1 00:00:03,000 --> 00:00:04,960 Speaker 1: Welcome Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of I 2 00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:13,800 Speaker 1: Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, you, welcome to Stuff 3 00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:16,040 Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb and 4 00:00:16,079 --> 00:00:18,800 Speaker 1: I'm Joe McCormick. And today we're gonna be talking about 5 00:00:18,840 --> 00:00:21,960 Speaker 1: a concept in psychology. But I thought we should get 6 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:24,720 Speaker 1: there with a little bit of sci fi story time. Yeah, 7 00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:27,520 Speaker 1: let's do it. Let's let's unearthed one of the classics 8 00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:30,280 Speaker 1: here to help us better understand this. Really, and I 9 00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:33,720 Speaker 1: think kind of intimidatingly named a concept. Yeah, it's actually, 10 00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:36,159 Speaker 1: I think a fairly straightforward concept once you see it 11 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:39,720 Speaker 1: in the in the um context of a story. So 12 00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:41,879 Speaker 1: gather ye round the fire and let me tell you 13 00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:45,400 Speaker 1: a tale of how one day, the Wayland commercial towing 14 00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:48,720 Speaker 1: vessel the U s c S S Mastroma, was in 15 00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:52,319 Speaker 1: transit returning a few million tons of ore from an 16 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,080 Speaker 1: off world mining planet. I guess you recognize what this 17 00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:57,600 Speaker 1: is now, Robert, Oh, this would be really Scott's Alien, 18 00:00:57,760 --> 00:00:59,760 Speaker 1: of course it is. So. In the middle of its 19 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,440 Speaker 1: turn journey, the crew of the nest Roma was awakened 20 00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:07,919 Speaker 1: by a distress beacon emanating from a desolate, uninhabited, wind 21 00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:12,080 Speaker 1: swept planet with no indigenous life. So the ship unhitched 22 00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:14,760 Speaker 1: from its cargo and it's set down on the planet 23 00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:20,039 Speaker 1: to investigate. Three officers, including the captain Dallas, left the 24 00:01:20,040 --> 00:01:22,479 Speaker 1: ship in e v A suits to locate the source 25 00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:26,600 Speaker 1: of the distress call, leaving the warrant officer, Ellen Ripley 26 00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:29,760 Speaker 1: in charge of the vessel until they return. So she's 27 00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,240 Speaker 1: in command now and while the party is away, Ripley 28 00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:38,480 Speaker 1: sits in a cold room alone, breathing stale air, analyzing 29 00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:41,600 Speaker 1: the distress signal from the beacon, and she begins to 30 00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:44,120 Speaker 1: have a hunch that the signal is not actually a 31 00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:48,280 Speaker 1: call for help, but a warning to stay away. After 32 00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:51,559 Speaker 1: a few hours, the surface party returns with two crew 33 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:55,880 Speaker 1: members carrying a third member named Kane, who is unconscious, 34 00:01:56,240 --> 00:01:59,080 Speaker 1: and the captain of the ship, Dallas, who was again 35 00:01:59,120 --> 00:02:01,480 Speaker 1: he was a member of the away party. He asks 36 00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:04,480 Speaker 1: Ripley to open the hatch and let them inside, and 37 00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:08,200 Speaker 1: Ripley she wants to ask a few questions. First, she 38 00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:11,240 Speaker 1: asks what's wrong with Kane. Dallas tells her that he 39 00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:14,919 Speaker 1: has something attached to him. Ripley asks, well, what is it? 40 00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:18,520 Speaker 1: Dallas says it's some kind of organism, and he orders 41 00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,240 Speaker 1: her to open the doors and let them in. Ripley refuses. 42 00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:25,840 Speaker 1: She says it's against procedure to let an unknown organism 43 00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:28,400 Speaker 1: on board, and Kane will have to be kept outside 44 00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:32,280 Speaker 1: in quarantine for twenty four hours. Dallas says Kane could 45 00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:34,520 Speaker 1: die in twenty four hours and tells her again to 46 00:02:34,600 --> 00:02:38,600 Speaker 1: let them inside. Again, Ripley refuses, saying that the quarantine 47 00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:43,120 Speaker 1: procedure must be obeyed. Furious, Dallas overrides her and then 48 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:46,080 Speaker 1: gets another crew member, Ash played by Ian Holme, to 49 00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:49,440 Speaker 1: use his authority as captain to have the doors opened. Anyway. 50 00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:52,280 Speaker 1: They bring Kane inside and take him to medical bay, 51 00:02:52,520 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 1: where Ian Holme waits, and of course, everything else in 52 00:02:55,200 --> 00:02:59,240 Speaker 1: the film spirals out from this um. Ash, of course, 53 00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:03,360 Speaker 1: we we later find out, is synthetic. He's an android yea, 54 00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:06,440 Speaker 1: and so he's he has some some key programming and 55 00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:10,880 Speaker 1: some key directives from the company that are influencing his 56 00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:13,000 Speaker 1: excitement here as well. But I don't want to ask 57 00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,760 Speaker 1: about Ash quite yet. I want to ask about Ripley 58 00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:18,679 Speaker 1: and Dallas, and analyzing this scene. I just want to 59 00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:22,679 Speaker 1: ask a couple of questions about the character's behaviors. Number One, 60 00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:27,120 Speaker 1: why did Ripley refuse to let her crewmates back inside? 61 00:03:27,560 --> 00:03:31,320 Speaker 1: And number two, why did Dallas override her? Now you 62 00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:34,520 Speaker 1: can answer these questions a million ways, right, But there's 63 00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:38,200 Speaker 1: one fundamental type of distinction you could make in the 64 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:40,840 Speaker 1: answers that we want to focus on today, and that's 65 00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:46,480 Speaker 1: the distinction between explanations that appeal to circumstances and explanations 66 00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:51,320 Speaker 1: that appeal to disposition or character. So some answers to 67 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,120 Speaker 1: these questions that could appeal to disposition. How about Ripley 68 00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:59,280 Speaker 1: refused because she is inherently lawful and orderly. She obeys 69 00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:03,080 Speaker 1: rules in general and appreciates that the procedures exist for 70 00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:05,560 Speaker 1: a reason. That seems to you know you, You could 71 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,120 Speaker 1: characterize it like that, right, Yeah, as well discussed I 72 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,720 Speaker 1: think that's a very easy characterization to make here. You 73 00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:14,080 Speaker 1: could also say that she's calm under pressure, she's logical 74 00:04:14,200 --> 00:04:17,719 Speaker 1: in working out the consequences of deviating from from procedure. 75 00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:20,440 Speaker 1: If you want to look at her less sympathetically, you 76 00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:23,159 Speaker 1: could say that she refused to let her crewmates inside 77 00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:27,039 Speaker 1: because she's cold hearted, or she's selfish, or she lacks empathy. 