Fundamental attribution error

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational explanations for an individual’s observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations for their behavior. This effect has been described as “the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are”.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby

Cybernetics[edit]

Ross Ashby was one of the original members of the Ratio Club, a small informal dining club of young psychologists, physiologists, mathematicians and engineers who met to discuss issues in cybernetics. The club was founded in 1949 by the neurologist John Bates and continued to meet until 1958.

The title of his book An Introduction to Cybernetics popularised the usage of the term ‘cybernetics’ to refer to self-regulating systems, originally coined by Norbert Wiener in Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.

The book dealt primarily with homeostatic processes within living organisms, rather than in an engineering or electronic context.

Earlier, in 1946, Alan Turing wrote a letter^[7] to Ashby suggesting that Ashby use Turing’s Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) for his experiments instead of building a special machine. In 1948, Ashby made the Homeostat.^[8]

Its a question of Connections which are made or what are called edge cases in programming David,
Our sentience give us edge cases which lead us to jump outside of the box, the ting of it is that accepting the unknowable is what makes us potentially intelligent
machine learning or artificial intelligence is pretty much insane by definition in my opinion.
Emergence is the thing!

at 54 minutes is the Beer anecdote I told you about on gut feeling and wicked problems
Stafford Beer explains to a group of students his relationship with Cybernetics, the Science of Control and Communications in the animal and the machine.

Ross Ashby

https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/01/29/curating-and-artefacts-meeting-of-minds-on-ais-and-other-inductive-abstractions/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby

Got the details a bit wrong but the punchline regarding gut feeling.
“Follow a hunch” and if you don’t have a hunch toss a coin, the only rational thing to do.
worth watching the full thing.
one last one on Euler’s number.

Don Stewart on October 7, 2019 at 4:11 pm said:

Don Stewart
PS Heavily influenced by pages 167 and following in Tversky’s book.

rogerglewis on October 5, 2019 at 3:08 pm said:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@loupaLoupa

https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/10/05/part-2-or-is-it-threeofan-exchange-with-the-climate-church-of-armageddon-continues-a-letter-to-greta-from-freinds-of-science-cool-it-and-so-comes-the-wrong-think-police-climatefraud-climatecul/
Same message as to Steven. I have added my response to my Blog as a seperate post.
ouploup2
on October 4, 2019 at 8:17 pm said:
The Threading is pretty sketchy on WordPress here and not made easier by posts not being sanctioned when in response to ongoing discussion Tim?

Reply ↓
rogerglewis on October 5, 2019 at 3:14 pm said:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@Steven Steven B Kurtz
on October 4, 2019 at 3:49 pm said:
I posted this on Roger’s blog (use his link). The reference to Lietaer is that Roger used his work on money as support for his position on non-physical reality.

rogerglewis
on October 5, 2019 at 2:31 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/10/05/ying-and-yang-and-the-climate-church-strawman-grubstreetjournal-wiki_ballot/

My comments here are always moderated regardless of length or links so as this is a long response I have responded at the Blog and made that response a post.

https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/10/04/an-exchange-with-the-climate-church-of-armageddon-continues-a-letter-to-greta-from-freinds-of-science-cool-it-and-so-comes-the-wrong-think-police-climatefraud-climatecult-greta-extinctiondistin/comment-page-1/#comment-5670
Explanations
Culture. It has been suggested cultural differences occur in attribution error:^[28] people from individualistic (Western) cultures are reportedly more prone to the error while people from collectivistic cultures are less prone.^[29] Based on cartoon-figure presentations to Japanese and American subjects, it has been suggested that collectivist subjects may be more influenced by information from context (for instance being influenced more by surrounding faces in judging facial expressions^[30]). Alternatively, individualist subjects may favor processing of focal objects, rather than contexts.^[31] Others suggest Western individualism is associated with viewing both oneself and others as independent agents, therefore focusing more on individuals rather than contextual details.^[32]
Based on the preceding differences between causal attribution and correspondence inference, some researchers argue that the fundamental attribution error should be considered as the tendency to make dispositional rather than situational explanations for behavior, whereas the correspondence bias should be considered as the tendency to draw correspondent dispositional inferences from behavior.^[38]^[39] With such distinct definitions between the two, some cross-cultural studies also found that cultural differences of correspondence bias are not equivalent to those of fundamental attribution error. While the latter has been found to be more prevalent in individualistic cultures than collectivistic cultures, correspondence bias occurs across cultures,^[40]^[41]^[42] suggesting differences between the two phrases.