Social life is like an assault course through a minefield. You would think it the most natural thing to get along with other people - we're all people, after all - but it isn't. Potential gaffes, blunders and faux pas lurk unseen in the path of every meeting and exchange. You blank on the name of an old friend during introductions; you mistake an acquaintance for her mother; you offer a glass of wine to a recovering alcoholic. Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm is only more socially inept than the rest of us in the way that Buster Keaton is more reserved or Laurel & Hardy more clumsy. We feel our toes curling as we watch because we have done nearly the same things ourselves - many, many times. When two or three are gathered together, Bozo sapiens is sure to be among them.
Why is this so? Why do even the best intentions lead us to put our foot in it? Why is social adjustment, behaving well with others, something we still have to teach our children, despite millions of years of experience as gregarious primates?
The problem lies so deep in the fabric of our perception that it has earned an impressively general label: the Fundamental Attribution Error. Originally identified through the work of Ned Jones and Lee Ross in the 1960s, this quirk of human assumption appears robustly in study after study. In outline, it works like this: we assume that other people behave as they do because that is their nature; we ourselves, however, behave as we do because we have assessed the situation and logically chosen a course. We alone respond to changing circumstance; others simply are the way they are.
In its extreme form, this error drives most national, racial, and political stereotypes: we believe that, say, President Ahmadinejad of Iran taunts the US simply because he hates us; it's his nature. Our leaders, on the other hand, have to manage a complex political reality, so they might say things that shouldn't be taken at face value. Women and men can categorize each other in the same erroneous way: it is the nature of you men to be obsessed with power or you women to be indecisive. We (women or men) know better.
Even in self-image - that is, considering ourselves as if we were someone else - we can fall into the Fundamental Attribution Error. When we say "someone like me could never do that," we are making an assumption about our natures that may not be accurate or fair. After all, given the right circumstances, many people can achieve the most surprising things, from saving lives to creating art.
The source of the error is so deep because it is is part of the basic way the brain functions, seeking shortcuts in order to make best use of limited mental resources. Since we can't know everything about others, we snap to simplified assumptions in order to come to a conclusion and move on. Revisiting and correcting those assumptions takes more effort, so we tend to avoid it - but. like all exercise, it is a good thing to do. The moment spent imagining what you would do under the same circumstances is never wasted.
In the meantime, we should take comfort from the fact that the Fundamental Attribution Error isn't always a bad thing. For instance, if I tell you that I really like what you're wearing today, it might just be a response to the situation: I could be thinking that this is a good way to put you at your ease, or to avoid an awkward silence. But if you tell me the same thing, I'll probably believe that you meant it and that you are a genuinely nice person. I can't help it; it's my nature.
