Just
a reminder that the purpose of this discussion aims at stimulating
thought and self awareness as tools
to help those in recovery
from trauma learn how to make safer
choices. To make the discussion more jocular, we've defined
Cognitive Biases as “CranioRectal
Inversions” (CRI).
Many cognitive biases tend to point out the same errors in thought but with subtly different emphases. I think that these errors in attribution that are also somewhat self-serving are worth looking at because they demonstrate how fragile our perspective can be without a balance of circumspection and introspection.
When
learning something new, we start with what we already know and
understand, and if we are observant and mindful, we can learn much
about ourselves. We can also pick up on cues about how others tend
to see themselves and how we all come together in our intersections
in the world as well. So we start at the center of our understanding
until we have a broader base for comparison and contrast, and we find
ourselves at that center of things. We also cast ourselves in a
favorable role when thinking about motives and behaviors. We're good
people and we like to think that others think of us that way, too.
Overlapping
Attribution Errors
The
Fundamental Attribution Error is sometimes called the Correspondence
Error, and we tend to think
of ourselves as a bit better than others when we do the same things
or make the same mistakes. We have a fundamental bias to favor
ourselves – allowing us to be different when we may be alike others
in many respects. But as a superficial measure without enough
information, we can develop a whole scheme of who a person is –
which may not be true at all.
And
as previously noted, we tend to place a greater emphasis on the
outward characteristics that are more salient and obvious to make
quick judgements about people's behavior. We tend to think of them
as a true manifestation of the person's character and ability when
this may not be the case at all. It's all part of pitfall of using
heuristics to help us cut through too much data. But when it comes
to our own behavior, we focus on our internal reasons and discount or
seem less aware of how we appear to others. This tendency has been
given its very own term as the Actor-Observer
Bias.
When
you are the person in an active role in an exchange, your frame of
reference seems to be much different when attributing a negative
outcome to a particular cause. Perhaps it happens because the actor
doesn't observe their own behavior at all, but the observer can see
them from a more objective place.
The conflicts that arise from the
Actor-Observer
Bias tend
to degrade into a “They started it!” contention. Each party
becomes locked tightly to their perspective and less willing to
consider any other possible interpretation. Rather than a matter of perspective, the lack of congruence can become a war to determine who is true and who is false.
It's
helpful to be aware of our natural tendency to fall into this
variation of Attribution Error -- amazingly powerful influences at
times. If we can step back from conflicts to see them as a part of
life and a part of interacting with one another, we can better consider a matter from the perspective of another person.
We're always called to stretch and grow, and that is always a bit of
work which humility facilitates. No one really wants to be locked
into the landscape of this particular CranioRectal Inversion, and these types of
attribution bias can often get the best of us. (But we need not let
them.)
For
Further Reading until the next post:
- One of the $3 Kindle books about Cognitive Bias at Amazon.com
- Gilovich, Griffin & Kahneman's Heuristics and Biases
- Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
- Judith Herman's Trauma
and Recovery
