"Most People Don't Have Malice; You Just Don't Understand This Psychological Concept"

This article is Lu Canwei's 45th original piece.

Click the blue 【Lu Canwei】 above to follow; remember to add a ⭐️ star mark~

Have you ever noticed that sometimes when we can't reach a consensus with others, we tend to think that the person's attitude is problematic, or that their personality is just like that? In psychology, this is referred to as the fundamental attribution error.

The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency of people to attribute others' behaviors to their personality or attitude, while neglecting the importance of the situational context they are in.

How do we understand this statement? It means that when we evaluate others' behaviors, even with sufficient evidence to support our views, we still tend to overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors. We assume that a person must have a certain personality to behave in a particular way, while ignoring the possibility that they might have acted that way due to the circumstances they were facing at that moment.

Let’s take a common example: product managers and programmers. You may have often heard about programmers venting their frustrations on product managers, and there are even jokes about certain apps updating with a programmer being sacrificed.

For instance, there’s a joke we’ve heard before where a product manager proposed a requirement for an app to automatically change its skin based on the color of the phone case, and many programmers reacted angrily, claiming the product manager was being unreasonable and just stirring up trouble.

First, after seeing this hot topic, what are your thoughts? Do you think the product manager is causing trouble, that it’s technically unfeasible, and that it lacks significance?

Now, from the product manager's perspective, might they think that the programmers are simply unwilling to cooperate? This way, both sides fall into the fundamental attribution error. If we set aside the issue itself, it has completely turned into a judgment about the other person's character, ignoring the environmental factors.

If the programmers assumed that the product manager was not trying to make things difficult for them, they might consider why such a requirement was proposed. They might realize that the product manager actually wants to create a skin-changing feature, hoping to later offer different themes, or even a theme marketplace where users can upload their themes, allowing the company to earn revenue from creators.

Returning to this requirement, while automatic skin changing may not be feasible with current technology, the core need of the product manager might be to alleviate the difficulty users face in selecting from numerous themes. If that’s the case, could they use the camera to scan the phone case to obtain the color, and then use AI to calculate the color value ratio, matching it to similar themes?

Of course, this also reveals another issue with the product manager: their description of the requirement is not accurate, as they provided a solution instead. This might also stem from their lack of experience. The aforementioned factors regarding users, potential revenue, and other contextual information could lead them to such a conclusion.

Now, from the product manager's perspective, have they explored how this could be technically achieved, the feasibility of implementation, and the associated costs?

Have they considered why the programmers might not be cooperating? Is there an information asymmetry in their communication? Have they thought about how to clearly express what they truly want to achieve, and whether they could simplify the proposal or design a more reasonable solution?

If both sides could avoid the fundamental attribution error and trust each other, this situation would likely not turn into a joke.

I saw an extension of this joke online:

Product Manager: I want a fully transparent phone.

Programmer: XXX

(Both sides get into a scuffle)

某厂 Product Manager: I want a fully transparent phone.

某厂 Technician: Then just turn on the rear camera.

某厂 Product Manager: Huh? That makes sense.

Of course, many times we find ourselves in a situation where we understand the reasoning but can't control our reactions. Just the other day, I came across an article by Liu Run that mentioned emotions.

Typically, if someone proposes a bold idea, you might immediately reject it by saying, "Impossible."

At this moment, we should give ourselves 30 seconds to think about whether there’s anything worthwhile in the proposal, and if it could be achieved with additional resources. Secondly, we should replace negative language with positive language, avoiding self-fulfilling prophecies; things are often not as hopeless as we imagine.

Many things are beyond our control; we should focus our energy on what we can control and change what we can change.

Recommendations:

I hope you don't always think about getting rich quickly; gradually becoming wealthy is what we can achieve.

Persisting in daily updates—isn't it a form of self-satisfaction?

Today, let’s talk about Clubhouse.

Blindly trusting market research could ruin your brand overnight.

How to quickly recover from adversity? Here’s a tool for you.

Not sure what you excel at? You might need to take the Gallup Strengths Assessment.

How to make the right choices? You need to know these two pieces of information.

The four stages of cognition—what stage are you in?

Scan to follow 【Lu Canwei】, and send "self-media materials" in the background to receive two free benefits:

1. A self-media tool package (worth 1999 yuan).

2. An electronic version of the "2020 Wealth Calendar," containing 365 money-making tips.

The appreciation feature has been canceled; "Looking" is the strongest support ↘