78 00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:29,920 Speaker 1: I never, I never would make those charges against Rippley, 79 00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:33,440 Speaker 1: But someone could, Yeah, they could. Meanwhile, and also thinking 80 00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:37,520 Speaker 1: about disposition and character, you could say that Dallas tried 81 00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:41,680 Speaker 1: to override Ripley because he's rebellious and impulsive, because he 82 00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:44,960 Speaker 1: thinks emotionally rather than rationally. You could say he did 83 00:04:45,040 --> 00:04:48,120 Speaker 1: it because he was sexist and he didn't respect Ripley's 84 00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:50,520 Speaker 1: ruling because of her gender. You could say he did 85 00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:53,600 Speaker 1: it because he was fundamentally caring and wanted to protect 86 00:04:53,680 --> 00:04:56,280 Speaker 1: his injured crew member and get a medical attention as 87 00:04:56,320 --> 00:04:58,839 Speaker 1: soon as possible. All these things are appealing to things 88 00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:01,760 Speaker 1: about him as a person, right, And you know, I 89 00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:03,520 Speaker 1: think it it lines up with the way we tend 90 00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:06,760 Speaker 1: to watch him film like Alien. Anyway, you were talking, 91 00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:11,159 Speaker 1: you mentioned the stale air, and I had to hold 92 00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:12,880 Speaker 1: back from jumping in and saying, well, I don't know, 93 00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:14,839 Speaker 1: I never thought that the air was stale on the 94 00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:16,880 Speaker 1: nest froma I always thought it would be like this, 95 00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:19,800 Speaker 1: especially in those really christine white settings that would have 96 00:05:19,839 --> 00:05:24,119 Speaker 1: this this this rich, comforting smell of air condition and 97 00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:28,200 Speaker 1: like a really well air conditioned house during the summer, uh, 98 00:05:28,279 --> 00:05:30,800 Speaker 1: which for some reason is like a something that I 99 00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:33,880 Speaker 1: get kind of nostalgic for. I don't know, it looks 100 00:05:33,880 --> 00:05:36,359 Speaker 1: stale to me. I mean you can almost kind of 101 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,200 Speaker 1: see a film on the surfaces in that in that 102 00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:42,080 Speaker 1: bridge room. Well a little bit, but but at any way, 103 00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:43,839 Speaker 1: we tend to watch a film like Alien and we 104 00:05:43,920 --> 00:05:47,479 Speaker 1: focus on the characters, the monster, and then we we 105 00:05:47,560 --> 00:05:52,040 Speaker 1: tend to pick up things about the setting in the environment. Secondly, Uh, 106 00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,560 Speaker 1: when if you're going to see somebody that is that 107 00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,520 Speaker 1: is written about Alien or they're probably gonna be focusing 108 00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:02,680 Speaker 1: on characters or monster monster's biology. They're probably not as 109 00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:06,200 Speaker 1: concerned with well, stars of you know, some of the 110 00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:08,240 Speaker 1: aspects that we're gonna be talking about here today. But 111 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: those aspects like like the environment, the setting, they're crucial 112 00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:14,760 Speaker 1: if you want to invoke the other kind of answer, 113 00:06:14,920 --> 00:06:18,400 Speaker 1: you know, answers that do not appeal to character traits 114 00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:22,880 Speaker 1: and dispositions, but answers that appeal to external factors and 115 00:06:22,960 --> 00:06:26,880 Speaker 1: the details of the situation. So to answer the same 116 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,839 Speaker 1: questions according to these kinds of answers, you could say, 117 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:34,560 Speaker 1: maybe Ripley refused entry because the quarantine rules exist, and 118 00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:37,599 Speaker 1: the way she's been conditioned as an employee of this 119 00:06:37,720 --> 00:06:40,680 Speaker 1: company is to treat them as inviolable, right, And these 120 00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:44,320 Speaker 1: are both external factors influencing her behavior in this read right, 121 00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:47,000 Speaker 1: And maybe also it was because she felt uneasy on 122 00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:49,920 Speaker 1: this hostile planet that nobody had ever been to before. 123 00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:52,719 Speaker 1: She was put on guard by the suspicion that the 124 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:55,760 Speaker 1: distress beacon was a warning to stay away. Maybe she 125 00:06:55,880 --> 00:06:58,520 Speaker 1: was even physically cold in the cabin of the ship 126 00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:00,920 Speaker 1: and this shifted her mood to make her more skeptical 127 00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:02,760 Speaker 1: and wary because of all that air conditioning I was 128 00:07:02,800 --> 00:07:05,440 Speaker 1: talking about earlier, exactly. Uh, And then you could do 129 00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:08,160 Speaker 1: the same thing for Dallas. And maybe Dallas ignored her, 130 00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:11,160 Speaker 1: tried to override her because he was in a unique 131 00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:14,560 Speaker 1: and terrifying situation. He had a crew member with an 132 00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:17,480 Speaker 1: alien attached to it, you know, attached to his face. 133 00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:21,040 Speaker 1: That's not normal. This was completely novel and terrifying, causing 134 00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:23,720 Speaker 1: him to panic. Maybe he ignored her because he'd been 135 00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:27,000 Speaker 1: breathing heavily on his surface walk and was experiencing mild 136 00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:31,200 Speaker 1: hyperventilation and this was clouding his judgment. So this distinction 137 00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:33,000 Speaker 1: is what we want to hammer home at the beginning here. 138 00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:36,440 Speaker 1: It's it's obvious that any time a person or character 139 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:40,200 Speaker 1: in fiction takes an action or makes a choice. That 140 00:07:40,320 --> 00:07:43,840 Speaker 1: choice is downstream of both the person and the situation 141 00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:48,360 Speaker 1: people have in eight tendencies, but they're also constantly reacting 142 00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:52,360 Speaker 1: to the unique circumstances of every moment. And that this 143 00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:56,680 Speaker 1: distinction between thinking in terms of disposition and thinking in 144 00:07:56,760 --> 00:07:59,840 Speaker 1: terms of situation is the basis of today's episode, in 145 00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:03,320 Speaker 1: which will be talking about a psychological phenomenon known as 146 00:08:03,360 --> 00:08:07,120 Speaker 1: the fundamental attribution error or f a E. Or maybe 147 00:08:07,120 --> 00:08:09,200 Speaker 1: we should just call it FAYE because I think that'll 148 00:08:09,240 --> 00:08:12,280 Speaker 1: that will make today's talk easier. Yeah, this one is, 149 00:08:12,360 --> 00:08:15,480 Speaker 1: This one is is really interesting and I definitely encourage 150 00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:19,200 Speaker 1: everyone to stick with us because I think this is 151 00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:20,800 Speaker 1: one of those topics and once you learn a little 152 00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:23,240 Speaker 1: bit about your you're gonna you're gonna second guess in 153 00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:26,240 Speaker 1: a good way. Uh, most of the ways that you 154 00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:30,440 Speaker 1: interact with the with the world, I mean the way 155 00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:36,440 Speaker 1: that you judge, uh, the reasoning behind people's actions and choices, 156 00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:40,280 Speaker 1: and perhaps even beyond what people or animals are doing, 157 00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:44,240 Speaker 1: but just how the world works. Um. And I think 158 00:08:44,280 --> 00:08:46,040 Speaker 1: Alien is a fun place to start with us. I mean, 159 00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:50,040 Speaker 1: we could really just spend a lot of time out 160 00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:52,360 Speaker 1: here out here about Alien and applying f a too. 161 00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:55,600 Speaker 1: Like for instance, we mentioned Ash, the the android, you know, 162 00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:59,200 Speaker 1: being a synthetic human being created by humans. He's kind 163 00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:01,920 Speaker 1: of a simple I model of what humans are. And 164 00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:04,400 Speaker 1: even in him we see this kind of conflicting thing, 165 00:09:04,480 --> 00:09:09,640 Speaker 1: like is Ash ultimately an antagonist in this film because 166 00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:12,360 Speaker 1: of his internal programming or is it more to do 167 00:09:12,440 --> 00:09:16,600 Speaker 1: with that external command from the company. Yeah, exactly. I mean, 168 00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:18,880 Speaker 1: so he's got a robot is in a way like 169 00:09:18,920 --> 00:09:22,719 Speaker 1: a human here. Robots have programming, they have internal kind 170 00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:24,840 Speaker 1: of a nature to them, but then there are also 171 00:09:24,960 --> 00:09:29,200 Speaker 1: external factors. There are the inputs they're reacting to. And 172 00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:34,680 Speaker 1: then the xenomorph uh I means purely from an environmental standpoint, 173 00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:39,800 Speaker 1: uh it becomes a juvenile and then ultimately an adult 174 00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:44,840 Speaker 1: aboard this truly alien environment on the aboard this massive 175 00:09:44,920 --> 00:09:49,920 Speaker 1: spaceship created by these strange creatures that it's never encountered before. Yeah, 176 00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:51,679 Speaker 1: I think that is one of the funny things about 177 00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:55,240 Speaker 1: the alien lore has come to incorporate elements that are 178 00:09:55,240 --> 00:09:58,920 Speaker 1: almost as much inspired by the architecture of the Nostromo 179 00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:02,080 Speaker 1: as a ship from first movie as from like the 180 00:10:02,120 --> 00:10:05,920 Speaker 1: original idea of the aliens biology. