Fundamental Attribution Error

Somewhere in my formal education, I’m not sure exactly when or where, I was exposed to what is perhaps the most poorly named, yet critical behavioral concept. It’s called “Fundamental Attribution Error.” With a handle like that, it could be anything, right?

The textbook definition of Fundamental Attribution Error describes it as “The tendency for attributors to underestimate the influence of situational factors and overestimate dispositional factors in attributing others’ behavior.” Did you get all of that?

The way it was explained to me is this: If I offend you, I didn’t mean it. I had to do or say whatever it is that upset you because of circumstances beyond my control and, by the way, you are just being too sensitive. On the other hand, if you offend me, you did it on purpose. You meant it. You probably woke up this morning thinking ways to get under my skin. You’re a rat.

That’s Fundamental Attribution error, and it’s a model (albeit exaggerated) of how our monkey brains operate, particularly when we are under stress. Simply being aware of that dynamic is a lynchpin of workplace conflict resolution, but it also comes in handy in family and social life and is indispensable when dealing with drunks and children.

What causes me to mention this? Social media. For a long time, social media was a great source of satisfaction for me. Before I moved to McCook more than 25 years ago, I had been somewhat nomadic, and social media allowed me to reconnect with people from different decades and in different parts of the world. Now, social media is not so much fun anymore.

Politics have always been contentious on social media. That’s nothing new. Folks on the left have been a very unhappy (if not unstable) lot for the past three years. Yes, the reactions have sometimes been sinister. but it fascinates me to see otherwise sane, rational people reduced to hissing and spitting and muttering gibberish over one braggadocious, undisciplined New Yorker.

Of course, discussions about the coronavirus haven’t helped things. The left continues its dissatisfaction with the administration. When the President tries to be upbeat or optimistic about the situation, he is accused of deliberately lying, and what’s hurtful to all of us is the portrayal of anyone who wants the economy to get back on its feet as being indifferent to human life; as wanting to kill grandma.

Also particularly difficult to watch are my friends on the right, with whom I am frequently in agreement. Under the strain of the lockdown, they are beginning to show cracks in their collective psyche as well. Rather than questioning the constitutionality of imposed quarantines, restraint of trade and suspension of the right to assemble (which I believe are all questions worth asking), they seem to be more drawn to misinformation and paranoia.

On the misinformation side of the equation, I see numerous posts and memes that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the purpose of masking (hint: it’s not to protect the person wearing the mask), but little or no acknowledgment that professional opinions about masking have evolved over time. When we were first learning about the virus, the “experts” suggested that there was no need for the wide-spread adoption of face masks. At the time, we were short on masks (because China hoarded them like Americans hoard toilet paper) and we were concerned that if we all ran out and purchased them, there wouldn’t be enough for hospital workers. We were also unaware at the time that so many people were walking around having contracted the virus, but without symptoms. A couple of months later, that consensus changed, and face masks were recommended. All sorts of evil intentions have been read into the reversal of that position, but it has simply evolved along with our understanding of the virus.

Suffice it to say that, by and large, the conspiracy theories don’t resonate with me either. I have been openly critical when the left claims 20/20 hindsight and accuses the administration of acting too slowly. I would make the same defense of the mathematical modeling that our precautions are based upon. An event of this magnitude has not happened in our lifetimes, and it has been on-the-job training for all of us--even the “experts.” Rather than view the modeling as a worst-case-scenario based upon an evolving understanding of the pandemic, my friends on the right ascribe ill intentions to those numbers. They believe it to be a trick. We’re being manipulated.

Here’s another one: Would the left intentionally tank the economy just to win the next election? I imagine that there are a few who would, but just remember that just as half of the COVID fatalities are Republicans, half of the shuttered businesses are owned by Democrats. Half of the people who are unemployed voted for Hillary. The virus doesn’t respect party lines, and neither do the lockdowns, so that theory doesn’t seem plausible to me either, at least not on a grand scale.

While we’re still on conspiracies, let’s also note that it is general knowledge that the fatality count is overstated. The CDC does much of its tracking through death certificates, and if there’s the slightest hint that COVID-19 contributed to a death, they want it recorded so they can track it geographically. Anyone who follows the news knows this. The first rule of conspiracies is that there has to be a secret involved. If it’s general knowledge, it’s not a very good conspiracy.

And last, my conservative friends, a few of you were way too anxious to hop on the bandwagon with that “Plandemic” video. I shudder every time I see it reposted. For those not familiar with the phenomena, a doctor and researcher in the epidemiology community is the subject of a viral video portraying her as a whistleblower who predicted the epidemic, but was muzzled and run out of town in an apparent coverup. It only takes a modicum of curiosity to learn that her published papers didn’t pass peer review and she was a disgruntled employee who swiped company files. Not exactly Joan of Arc. Not my hero, but if we are open to ill intentions, then it fits the narrative, true or not.

In the end, it all circles back around to fundamental attribution error. We are so frustrated by current circumstances, and so stressed that we are finding fault and dishonesty and deception in others, when in fact, we are all in the same lousy situation together. Most conservatives don’t want your grandmother to die. Most liberals don’t want to tank the economy, and most Governor’s aren’t out to trample our constitutional liberties (although a few seem to be). As Nebraskans, we are fortunate to live in one of the states where the guidelines, by and large, are unenforced and compliance has been adopted voluntarily, out of consideration for others; for the common good. Let’s be grateful for that.