis of incomplete information. Most of the time we get it right - if we didn't we'd lose the survival race - although sometimes through lack of information (eg knowledge of the surrounding circumstances) we get it wrong. Our so-called "bias" is therefore often a healthy thing - it means that we reach the right decision in the majority of cases, something that enhances our chances of survival.

I am not knowlegable enough on the topic to know if this is a widely held point of view (and therefore ought to be included in the article), or simply my own erroneous analysis (and therefore should be binned). I have no references to offer. Kenny.devon (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   Bias vs error now covered in the "does it occur" and explanations section Tim bates (talk)