Saying “character” here seems to be victim-blaming (which is a situation-specific way of saying “fundamental attribution error”). She has a map of the world, which has been updated on her experiences.
For it to be “victim blaming” she would have to be a victim. But we’re discussing her nervousness. Is she a victim of her nerves? If so, then I’m correct in the grandparent. If not, she’s not a victim, so it can’t be victim-blaming.
If her behaviour was of rational updating, she’d say “Of course I’m nervous in enclosed spaces with men! I was roofied and sexually assualted at a college party, which caused me to alter my beliefs about the frequency of assults in totally different circumstances!” As she didn’t say this, her behaviour is far more similar to that of System-1 aversion. Other people would not feel nervous in the same situation; she’d feel nervous in a great many situations. The issue is with her, not the situation.
I don’t think it’s valid to call an observation of a particular person’s reaction to a particular type of situation a fundamental attribution error.
The fundamental attribution error is in predicting the reaction in more types of situations than it appears, not in accurately identifying that the reaction appears in the types of situations that it does for that person. That map of the world in her head is her map, and accurately describing that map is not an error of any kind.
Is it this particular example that is the source of your disagreement, or do you disagree with the wider point? If I removed the “enclosed space” example, and only left the “bad at computers” example, would you find the point valid? If so, I’ll remove the “enclosed space” example as flawed.
Could you steelman the point and think of any relevant and valid examples of Ultimate Attribution Error?
If the woman said something like “anyone would be nervous in enclosed spaces with men” it would be closer. Unfortunately, this utterance is also clearly false, so this would be more like a case of Ultimate Attribution Success. I guess you could change the example so that the guy was armed, wearing gang tattoos, listening to rap music, etc.
Based on this response, I think we are talking past each other, about completely different things. To clarify my own point: The example was NOT about the woman applying UAE to the man on the elevator. The UAE I was talking about was in the next paragraph:
when men see women complaining about feeling unsafe, or not being as good with computers, they are more likely to attribute these to factors about the women’s personalities. “She’s just overly sensitive”, or “she’s not good at computers.”
Nope, we’re talking about the same thing. I only make the elevator more threatening in order to make her, situation-based, view more credible. Otherwise, it’s clear the she is wrong—it is not the case that anyone would be nervous in such scenarios—and thus that the men judging her later are committing no fallacy.
Saying “character” here seems to be victim-blaming (which is a situation-specific way of saying “fundamental attribution error”). She has a map of the world, which has been updated on her experiences.
For it to be “victim blaming” she would have to be a victim. But we’re discussing her nervousness. Is she a victim of her nerves? If so, then I’m correct in the grandparent. If not, she’s not a victim, so it can’t be victim-blaming.
If her behaviour was of rational updating, she’d say “Of course I’m nervous in enclosed spaces with men! I was roofied and sexually assualted at a college party, which caused me to alter my beliefs about the frequency of assults in totally different circumstances!” As she didn’t say this, her behaviour is far more similar to that of System-1 aversion. Other people would not feel nervous in the same situation; she’d feel nervous in a great many situations. The issue is with her, not the situation.
What makes you think the situation is totally different? You’re extracting a different set of signals from the data.
I can’t think of a clearer expression of what fundamental attribution error feels like from the inside.
I don’t think it’s valid to call an observation of a particular person’s reaction to a particular type of situation a fundamental attribution error.
The fundamental attribution error is in predicting the reaction in more types of situations than it appears, not in accurately identifying that the reaction appears in the types of situations that it does for that person. That map of the world in her head is her map, and accurately describing that map is not an error of any kind.
Is it this particular example that is the source of your disagreement, or do you disagree with the wider point? If I removed the “enclosed space” example, and only left the “bad at computers” example, would you find the point valid? If so, I’ll remove the “enclosed space” example as flawed.
Could you steelman the point and think of any relevant and valid examples of Ultimate Attribution Error?
If the woman said something like “anyone would be nervous in enclosed spaces with men” it would be closer. Unfortunately, this utterance is also clearly false, so this would be more like a case of Ultimate Attribution Success. I guess you could change the example so that the guy was armed, wearing gang tattoos, listening to rap music, etc.
Based on this response, I think we are talking past each other, about completely different things. To clarify my own point: The example was NOT about the woman applying UAE to the man on the elevator. The UAE I was talking about was in the next paragraph:
Nope, we’re talking about the same thing. I only make the elevator more threatening in order to make her, situation-based, view more credible. Otherwise, it’s clear the she is wrong—it is not the case that anyone would be nervous in such scenarios—and thus that the men judging her later are committing no fallacy.