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah, 181 00:10:06,040 --> 00:10:08,600 Speaker 1: And speaking of its biology, this is not so much 182 00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:10,880 Speaker 1: a plot point in the first film, but it becomes 183 00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:15,120 Speaker 1: established that there's a hybrid nature to the Xeno morph 184 00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:18,480 Speaker 1: that aspects of its biology are influenced by the host 185 00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:21,440 Speaker 1: because it is, you know, it it grows out of 186 00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:25,679 Speaker 1: the host. It's born out of its host death and 187 00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:27,520 Speaker 1: we but we tend to focus just purely on the 188 00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:30,720 Speaker 1: physical aspects of its being, like, oh, it came out 189 00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:32,679 Speaker 1: of a dog or some sort of a quadruped and 190 00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:35,679 Speaker 1: so it's more quadruped petal in its movements and it's so, 191 00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:42,000 Speaker 1: and it's morphology. However, why not nature? Uh what are there? 192 00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:46,040 Speaker 1: Are there perhaps aspects of its murderous nature in the 193 00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:49,920 Speaker 1: film that that come as much from the murderous nature 194 00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:53,000 Speaker 1: of the Homo sapiens that it has grown out of 195 00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:55,559 Speaker 1: as well. Oh that's interesting. Yeah. So the alien is 196 00:10:55,640 --> 00:10:57,920 Speaker 1: kind of shaped like a man in the first movie 197 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 1: because it comes out of Kane's Caine's Yeah. So, but 198 00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:03,480 Speaker 1: is it's in nature shaped like a man. Yes? Is 199 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:06,320 Speaker 1: it also aggressive because it's in some way that the 200 00:11:06,440 --> 00:11:10,160 Speaker 1: human attributes are coming through. Yeah, so, you know, this 201 00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:11,599 Speaker 1: is all just food for thought, but this is the 202 00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:15,680 Speaker 1: kind of rethinking that that is, that is that becomes 203 00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:19,520 Speaker 1: possible when you start thinking about the fundamental attribution error. Yes, 204 00:11:19,559 --> 00:11:21,760 Speaker 1: and I really do think that this is a really 205 00:11:21,800 --> 00:11:25,199 Speaker 1: important concept that that people should have in their in 206 00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:27,760 Speaker 1: their tool kit right. And in fact, one of the 207 00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:30,160 Speaker 1: reasons I think I was inspired to talk about this 208 00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:32,800 Speaker 1: was because a while ago I was reading on edge 209 00:11:32,840 --> 00:11:34,719 Speaker 1: dot org. Do you ever read the stuff on their 210 00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:36,920 Speaker 1: website that they'll do a thing where they like, ask 211 00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:40,440 Speaker 1: one question to a whole bunch of different experts in 212 00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:44,160 Speaker 1: different disciplines, and everybody will give an answer to it. Yeah, 213 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:46,559 Speaker 1: I've seen that before. Yeah, it can be interesting. So 214 00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:50,280 Speaker 1: like in ten they asked the question what scientific term 215 00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:54,160 Speaker 1: or concept ought to be more widely known, and the 216 00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,560 Speaker 1: American psychologist Richard Nisbit had an answer on the site 217 00:11:57,800 --> 00:12:00,560 Speaker 1: where he said, Okay, I think the thing that should 218 00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:03,680 Speaker 1: be more widely known is fundamental attribution error. And I 219 00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:06,760 Speaker 1: think he's exactly right. It's very useful for understanding the 220 00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,199 Speaker 1: kind of judgment errors we make every single day, especially 221 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:12,400 Speaker 1: the kinds of errors that lead us to be unfair 222 00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:16,200 Speaker 1: and make poor determinations about people and their character. So 223 00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:20,480 Speaker 1: to define it succinctly a fundamental attribution error or I 224 00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,559 Speaker 1: guess we'll be calling it FAE today. In Nesbit's definition 225 00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:29,320 Speaker 1: is quote overestimating the role of traits and underestimating the 226 00:12:29,360 --> 00:12:32,959 Speaker 1: importance of situations. And I think this is this is 227 00:12:33,080 --> 00:12:36,640 Speaker 1: very important, especially when we're considering, you know, how stereotypes 228 00:12:37,160 --> 00:12:41,640 Speaker 1: are utilized, either consciously or subconsciously. Yeah, stereotypes really grow 229 00:12:41,640 --> 00:12:44,840 Speaker 1: out of out of f A. So I think this 230 00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:47,000 Speaker 1: definition he gives is a good one, But I do 231 00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:51,760 Speaker 1: want to clarify that f A doesn't only concern character traits. 232 00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:56,800 Speaker 1: It also concerns other types of personal or internal dispositions, 233 00:12:56,800 --> 00:13:00,880 Speaker 1: such as beliefs, attitudes of Billy d s, and things 234 00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:04,000 Speaker 1: like that, as we'll discuss in a bit, Basically, anything 235 00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:07,040 Speaker 1: that is a permanent or semi permanent part of a 236 00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:11,200 Speaker 1: person rather than a transient effect of the circumstances the 237 00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:14,480 Speaker 1: person is in. Yeah, I mean, and certainly the idea 238 00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:20,000 Speaker 1: that there's a transient nature to um to our identities 239 00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:21,679 Speaker 1: into our mind states. I mean, that's something that we 240 00:13:21,800 --> 00:13:23,640 Speaker 1: keep coming back again to again and again on the 241 00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:26,760 Speaker 1: show for various reasons, like when we when you know, 242 00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:29,520 Speaker 1: when we break down how we think and how our 243 00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:33,080 Speaker 1: minds work. Um, you know this, this idea of there 244 00:13:33,080 --> 00:13:38,240 Speaker 1: being this this permanent you've just kind of uh fades away. Yeah. 245 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:41,360 Speaker 1: Another way of thinking about the same concept is, uh, so, 246 00:13:41,559 --> 00:13:44,959 Speaker 1: as we were discussing, a person's behavior at any given 247 00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:49,200 Speaker 1: moment is determined both by their disposition and by their situation. 248 00:13:49,840 --> 00:13:52,360 Speaker 1: But the f a E is specifically the fact that 249 00:13:52,760 --> 00:13:57,280 Speaker 1: studies show we tend to overestimate how well their disposition 250 00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:01,160 Speaker 1: will predict future behavior, and we tend to underestimate how 251 00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:05,480 Speaker 1: much their situation will predict future behavior. So exactly how 252 00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:08,760 Speaker 1: badly miscalibrated are we? Well? I want to read apart 253 00:14:08,760 --> 00:14:11,559 Speaker 1: from Nesbitt's answer in in the short article he has 254 00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:14,160 Speaker 1: he and he's studied this bias in human thinking for 255 00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:16,800 Speaker 1: many years. He says that, in fact, we are way 256 00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:21,840 Speaker 1: way off in our intuitions. Quote. In actual fact, when 257 00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:25,080 Speaker 1: large numbers of people are observed in a wide range 258 00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:29,880 Speaker 1: of situations, the correlation for trade related behavior runs about 259 00:14:30,120 --> 00:14:34,280 Speaker 1: point twenty or less. People think the correlation is around 260 00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:39,160 Speaker 1: point eighty. In reality, seeing Carlos behave more honestly than 261 00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:42,800 Speaker 1: Bill in a given situation increases the likelihood he will 262 00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:46,680 Speaker 1: behave more honestly in another situation from the chance level 263 00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:50,240 Speaker 1: of fifty to the vicinity of fifty five to fifty 264 00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:54,320 Speaker 1: seven percent. People think that if Carlos behaves more honestly 265 00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:57,760 Speaker 1: than Bill in one situation, the likelihood he'll behave more 266 00:14:57,760 --> 00:15:01,840 Speaker 1: honestly than Bill in another situation is eighty percent. So 267 00:15:01,960 --> 00:15:05,320 Speaker 1: that's that's like hugely off the mark. Yeah, I mean, 268 00:15:05,320 --> 00:15:08,880 Speaker 1: it's ultimately not as useful as we think and predicting uh, 269 00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:12,720 Speaker 1: how people around us are going to behave and likewise, 270 00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:15,320 Speaker 1: I mean the reverse is true, Like do we want 271 00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:18,600 Speaker 1: to be that miscategorized in our in other people's judgment 272 00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:20,640 Speaker 1: as well? Exactly? So I think maybe we should take 273 00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:22,360 Speaker 1: a break and then we come back we can look 274 00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:25,400 Speaker 1: a little bit of the research history on this subject. 275 00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:30,960 Speaker 1: Than alright, we're back. Um, you know, we're not focusing 276 00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:33,400 Speaker 1: as much on alien and for the rest of this podcast, 277 00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:36,680 Speaker 1: but we'll probably come back to Ripley, Andrew members and 278 00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:38,280 Speaker 1: uh and a little later on too. I'm gonna get 279 00:15:38,280 --> 00:15:41,840 Speaker 1: of course, into a little dungeons and dragons, But first up, 280 00:15:42,160 --> 00:15:46,040 Speaker 1: we're gonna turn to uh, some of the key studies 281 00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:49,720 Speaker 1: on f A. Right, so to quick refresher on the concept. 282 00:15:49,880 --> 00:15:51,600 Speaker 1: One way I found that I thought it was put 283 00:15:51,720 --> 00:15:54,320 Speaker 1: very well was in a two thousand paper by A. 284 00:15:54,360 --> 00:15:57,920 Speaker 1: Nesbit and Nora in Zion, where they say that the 285 00:15:58,240 --> 00:16:02,880 Speaker 1: fundamental attribution error quote refers to people's inclination to see 286 00:16:02,960 --> 00:16:07,760 Speaker 1: behavior is the result of dispositions corresponding to the apparent 287 00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:12,040 Speaker 1: nature of the behavior. This tendency often results in error 288 00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:16,520 Speaker 1: when there are obvious situational constraints that leave little or 289 00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:21,360 Speaker 1: no role for dispositions in producing the behavior. That so like, 290 00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:25,520 Speaker 1: even when we should be aware of what the conditions 291 00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:29,200 Speaker 1: and the situations causing the behavior are, we just sometimes 292 00:16:29,240 --> 00:16:32,200 Speaker 1: fail to take that into account. And this first study 293 00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:34,800 Speaker 1: I want to mention is an example of this. So 294 00:16:34,840 --> 00:16:37,920 Speaker 1: this first study was in nineteen sixty seven by Edward E. 295 00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:41,680 Speaker 1: Jones and Victor A. Harris called the Attribution of Attitudes 296 00:16:41,720 --> 00:16:45,680 Speaker 1: in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. So what happened here, Robert? 297 00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:48,840 Speaker 1: Imagine you are a test subject. I invite you to 298 00:16:48,920 --> 00:16:51,400 Speaker 1: come into a room and read an essay that I 299 00:16:51,440 --> 00:16:53,720 Speaker 1: tell you is written by a student on a debate 300 00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:57,120 Speaker 1: team to be delivered as an opening statement and competition. 301 00:16:57,720 --> 00:16:59,720 Speaker 1: And I tell you that the topic of the speech 302 00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:03,520 Speaker 1: is whether or not marijuana should be legalized, and the 303 00:17:03,560 --> 00:17:06,800 Speaker 1: student who wrote the speech was randomly assigned the role 304 00:17:06,840 --> 00:17:10,600 Speaker 1: of being either for or against legalization. So you read 305 00:17:10,600 --> 00:17:14,080 Speaker 1: the speech. Let's say it is for legalization of marijuana. 306 00:17:14,080 --> 00:17:16,760 Speaker 1: It makes a bunch of arguments. It says, you know, uh, 307 00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:20,600 Speaker 1: if we legalize marijuana, we will cut down on unfair 308 00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:26,160 Speaker 1: harmful outcomes, you know, unfair disparities and incarceration, on organized 309 00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:28,520 Speaker 1: crime and things like that. You know, it makes all 310 00:17:28,520 --> 00:17:31,440 Speaker 1: the arguments you'd expect. And then I ask you, what 311 00:17:31,480 --> 00:17:35,119 Speaker 1: do you think is the debate team members actual personal 312 00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:39,320 Speaker 1: view on the legalization of marijuana. Well, that's gonna this 313 00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:41,119 Speaker 1: is gonna be kind of tricky. I mean for starters, 314 00:17:41,160 --> 00:17:42,920 Speaker 1: I know where all this is going. Yeah, I mean 315 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:44,919 Speaker 1: part of me also thinks that this depends on what 316 00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:47,760 Speaker 1: your your personal history is with say debate, with being 317 00:17:47,800 --> 00:17:52,119 Speaker 1: assigned essays of this nature. I mean I certainly was 318 00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:55,200 Speaker 1: assigned papers like this. Uh growing up, you know where 319 00:17:55,240 --> 00:17:58,040 Speaker 1: you had to uh you were just given a side 320 00:17:58,160 --> 00:18:00,840 Speaker 1: of a particular issue, and then you had to discuss 321 00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:03,439 Speaker 1: the supporting arguments for it, right, I mean, that's a 322 00:18:03,440 --> 00:18:07,960 Speaker 1: good way to hone your like persuasive writing skills. Um. So, 323 00:18:07,960 --> 00:18:10,240 Speaker 1: so you'd ask people, what do you think the person's 324 00:18:10,240 --> 00:18:12,679 Speaker 1: actual opinion is the mere fact that they wrote an 325 00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: essay in favor of legalization. In fact, it doesn't tell 326 00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:19,800 Speaker 1: you anything here because you know that their position was 327 00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:22,719 Speaker 1: a signed randomly. So to answer, I don't know what 328 00:18:22,760 --> 00:18:25,480 Speaker 1: you do. You might look for little tells in the language, 329 00:18:25,560 --> 00:18:28,479 Speaker 1: like but if they're a good writer, then that wouldn't 330 00:18:28,520 --> 00:18:31,400 Speaker 1: really come through, right, But really you just wouldn't know. 331 00:18:31,840 --> 00:18:34,199 Speaker 1: But I think if we're all honest, if we weren't 332 00:18:34,240 --> 00:18:36,560 Speaker 1: put on guard by the by this coming up in 333 00:18:36,560 --> 00:18:39,200 Speaker 1: the context of this episode, right, I think we would 334 00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:43,040 Speaker 1: mostly be tempted to assume that the writer more likely 335 00:18:43,119 --> 00:18:45,720 Speaker 1: shared the view that they were expressing in this speech. 336 00:18:46,280 --> 00:18:48,840 Speaker 1: And this study by Jones and Harris in nineteen sixty 337 00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:51,960 Speaker 1: seven found that more often than not, people tended to 338 00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:56,240 Speaker 1: assume a writer actually privately held the beliefs that they 339 00:18:56,240 --> 00:18:59,520 Speaker 1: were expressing. Another example in the study was being pro 340 00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:03,840 Speaker 1: or anti Fidel Castro and uh, and they assume this 341 00:19:04,119 --> 00:19:07,560 Speaker 1: even when they're told that the writer had been randomly 342 00:19:07,640 --> 00:19:10,959 Speaker 1: assigned a position to take. So, I can you know 343 00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:14,080 Speaker 1: tell you that Jeffrey here is about to say that 344 00:19:14,119 --> 00:19:16,760 Speaker 1: Fidel Castro is great. But I told him he had 345 00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:18,960 Speaker 1: to say that. And then he comes out and he says, 346 00:19:18,960 --> 00:19:22,240 Speaker 1: Fidel Castro is great, And and I ask you, now, 347 00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:25,000 Speaker 1: do you think he actually thinks Fidel Castro is great? 348 00:19:25,200 --> 00:19:27,400 Speaker 1: People are more likely to say, yeah, yeah, I think 349 00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:30,520 Speaker 1: maybe he does when you have like no reason to 350 00:19:30,520 --> 00:19:32,879 Speaker 1: believe that at all. But of course that the core 351 00:19:33,200 --> 00:19:38,000 Speaker 1: consideration here is not the judgment of of personal essays 352 00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:41,560 Speaker 1: and whatnot, or debate team arguments like if this is 353 00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:47,160 Speaker 1: getting at at more everyday manifestations of f A oh sure, 354 00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:48,600 Speaker 1: I just want to be clear on that in case 355 00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:51,240 Speaker 1: anyone's like, well, why aren't we talking about essays about 356 00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:55,040 Speaker 1: Fidel Castro? Well, this because this is this early indication 357 00:19:55,119 --> 00:19:59,480 Speaker 1: that people are ignoring crucial situational information and judging a 358 00:19:59,520 --> 00:20:03,080 Speaker 1: person's mind state in their character. So people can take 359 00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:06,920 Speaker 1: situation into account to some degree, but they naturally tend 360 00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:11,080 Speaker 1: to give situation way less credit than makes sense and 361 00:20:11,119 --> 00:20:13,800 Speaker 1: give disposition more credit than makes sense. And the words 362 00:20:13,840 --> 00:20:17,480 Speaker 1: of the authors here quote. The main conclusion suggested is 363 00:20:17,520 --> 00:20:21,480 Speaker 1: that perceivers do take account of prior probabilities and situational 364 00:20:21,520 --> 00:20:25,680 Speaker 1: constraints when attributing private attitude, but perhaps do not wait 365 00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:28,720 Speaker 1: these factors as heavily as would be expected by a 366 00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:31,520 Speaker 1: rational analysis. And so there has been a ton of 367 00:20:31,560 --> 00:20:34,720 Speaker 1: other research over the years that has found similar things. 368 00:20:34,800 --> 00:20:38,879 Speaker 1: Like a corn In found that when a professor discusses 369 00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:42,440 Speaker 1: an idea or a belief in a classroom lecture, students 370 00:20:42,480 --> 00:20:46,320 Speaker 1: tend to assume that the professor personally holds that belief 371 00:20:46,520 --> 00:20:49,680 Speaker 1: or agrees with that idea. I think a great example 372 00:20:49,680 --> 00:20:53,080 Speaker 1: here would be like freudian Ism, because you really can't 373 00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:56,080 Speaker 1: talk about the history of psychology without talking about Freud. 374 00:20:56,440 --> 00:20:59,080 Speaker 1: And yet nobody should just like take Freud's word as 375 00:20:59,160 --> 00:21:02,320 Speaker 1: like science on psychology these days. So if a professor 376 00:21:02,320 --> 00:21:05,480 Speaker 1: in psychology class brings up Freud on some other subject, 377 00:21:05,760 --> 00:21:08,879 Speaker 1: the professor will probably think, I'm giving the students historical 378 00:21:09,000 --> 00:21:11,920 Speaker 1: context on this topic. But the students may be more 379 00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:14,439 Speaker 1: likely to think that the professor is mentioning of you 380 00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:18,560 Speaker 1: because they advocate or they agree with it. They're assuming 381 00:21:18,600 --> 00:21:21,679 Speaker 1: it's part of the professor's disposition. And I you know, 382 00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:24,719 Speaker 1: I've taught rhet comp classes before in which students they 383 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:27,720 Speaker 1: have to learn to write persuasively, and in order to 384 00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:31,000 Speaker 1: teach this obviously, you know, to help students improve their work, 385 00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:34,200 Speaker 1: you have to question and find flaws in whatever argument 386 00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:37,439 Speaker 1: the student is making, even if you personally agree with 387 00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:40,359 Speaker 1: whatever thesis they're arguing. And I remember, there could be 388 00:21:40,400 --> 00:21:44,160 Speaker 1: this tendency for students to assume that if you're interrogating 389 00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:46,960 Speaker 1: their work in this way, it's because you actually personally 390 00:21:47,040 --> 00:21:50,439 Speaker 1: disagreed with them, or in a more general case, for 391 00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:53,840 Speaker 1: there's a tendency for students to assume that their grades 392 00:21:53,880 --> 00:21:57,960 Speaker 1: on papers are a direct unfolding of internal or disposition 393 00:21:58,000 --> 00:22:00,560 Speaker 1: a qualities in the teacher professor or so and so 394 00:22:00,720 --> 00:22:04,639 Speaker 1: is really mean, she's really strict, etcetera, as opposed to 395 00:22:04,720 --> 00:22:07,919 Speaker 1: external factors like there are high standards in this class, 396 00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:10,359 Speaker 1: or the paper I wrote had problems with it. Now, 397 00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:13,000 Speaker 1: that's not to say there aren't some terrible teachers out 398 00:22:13,000 --> 00:22:17,600 Speaker 1: there that could be making these judgments based on these criteria. 399 00:22:17,840 --> 00:22:20,919 Speaker 1: But but but you're talking about the the tendency to 400 00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:24,359 Speaker 1: misjudge the situation. Yes, though, I mean, I think I 401 00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:26,919 Speaker 1: guess most of the time you think you've got a 402 00:22:26,920 --> 00:22:29,720 Speaker 1: bad grade because your professor is mean, You're probably wrong 403 00:22:29,760 --> 00:22:32,600 Speaker 1: about that. Well, I've been watching a lot of Harry 404 00:22:32,600 --> 00:22:37,040 Speaker 1: Potter films, so that now I see what's happening. So 405 00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:40,120 Speaker 1: that's that's where my mind is going. Well that that's 406 00:22:40,119 --> 00:22:43,760 Speaker 1: a funny thing because one interesting thing is that F 407 00:22:43,880 --> 00:22:47,160 Speaker 1: a E seems to me to be necessary for fiction. 408 00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:50,359 Speaker 1: Like if you have a scene introducing a character, you 409 00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:53,840 Speaker 1: generally have to assume that the character's behavior in that 410 00:22:53,920 --> 00:22:57,680 Speaker 1: scene should be characteristic. In other words, it should give 411 00:22:57,720 --> 00:23:02,080 Speaker 1: the audience a good idea of that characters personality and traits. 412 00:23:02,119 --> 00:23:05,000 Speaker 1: Like if you wrote an opening scene in your screenplay 413 00:23:05,480 --> 00:23:09,320 Speaker 1: where a character was behaving un characteristically and just according 414 00:23:09,320 --> 00:23:13,760 Speaker 1: to certain situational factors, like Brian Cox says Bob McKee, 415 00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:18,800 Speaker 1: the screenwriting guru, you'd yell at you, you know from adaptation. Yeah, 416 00:23:18,800 --> 00:23:21,919 Speaker 1: he'd say, that's confusing, it's inefficient writing. You should avoid it, 417 00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:24,719 Speaker 1: I guess unless you're like deliberately trying to set up 418 00:23:24,760 --> 00:23:27,359 Speaker 1: some kind of ironic reversal, like it's comedy or something. 419 00:23:28,280 --> 00:23:30,800 Speaker 1: But even then it can be kind of problematic. Speaking 420 00:23:30,800 --> 00:23:33,240 Speaker 1: of Harry Potter, I'm not gonna give any spoilers, but 421 00:23:33,480 --> 00:23:36,760 Speaker 1: there is one major character that is eventually introduced and 422 00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:39,080 Speaker 1: then you find out, oh, that was never that real 423 00:23:39,240 --> 00:23:42,320 Speaker 1: character at all. That was somebody else pretending to be 424 00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:45,960 Speaker 1: that character. Um, And in retrospect that can be a 425 00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:48,040 Speaker 1: little confusing if you think on it too much. Yeah, 426 00:23:48,080 --> 00:23:50,360 Speaker 1: I guess that is. And then in terms of like, 427 00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:55,159 Speaker 1: you know, determining the you know, essentially the alignment of 428 00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:57,240 Speaker 1: a character. I mean in Harry Potter too, you have 429 00:23:57,280 --> 00:23:59,720 Speaker 1: the whole deal with the sorting had What what criteria 430 00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:02,240 Speaker 1: is this war hat taking into account? Is it it's 431 00:24:02,280 --> 00:24:04,479 Speaker 1: it's on your skull, so I guess it's focusing on 432 00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,480 Speaker 1: the contents of your head. Uh, But is it taking 433 00:24:08,480 --> 00:24:12,880 Speaker 1: into account the the situational um details of your scenario. 434 00:24:13,119 --> 00:24:15,960 Speaker 1: I mean, I guess characters do in good writing become 435 00:24:16,000 --> 00:24:19,600 Speaker 1: more complex over time as you become more familiar with them. 436 00:24:19,640 --> 00:24:21,560 Speaker 1: But I think it's it's it would just generally be 437 00:24:21,600 --> 00:24:24,760 Speaker 1: assumed to be bad writing to introduce a character in 438 00:24:24,760 --> 00:24:28,880 Speaker 1: a way in which they're behaving really un characteristically for themselves. 439 00:24:28,960 --> 00:24:31,480 Speaker 1: I mean, you want to show off early on what 440 00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:33,639 Speaker 1: people are like. And I guess this is all simply 441 00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:37,280 Speaker 1: because you assume audiences will commit the f A E 442 00:24:37,520 --> 00:24:40,720 Speaker 1: with respect to characters. You see a character behave one 443 00:24:40,760 --> 00:24:43,879 Speaker 1: way one time, you assume This is indicative of that 444 00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:49,479 Speaker 1: character's fundamental dispositions, their beliefs, traits, values, abilities, attitudes, and 445 00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:52,160 Speaker 1: not just some situation there in. Well, this is interest. 446 00:24:52,200 --> 00:24:55,160 Speaker 1: We should come back to this because I think this 447 00:24:54,920 --> 00:24:58,159 Speaker 1: is even more interesting the more we discuss f A. Okay, 448 00:24:58,240 --> 00:25:01,679 Speaker 1: and another study from teen seventy nine, this time by 449 00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:06,080 Speaker 1: Neapolitan and Girthles, called the Attribution of Friendliness. This did 450 00:25:06,160 --> 00:25:08,679 Speaker 1: something kind of like the the Essays thing, except they 451 00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:11,400 Speaker 1: just had people meet. They had you know, you'd meet 452 00:25:11,440 --> 00:25:14,320 Speaker 1: somebody and you get to decide is this person friendly 453 00:25:14,440 --> 00:25:17,960 Speaker 1: or unfriendly? Uh? Fundamentally is that it is their personality 454 00:25:17,960 --> 00:25:20,480 Speaker 1: friendly or unfriendly. Now, some of the people in the 455 00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:23,640 Speaker 1: study who you were getting to meet had been told 456 00:25:23,960 --> 00:25:27,600 Speaker 1: that they were supposed to act unfriendly. And then the 457 00:25:27,640 --> 00:25:31,200 Speaker 1: people and the participants were told, oh, this person has 458 00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:34,359 Speaker 1: been told they need to act unfriendly, and yet some 459 00:25:34,440 --> 00:25:38,400 Speaker 1: of the participants would actually rate the person as fundamentally unfriendly, 460 00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:41,359 Speaker 1: even though they'd been told by experimenters that the person 461 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:44,920 Speaker 1: had been assigned this behavior pattern. Uh. And I guess 462 00:25:44,920 --> 00:25:47,520 Speaker 1: it's sort of like assuming that an actor who plays 463 00:25:47,560 --> 00:25:50,280 Speaker 1: a villain in a movie is actually a bad person. 464 00:25:51,119 --> 00:25:53,040 Speaker 1: You know, there's a certain logic to it, Like when 465 00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:55,359 Speaker 1: you've seen somebody play a villain in a movie, you 466 00:25:55,400 --> 00:25:58,239 Speaker 1: can understand what it would look and feel like for 467 00:25:58,320 --> 00:26:00,640 Speaker 1: them to actually be a bad person that somebody else. 468 00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:03,560 Speaker 1: That might be harder for you to picture this, but yeah, 469 00:26:03,560 --> 00:26:06,000 Speaker 1: I can tell you I've instructed Jeffrey to be a 470 00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:08,439 Speaker 1: sour puss when he talks to you. Uh. Then you 471 00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:10,280 Speaker 1: talk to Jeffrey and you say, how do you think 472 00:26:10,359 --> 00:26:13,199 Speaker 1: Jeffrey normally is. People are like, yeah, he's actually a 473 00:26:13,240 --> 00:26:16,159 Speaker 1: sour puss. But there was an interesting turn here that 474 00:26:16,280 --> 00:26:19,879 Speaker 1: was fairly simple. Subjects were less likely to make the 475 00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:24,480 Speaker 1: fundamental attribution error and assume that that one data point 476 00:26:24,520 --> 00:26:27,960 Speaker 1: was indicative of a person's real disposition if they got 477 00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:30,960 Speaker 1: to interact with the same person twice. So you meet 478 00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:33,439 Speaker 1: Jeffrey once and you're told that he's been instructed to 479 00:26:33,440 --> 00:26:36,240 Speaker 1: act like a jerk, you conclude he's actually a jerk. 480 00:26:36,520 --> 00:26:38,920 Speaker 1: You meet Jeffrey once and he's friendly. Then you meet 481 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:41,520 Speaker 1: him again and you're told he's been instructed to act 482 00:26:41,560 --> 00:26:44,600 Speaker 1: like a jerk. You're more likely the second time to think, Oh, 483 00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:47,520 Speaker 1: this isn't really how he is. He's just acting out 484 00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:50,920 Speaker 1: the part. Now, this obviously seems related to the general 485 00:26:50,960 --> 00:26:54,320 Speaker 1: finding that the better we know a person, the more 486 00:26:54,480 --> 00:26:58,400 Speaker 1: we take into account situational information to explain their behaviors, 487 00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:01,119 Speaker 1: and the less we know a person, the more likely 488 00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:04,320 Speaker 1: we are to resort to disposition. All reasoning, you're probably 489 00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:06,960 Speaker 1: at the highest risk to commit the f A when 490 00:27:06,960 --> 00:27:11,320 Speaker 1: evaluating a stranger or somebody you're meeting for the first time. Yeah, 491 00:27:11,359 --> 00:27:13,160 Speaker 1: I mean, let this gets sound to the basic fact. 492 00:27:13,359 --> 00:27:16,359 Speaker 1: You know, the importance of first impressions, right, you never 493 00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:18,439 Speaker 1: get a second chance to make a first impression, but 494 00:27:18,480 --> 00:27:20,680 Speaker 1: you do get a first chance to make a second 495 00:27:20,680 --> 00:27:24,040 Speaker 1: impression and so forth. But but yeah, you got to 496 00:27:24,119 --> 00:27:27,320 Speaker 1: count on that second impression taking place. Uh yeah, I 497 00:27:27,320 --> 00:27:28,880 Speaker 1: think we can all, I mean we can all can 498 00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:31,199 Speaker 1: turn to examples in our own life where we we 499 00:27:31,240 --> 00:27:34,400 Speaker 1: either know we made a good first impression or more 500 00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:36,560 Speaker 1: likely we know that we didn't. Those are the ones 501 00:27:36,600 --> 00:27:39,720 Speaker 1: we tend to remember. Um, I know I've been I 502 00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:44,040 Speaker 1: I think I people have told me before that I sometimes, uh, 503 00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:46,560 Speaker 1: you know, come off as like less friendly or colder 504 00:27:46,560 --> 00:27:48,560 Speaker 1: and first impressions, and a lot of that comes from 505 00:27:48,640 --> 00:27:50,840 Speaker 1: me being more of an introvert, you know, I mean, 506 00:27:51,080 --> 00:27:55,040 Speaker 1: it's just how I uh, I'm a little more um 507 00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:59,359 Speaker 1: um reserved when I'm meeting people for the first time, 508 00:27:59,440 --> 00:28:02,840 Speaker 1: you know. Um. But then again, all of this is 509 00:28:02,880 --> 00:28:06,000 Speaker 1: pointing to stuff that we all know. Right that you 510 00:28:06,119 --> 00:28:08,560 Speaker 1: meet somebody for the first time, that first handshake is 511 00:28:08,600 --> 00:28:11,639 Speaker 1: not going to magically convey to you everything you need 512 00:28:11,720 --> 00:28:15,680 Speaker 1: to know about that person. But we still does like, 513 00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:19,040 Speaker 1: oh goodness, handshakes. Just speaking of of that, like the 514 00:28:19,160 --> 00:28:23,160 Speaker 1: ridiculousness of judgments based on handshakes, which which, by the way, 515 00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:24,760 Speaker 1: this is this is something we could cover in a 516 00:28:24,840 --> 00:28:29,080 Speaker 1: later episode. Yeah, I've heard that is also very cultural 517 00:28:29,119 --> 00:28:32,440 Speaker 1: at times, though, yeah, and uh, and it's not something 518 00:28:32,480 --> 00:28:35,960 Speaker 1: that's necessarily like known, if you're shaking the hands of 519 00:28:35,960 --> 00:28:38,320 Speaker 1: a person from a culture where a lighter handshake is 520 00:28:38,320 --> 00:28:41,000 Speaker 1: more appropriate, you're just going to judge them based on 521 00:28:41,080 --> 00:28:43,920 Speaker 1: your handshake culture when you in which you know, could 522 00:28:44,280 --> 00:28:48,000 Speaker 1: lean more towards the importance of that firm handshake or 523 00:28:48,040 --> 00:28:51,320 Speaker 1: something that is lighter uh in touch. But yeah, we 524 00:28:51,320 --> 00:28:54,880 Speaker 1: can make all sorts of ridiculous generalizations without wanting to 525 00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:58,280 Speaker 1: or realizing just based on something like that. Well, I 526 00:28:58,320 --> 00:28:59,880 Speaker 1: think some of the good news about the f A 527 00:29:00,320 --> 00:29:02,720 Speaker 1: is that this does seem like one of those biases 528 00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:05,480 Speaker 1: were being aware of. It makes a difference, like that 529 00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:08,920 Speaker 1: you can overcome this bias with some cognitive effort, and 530 00:29:08,920 --> 00:29:11,920 Speaker 1: we'll talk more about that as we go on. Um, 531 00:29:11,960 --> 00:29:15,600 Speaker 1: just like thinking about the fact that, oh yeah, the 532 00:29:16,160 --> 00:29:19,280 Speaker 1: circumstances of my first impression of a person might not 533 00:29:19,400 --> 00:29:22,480 Speaker 1: actually be a reflection, you know, deep reflection of who 534 00:29:22,480 --> 00:29:25,760 Speaker 1: they are that can be useful in in changing the 535 00:29:25,800 --> 00:29:28,400 Speaker 1: way we think about people. There's another interesting thing I 536 00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,000 Speaker 1: was thinking about in fundamental attribution error, and it's how 537 00:29:32,760 --> 00:29:35,440 Speaker 1: every time you know, you noticed this. Every time there's 538 00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:38,560 Speaker 1: like a mass murderer or a terrorist or a serial 539 00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:42,520 Speaker 1: killer who gets their identity gets revealed, what happens like 540 00:29:42,680 --> 00:29:45,400 Speaker 1: most of the time is they go interview this guy's 541 00:29:45,400 --> 00:29:49,920 Speaker 1: neighbors and co workers and they express shock. He was normal, quiet, 542 00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:52,520 Speaker 1: he was always nice to me. It's like they tend 543 00:29:52,560 --> 00:29:55,760 Speaker 1: to assume that if it was within a person's nature 544 00:29:55,800 --> 00:29:59,360 Speaker 1: to commit horrible crimes, the taint of evil should have 545 00:29:59,400 --> 00:30:03,520 Speaker 1: been evi within everyday interactions. But why should it have 546 00:30:03,600 --> 00:30:06,840 Speaker 1: been like this also seems to me an assumption based 547 00:30:06,840 --> 00:30:09,920 Speaker 1: on the FAE. Oh absolutely, I mean this. Of course, 548 00:30:09,960 --> 00:30:13,040 Speaker 1: we could go go crazy discussing this. How we when 549 00:30:13,080 --> 00:30:17,640 Speaker 1: somebody does something monstrous, we want to interpret their entire 550 00:30:18,320 --> 00:30:22,640 Speaker 1: identity as as monstrous and and as less human as possible. 551 00:30:22,760 --> 00:30:25,640 Speaker 1: I mean, they're in there their advantages and doing that, right, 552 00:30:25,680 --> 00:30:28,640 Speaker 1: it feels less dangerous and you feel and you feel 553 00:30:28,800 --> 00:30:33,560 Speaker 1: less in danger from from misjudging people in the future. Yes, 554 00:30:33,600 --> 00:30:35,360 Speaker 1: you want to feel like you would have been able 555 00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:38,440 Speaker 1: to pick them out immediately. Yeah. I think that's why 556 00:30:38,600 --> 00:30:41,320 Speaker 1: we tend to. Um. I mean just think of the 557 00:30:41,360 --> 00:30:46,320 Speaker 1: sort of the Wikipedia page photos of say serial killers. Uh. 558 00:30:46,640 --> 00:30:49,040 Speaker 1: They tend to run in either direction, right, Either it's 559 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:53,480 Speaker 1: a really charming picture, um, but but you know, to 560 00:30:53,520 --> 00:30:55,520 Speaker 1: maybe sort of drive home how oh wow, we never 561 00:30:55,520 --> 00:30:59,200 Speaker 1: saw that coming. Or they pick something that is suitably monstrous, 562 00:30:59,480 --> 00:31:02,200 Speaker 1: be at the you know the John Wayne Glas gaycy 563 00:31:02,400 --> 00:31:07,200 Speaker 1: uh clown photo or you know a particularly snarling um 564 00:31:07,840 --> 00:31:11,040 Speaker 1: uh image of Ted Bundy, that sort of thing. Yes, 565 00:31:11,200 --> 00:31:14,840 Speaker 1: the more monstrous and inhuman and scary they look in 566 00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:17,680 Speaker 1: their media photos, the more comforting it is to us 567 00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:20,680 Speaker 1: because we're we're less troubled by the idea that they 568 00:31:20,680 --> 00:31:23,080 Speaker 1: could blend in with your life and you wouldn't know 569 00:31:23,160 --> 00:31:26,200 Speaker 1: about them, right, Uh, you know this is this This 570 00:31:26,240 --> 00:31:29,520 Speaker 1: reminds me a little bit of our photography episodes on 571 00:31:29,760 --> 00:31:33,280 Speaker 1: the On Invention, our other podcasts we put together, and 572 00:31:33,320 --> 00:31:36,920 Speaker 1: we were talking about the advantages of capturing truth and 573 00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:41,560 Speaker 1: in essence of a situation or perhaps an individual through photography. 574 00:31:41,600 --> 00:31:44,800 Speaker 1: But the thing about photography is there are snapshots. They 575 00:31:44,840 --> 00:31:48,840 Speaker 1: are moments, uh, and are even just our facial features 576 00:31:48,880 --> 00:31:52,440 Speaker 1: are something that is in flux. That's uh, that's you know, 577 00:31:52,600 --> 00:31:56,640 Speaker 1: versus than that's grounded in micro expressions and uh and 578 00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:01,000 Speaker 1: and and momentary expressions. And therefore, yeah, if you have 579 00:32:01,080 --> 00:32:03,360 Speaker 1: enough footage of somebody, and you have enough range in 580 00:32:03,400 --> 00:32:06,880 Speaker 1: their reactions, you can find the saintly Ted Bundy picture. 581 00:32:07,000 --> 00:32:08,840 Speaker 1: You can find a handsome Ted Bundy picture, and you 582 00:32:08,880 --> 00:32:11,920 Speaker 1: can find the snarling and monstrous Tad Bundy pictures as well. 583 00:32:11,920 --> 00:32:15,120 Speaker 1: And you can do this for anyone, uh, any politician, 584 00:32:15,280 --> 00:32:18,120 Speaker 1: any actor, or any individual, as long as you have 585 00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:20,560 Speaker 1: enough data to pull from. Well. In fact, I'd even 586 00:32:20,600 --> 00:32:23,840 Speaker 1: go maybe to the level of hypothesizing a correlation, which 587 00:32:23,880 --> 00:32:26,600 Speaker 1: is that I think a lot of particularly monstrous people 588 00:32:26,880 --> 00:32:31,160 Speaker 1: spend plenty of time homing their photogeneity that's a good point, 589 00:32:31,600 --> 00:32:34,960 Speaker 1: is that the word photogeneity. They practice being photogenic and 590 00:32:34,960 --> 00:32:37,160 Speaker 1: they get good at it. All Right, we're gonna take 591 00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:41,320 Speaker 1: a quick break, but we'll be right back. Thank alright, 592 00:32:41,320 --> 00:32:44,360 Speaker 1: we're back, Okay. I want to pivot to one interesting 593 00:32:44,400 --> 00:32:47,760 Speaker 1: wrinkle in the f A, which is that multiple studies 594 00:32:47,800 --> 00:32:51,440 Speaker 1: have shown there's a very salient exception to the fundamental 595 00:32:51,480 --> 00:32:57,560 Speaker 1: attribution error tendency ourselves. On average, while we're more likely 596 00:32:57,600 --> 00:33:03,400 Speaker 1: to overestimate disposition an underestimate situation in interpreting the behavior 597 00:33:03,440 --> 00:33:07,040 Speaker 1: of other people, were likely to do exactly the opposite 598 00:33:07,040 --> 00:33:10,800 Speaker 1: when that great eye is turned inward. When explaining our 599 00:33:10,880 --> 00:33:14,720 Speaker 1: own personal behavior, we tend to overestimate the role of 600 00:33:14,760 --> 00:33:18,920 Speaker 1: situational factors and underestimate the role of internal factors like 601 00:33:18,960 --> 00:33:22,600 Speaker 1: our inherent character, traits and abilities and attitudes. There are 602 00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:26,800 Speaker 1: also studies indicating a self serving bias within the existing 603 00:33:26,920 --> 00:33:29,960 Speaker 1: f A bias uh, and it's in it's reversal in 604 00:33:29,960 --> 00:33:32,400 Speaker 1: the self. In other words, if I did something good, 605 00:33:32,960 --> 00:33:35,760 Speaker 1: that there's a disposition all explanation there, it's because of 606 00:33:35,880 --> 00:33:39,800 Speaker 1: something about me. If I did something bad, it's because 607 00:33:39,800 --> 00:33:42,040 Speaker 1: of something about the situation I was in. There's a 608 00:33:42,080 --> 00:33:45,680 Speaker 1: situational explanation. We've all observed this in others, right, the 609 00:33:45,680 --> 00:33:48,680 Speaker 1: way people make excuses when they do something bad and 610 00:33:48,720 --> 00:33:51,440 Speaker 1: think it's a fundamental part of their their own virtues 611 00:33:51,480 --> 00:33:54,480 Speaker 1: when they do something good. But if we're sufficiently critical, 612 00:33:54,520 --> 00:33:56,920 Speaker 1: of course, we we know that notice this in ourselves 613 00:33:56,920 --> 00:33:59,760 Speaker 1: as well, right, I mean, there's certainly there's a worthwhile 614 00:33:59,840 --> 00:34:04,160 Speaker 1: X size to be able or willing to flip that 615 00:34:04,280 --> 00:34:06,680 Speaker 1: in our own self analysis, like how much of the 616 00:34:07,280 --> 00:34:11,000 Speaker 1: good that I've done is a product of environment, and 617 00:34:11,040 --> 00:34:14,600 Speaker 1: how much of the bad uh it is is correspondingly, 618 00:34:14,800 --> 00:34:17,799 Speaker 1: you know, a product of of more ingrained aspects of 619 00:34:17,840 --> 00:34:21,360 Speaker 1: my identity. Yeah, exactly, And you know, I was thinking 620 00:34:21,440 --> 00:34:24,839 Speaker 1: it's the classic hypocrisy that you see come through so 621 00:34:24,920 --> 00:34:29,560 Speaker 1: often when people are considering justifications for help or aid 622 00:34:29,920 --> 00:34:33,480 Speaker 1: or relief, Like how commonly have you heard the sentiment, 623 00:34:33,520 --> 00:34:37,560 Speaker 1: you know, other people collect unemployment because they're lazy. I 624 00:34:37,640 --> 00:34:40,120 Speaker 1: collect unemployment because I had a really rough year and 625 00:34:40,160 --> 00:34:43,920 Speaker 1: I lost my job. You know, I've got circumstantial explanations. 626 00:34:43,960 --> 00:34:47,560 Speaker 1: Other people there's something wrong with them. This hypocrisy also 627 00:34:47,600 --> 00:34:51,080 Speaker 1: comes through in an extremely common phenomenon when people are 628 00:34:51,080 --> 00:34:53,640 Speaker 1: faced with like a debate or a disagreement about something. 629 00:34:53,800 --> 00:34:56,520 Speaker 1: Just keep an eye out for this when you're reading 630 00:34:56,520 --> 00:35:00,680 Speaker 1: your next Twitter argument. Uh, my position is tatd by 631 00:35:00,680 --> 00:35:04,680 Speaker 1: the facts, while your position is a result of psychological 632 00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:08,160 Speaker 1: facts about you. In other words, my position is the 633 00:35:08,200 --> 00:35:11,920 Speaker 1: result of external situational constraints like the facts and the 634 00:35:12,000 --> 00:35:14,799 Speaker 1: rules of logic and all that, and your position is 635 00:35:14,800 --> 00:35:19,320 Speaker 1: the result of internal dispositional characteristics of you as a person, 636 00:35:19,600 --> 00:35:25,440 Speaker 1: your emotional tendencies, your biases, etcetera. Yeah, this is interesting, 637 00:35:25,640 --> 00:35:27,880 Speaker 1: We do see. We see a lot of this in 638 00:35:27,880 --> 00:35:31,239 Speaker 1: in current discourse. Like, for instance, um, when one is 639 00:35:31,400 --> 00:35:35,200 Speaker 1: reminded to think about one's um um place of privilege 640 00:35:35,320 --> 00:35:38,840 Speaker 1: in any given topic like that is essentially kind of 641 00:35:38,880 --> 00:35:40,560 Speaker 1: coming back to what I was talking about, like thinking 642 00:35:40,560 --> 00:35:43,759 Speaker 1: about Uh, you know, if you stop and think about, say, 643 00:35:43,840 --> 00:35:46,520 Speaker 1: the good in one's life and think about how much 644 00:35:46,520 --> 00:35:51,279 Speaker 1: of that is environmental and situational. Um Uh, It's it's 645 00:35:51,280 --> 00:35:55,560 Speaker 1: a worthwhile exercise. Absolutely, Yeah, totally. I mean, well, consideration 646 00:35:55,640 --> 00:35:59,240 Speaker 1: of the privileges one has received is exactly asking people 647 00:35:59,280 --> 00:36:02,799 Speaker 1: to consider, or is to ask them to think about 648 00:36:02,880 --> 00:36:04,759 Speaker 1: the the opposite of the fa that we tend to 649 00:36:04,800 --> 00:36:07,760 Speaker 1: apply to ourselves Yeah, to like ask people to consider 650 00:36:07,880 --> 00:36:12,399 Speaker 1: situational factors they have benefited from, rather than thinking that 651 00:36:12,440 --> 00:36:14,560 Speaker 1: all of their you know, all of the good things 652 00:36:14,600 --> 00:36:16,719 Speaker 1: that have happened to them are due to their virtues 653 00:36:16,760 --> 00:36:20,160 Speaker 1: and greatness. But in the in the case of like, 654 00:36:20,320 --> 00:36:23,440 Speaker 1: you know, arguments about like attributing your opinions to your 655 00:36:23,440 --> 00:36:26,480 Speaker 1: psychology and my opinions to my you know, just to 656 00:36:26,800 --> 00:36:30,000 Speaker 1: how things are. It's it's just hilarious how often you 657 00:36:30,040 --> 00:36:33,359 Speaker 1: see this deployed in arguments today. My opinion isn't even 658 00:36:33,400 --> 00:36:36,000 Speaker 1: really my opinion, it's just the way the world is. 659 00:36:36,120 --> 00:36:40,160 Speaker 1: It's fully externalized. Your opinion is a direct unfolding of 660 00:36:40,239 --> 00:36:43,359 Speaker 1: your personal defects. Yeah, you see it all the time, 661 00:36:43,480 --> 00:36:46,400 Speaker 1: and you know from from various sides. But back to so, 662 00:36:46,520 --> 00:36:49,160 Speaker 1: you know, you've got the opposite of the fundamental attribution 663 00:36:49,239 --> 00:36:52,160 Speaker 1: error taking place when we evaluate ourselves. I wonder why 664 00:36:52,440 --> 00:36:54,839 Speaker 1: is this, Like, why do we reverse the bias when 665 00:36:54,840 --> 00:36:57,400 Speaker 1: the eyes turned inward? I think one thing is just 666 00:36:57,520 --> 00:37:01,200 Speaker 1: that we have the opportunity to observe ourselves in lots 667 00:37:01,239 --> 00:37:04,600 Speaker 1: of scenarios, and we come to understand that our behavior 668 00:37:04,680 --> 00:37:08,200 Speaker 1: changes according to the situation. Obviously, and this seems in 669 00:37:08,280 --> 00:37:10,280 Speaker 1: line with the fact that the better you know a person, 670 00:37:10,320 --> 00:37:12,479 Speaker 1: the more you get to sample their behavior, the more 671 00:37:12,600 --> 00:37:15,919 Speaker 1: you take situation into account when you're judging them. Right, 672 00:37:16,640 --> 00:37:18,480 Speaker 1: And then I guess, I mean, it makes sense that 673 00:37:18,480 --> 00:37:21,200 Speaker 1: that we would we would have we would employ shortcuts 674 00:37:21,280 --> 00:37:25,440 Speaker 1: in uh in in in in figuring out or guessing 675 00:37:25,520 --> 00:37:29,600 Speaker 1: the mind states of others. You know that we I mean, 676 00:37:29,640 --> 00:37:31,920 Speaker 1: we would love to think of ourselves as the kind 677 00:37:31,920 --> 00:37:35,440 Speaker 1: of person who is so compassionate that every minor character 678 00:37:35,480 --> 00:37:38,600 Speaker 1: in their life is given full weight and full consideration. 679 00:37:39,160 --> 00:37:40,960 Speaker 1: But we don't have time. We don't have time, we 680 00:37:40,960 --> 00:37:42,800 Speaker 1: don't have the mental capacity to do that, So we 681 00:37:42,880 --> 00:37:46,799 Speaker 1: end up we've evolved to to utilize all these shortcuts, 682 00:37:47,360 --> 00:37:50,480 Speaker 1: which in many cases can be rather unfair and in 683 00:37:50,520 --> 00:37:53,560 Speaker 1: some cases perhaps even dangerous. Oh, they can be extremely dangerous. 684 00:37:53,560 --> 00:37:56,759 Speaker 1: And one reason is that some studies have shown that 685 00:37:56,800 --> 00:38:00,479 Speaker 1: this concept gets extended beyond just the individual will level. 686 00:38:00,560 --> 00:38:02,719 Speaker 1: Like there are some studies indicating that both the f 687 00:38:02,880 --> 00:38:06,400 Speaker 1: A and the self directed reversal of the f A 688 00:38:06,840 --> 00:38:09,960 Speaker 1: extend beyond individuals to groups. In other words, people are 689 00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:14,200 Speaker 1: more likely to lean toward disposition all explanations for people 690 00:38:14,239 --> 00:38:18,520 Speaker 1: they see as outgroup members and situational explanations for people 691 00:38:18,560 --> 00:38:21,360 Speaker 1: they see as in group members. If you see people 692 00:38:21,400 --> 00:38:23,839 Speaker 1: as part of your tribe, part of your group, you're 693 00:38:23,840 --> 00:38:26,720 Speaker 1: more likely to treat them like you treat yourself, meaning 694 00:38:26,760 --> 00:38:29,000 Speaker 1: you you know, take into factor, okay, you know they're 695 00:38:29,080 --> 00:38:32,239 Speaker 1: external influences on what they're doing. And if you see 696 00:38:32,239 --> 00:38:34,600 Speaker 1: people as outside your tribe, you're more likely to take 697 00:38:34,640 --> 00:38:38,520 Speaker 1: their actions as indications of their fundamental character or of 698 00:38:38,560 --> 00:38:42,799 Speaker 1: the fundamental characteristics you believe common to their group. And 699 00:38:42,840 --> 00:38:45,160 Speaker 1: all of this is, of course terrible if you want 700 00:38:45,239 --> 00:38:48,600 Speaker 1: there to be any kind of actual communication between two 701 00:38:48,920 --> 00:38:52,120 Speaker 1: given tribes, between two given group given true groups, if 702 00:38:52,120 --> 00:38:55,080 Speaker 1: you want there to be any kind of peace, stability 703 00:38:55,160 --> 00:38:57,200 Speaker 1: or back and forth. Yeah, absolutely, I mean you can 704 00:38:57,239 --> 00:39:00,920 Speaker 1: see how this exact bias lies behind all kinds of 705 00:39:01,640 --> 00:39:07,000 Speaker 1: problems of of prejudice and stereotyping and all that. But interestingly, 706 00:39:07,200 --> 00:39:08,920 Speaker 1: on the other hand, that there are some studies that 707 00:39:09,000 --> 00:39:14,040 Speaker 1: indicate that's in some cases at least simply manipulating perspective 708 00:39:14,600 --> 00:39:18,279 Speaker 1: through video feeds can reverse the effect, at least on 709 00:39:18,320 --> 00:39:21,520 Speaker 1: an individual level. So think about it like this, If 710 00:39:21,600 --> 00:39:25,799 Speaker 1: you watch video of a scene taken from another person's 711 00:39:25,920 --> 00:39:29,000 Speaker 1: visual perspective. So you're seeing through Jeffrey's eyes or you're 712 00:39:29,040 --> 00:39:32,560 Speaker 1: seeing through Ripley's eyes, you are more likely to judge 713 00:39:32,600 --> 00:39:37,040 Speaker 1: that person situationally and less likely to judge them disposition 714 00:39:37,120 --> 00:39:39,200 Speaker 1: a lee than you would if you're just watching them 715 00:39:39,239 --> 00:39:43,120 Speaker 1: from a third person vantage point. And the reverse also 716 00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:46,680 Speaker 1: appears to be true in watching video of yourself from 717 00:39:46,680 --> 00:39:49,719 Speaker 1: a third person perspective, it makes you more likely to 718 00:39:49,800 --> 00:39:55,520 Speaker 1: judge yourself disposition a lee. Interesting. I feel like you're 719 00:39:55,520 --> 00:39:57,520 Speaker 1: touched on some of these differences in like third and 720 00:39:57,600 --> 00:39:59,440 Speaker 1: first person. I believe there's some studies that look at 721 00:39:59,440 --> 00:40:02,759 Speaker 1: this in video gaming and how we interact with our 722 00:40:03,040 --> 00:40:07,120 Speaker 1: given characters avatar, which is especially interesting when we think 723 00:40:07,120 --> 00:40:09,120 Speaker 1: of games where were we have the ability to jump 724 00:40:09,120 --> 00:40:11,439 Speaker 1: back and forth between the two. But the idea of 725 00:40:11,560 --> 00:40:14,080 Speaker 1: being able to apply this viewpoint to your own life 726 00:40:14,080 --> 00:40:16,399 Speaker 1: and the lives of others, which has a wonderful kind 727 00:40:16,400 --> 00:40:20,799 Speaker 1: of black mirror vibe to it. Uh that's interesting. I 728 00:40:20,840 --> 00:40:22,840 Speaker 1: like that. Yeah, it is. And I didn't find a 729 00:40:22,880 --> 00:40:24,720 Speaker 1: study on this. Maybe there is one I just didn't 730 00:40:24,719 --> 00:40:27,960 Speaker 1: come across, But I wondered, can the can the effect 731 00:40:28,000 --> 00:40:31,920 Speaker 1: to be reversed through perspective manipulation for group based thinking 732 00:40:31,960 --> 00:40:34,640 Speaker 1: as well, like are there ways I mean this in 733 00:40:34,680 --> 00:40:36,879 Speaker 1: a way would be the classic like try to put 734 00:40:36,880 --> 00:40:41,200 Speaker 1: yourself in somebody else's shoes, Like can you see the 735 00:40:41,280 --> 00:40:44,799 Speaker 1: world from the perspective of somebody who you regard as 736 00:40:44,800 --> 00:40:48,160 Speaker 1: your out group? And would that help in reducing you know, 737 00:40:48,200 --> 00:40:53,239 Speaker 1: the kind of disposition all automatic attributing of characteristics to 738 00:40:53,320 --> 00:40:56,520 Speaker 1: them that you do off very limited data. By the way, 739 00:40:56,600 --> 00:41:01,240 Speaker 1: I had to explain that saying, uh, wearing somebody else's 740 00:41:01,239 --> 00:41:03,359 Speaker 1: shoes walking a mile on someone else's shoes to my son, 741 00:41:04,200 --> 00:41:05,839 Speaker 1: I guess for the first time. I guess it had 742 00:41:05,920 --> 00:41:08,120 Speaker 1: just not come up before. But then I dropped it 743 00:41:08,160 --> 00:41:11,040 Speaker 1: in some you know, daily conversation and he was like, 744 00:41:11,239 --> 00:41:13,960 Speaker 1: what what what We're supposed to wear other people's shoes? 745 00:41:14,480 --> 00:41:16,560 Speaker 1: Like how does that even work? And it is kind 746 00:41:16,560 --> 00:41:18,879 Speaker 1: of weird, Like if I wear someone else's shoes there 747 00:41:18,960 --> 00:41:21,239 Speaker 1: there's so many of factors like that that's not going 748 00:41:21,280 --> 00:41:25,160 Speaker 1: to really give me any idea what their their personal experiences, 749 00:41:25,200 --> 00:41:28,720 Speaker 1: their personal truth or their you know, what kind of 750 00:41:28,719 --> 00:41:33,080 Speaker 1: of of constraints and privileges they're dealing with. Yeah, it 751 00:41:33,160 --> 00:41:35,640 Speaker 1: really should be walk a mile and somebody else's Google 752 00:41:35,680 --> 00:41:40,920 Speaker 1: glass that say filming from their perspective, I don't know 753 00:41:40,960 --> 00:41:43,919 Speaker 1: what the real product there now is walk a mile 754 00:41:43,960 --> 00:41:46,959 Speaker 1: and somebody else's go pro. Yes, all right, we're gonna 755 00:41:47,000 --> 00:41:49,279 Speaker 1: go ahead and close out the episode right now because 756 00:41:49,320 --> 00:41:51,600 Speaker 1: we're gonna have to split this one into We're going 757 00:41:51,640 --> 00:41:54,840 Speaker 1: a bit long here, so this was part one of 758 00:41:54,840 --> 00:41:57,680 Speaker 1: our look at f a E. But our next episode 759 00:41:57,680 --> 00:42:00,839 Speaker 1: will continue the discussion and uh, and I'll make sure 760 00:42:00,840 --> 00:42:02,799 Speaker 1: we get some dungeons and dragons in there, just to 761 00:42:03,080 --> 00:42:06,560 Speaker 1: just to continue the uh, the the partial focus on 762 00:42:06,840 --> 00:42:09,919 Speaker 1: fantastic elements to keep the big cat magic going. Yeah, 763 00:42:10,080 --> 00:42:12,040 Speaker 1: we gotta do it. Uh. In the meantime, if you 764 00:42:12,040 --> 00:42:13,759 Speaker 1: want to check out more episodes of Stuff to Blow 765 00:42:13,800 --> 00:42:15,279 Speaker 1: your Mind, you know where to go. Stuff to Blow 766 00:42:15,320 --> 00:42:17,640 Speaker 1: your Mind dot com. That's the website. You can get 767 00:42:17,640 --> 00:42:19,319 Speaker 1: the show there, but you can also get the show 768 00:42:19,360 --> 00:42:23,160 Speaker 1: any number of other places. Wherever you do get Stuff 769 00:42:23,200 --> 00:42:25,120 Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind, make sure that you have subscribed, 770 00:42:25,360 --> 00:42:27,960 Speaker 1: and make sure that you've rated and reviewed the show, 771 00:42:28,000 --> 00:42:31,759 Speaker 1: because these small steps help us out immensely in the 772 00:42:31,800 --> 00:42:34,640 Speaker 1: long run. Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio 773 00:42:34,680 --> 00:42:37,920 Speaker 1: producers Alex Williams and try Harrison. If you would like 774 00:42:37,960 --> 00:42:39,839 Speaker 1: to get in touch with us with feedback on this 775 00:42:39,920 --> 00:42:42,560 Speaker 1: episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future, 776 00:42:42,880 --> 00:42:45,080 Speaker 1: or just to say hello, you can email us at 777 00:42:45,520 --> 00:42:57,799 Speaker 1: contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff 778 00:42:57,840 --> 00:42:59,399 Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind is a production of I Heart 779 00:42:59,440 --> 00:43:01,600 Speaker 1: Radio's hows to of Works. For more podcasts from my 780 00:43:01,640 --> 00:43:04,360 Speaker 1: heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, 781 00:43:04,440 --> 00:43:18,200 Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.