The Stupidity Attribution Error

When we try to understand why others do what they do, we engage in a kind of thought activity called attribution. Briefly, attribution is the process of identifying a cause — or more rarely, causes — for the behavior of another. For example, when several people laugh together, we would typically attribute that behavior to a cause such as their having heard something funny, as might have occurred if someone else had told them a joke. Other causes are possible, of course. For example, they might be engaged in a conspiracy to make another person feel excluded. Read more about attribution.

Attribution is a thought process that is both frequently used and essential for social interaction. Mistakes are common, too. People who work together solving difficult problems are especially vulnerable to making one particular kind of attribution error that I like to call the Stupidity Attribution Error. It's actually a special case of the Fundamental Attribution Error. (See "The Fundamental Attribution Error," Point Lookout for May 5, 2004, for more)

Here's how it works. In an extended debate about potential solutions to a difficult problem, one of the participants — I'll call her Jordan — proposes an elegant candidate solution. It happens that understanding why Jordan's proposed solution is worthy of detailed consideration requires some background that many of the other participants lack. After struggling for almost an hour to understand Jordan's proposal, the group decides to set it aside and consider alternatives that are less controversial. By that point in the discussion, Jordan is frustrated and angry. She thinks to herself, "These people are idiots. They rejected my idea because they're too stupid to understand it." Her conclusion is incorrect because she doesn't realize that many of the other participants lack the background needed to understand her idea.

In knowledge work, To commit the Stupidity Attribution
Error is to choose incorrectly to
attribute to stupidity the decision
of others to adopt or fail to adopt
a proposed solution to a problemto commit the Stupidity Attribution Error is to choose incorrectly to attribute to stupidity the decision of others to adopt or fail to adopt a proposed solution to a problem, or to adopt or fail to adopt a concept as part of their ongoing deliberations. In choosing to attribute their decision to stupidity in preference to any number of alternative possible attributions, we expose ourselves to risk of error when we fail to consider those alternatives.

Before listing some of those alternatives, we must distinguish them from "stupidity." In everyday parlance, stupidity is slow-wittedness. It is a lack of intelligence that limits the ability to think clearly and to reason to conclusions on the basis of evidence. With that definition of stupidity in mind, let's consider some alternative reasons why someone might make what we consider a wrong-headed decision. In what follows, I'll use the name Albert to refer to the person whom Jordan regards as "stupid."

Ignorance

Ignorance is the state of being unaware. It's possible that Albert fails to find Jordan's arguments persuasive because he lacks knowledge that's required to understand Jordan's arguments. Or possibly Albert cannot weigh Jordan's points appropriately because he lacks the knowledge needed to do so.

If we could provide Albert with the missing knowledge, he might be fully capable of grasping Jordan's ideas. But we don't always know what knowledge is missing. Even if we do know, Albert might not be willing to accept it, especially if it's forced upon him in a disrespectful or condescending manner.

Misinformation

In terms of its effects, being misinformed is similar to being ignorant. Misinformation can lead Albert to evaluate Jordan's arguments incorrectly. But in some ways, misinformation can be more destructive of group interaction, because providing the correct information isn't always sufficient to motivate the misinformed to alter their decisions or judgments.

As with ignorance, we don't always know what misinformation needs correcting. And providing correct information might not be sufficient — invalidating the misinformation might also be necessary. In the moment, that can be difficult.

Compulsion

Some people are unable to deal with certain issues rationally. For example, race bias, gender bias, or other social biases can distort assessments of performance or capability. (See "The Ultimate Attribution Error at Work," Point Lookout for February 21, 2018, for more) Some feel compelled to bully or harass subordinates. Worse, perhaps, are those who feel compelled to abuse organizational authority to bully or harass others or to gain personal advantage — economic or otherwise.

Using reasoned argument to adjust the attitudes or behavior of such people is rarely effective. But it's plainly incorrect to conclude that these people are "stupid" solely on the basis that their compulsions make them immune to rational argument.

Coercion

In some debate situations, the person who actually decides the issue in question isn't a participant in the debate. For example, Albert's supervisor, Super-Albert, might have instructed him not to agree to any of Jordan's proposals. And further, Super-Albert might have told Albert to "be creative" about the reasons for the positions he takes, so as to conceal the fact that he has been directed to reject Jordan's work. "Directed" might actually be a misleading term if Albert understands Super-Albert to be threatening him with termination or disciplinary action if he deviates from Super-Albert's plan.

Even when coercion is at the root of what seems to be irrational behavior, we don't always have evidence that coercion is a factor. And frequently, coerced individuals are reluctant to disclose the coercion. Some experience shame about being coerced. Others fear — reasonably — that disclosing the coercion could have even more severe consequences than violating the original directive would have.

There are many more possible alternatives to stupidity as explanations for someone's apparent inability to grasp the truth in an argument. One alternative worthy of special mention is a lack of critical thinking skills (See "Critical Thinking and Midnight Pizza," Point Lookout for April 23, 2003). Critical thinking is the process of drawing sound inferences based on evidence and principles. To think critically requires discipline. More important, critical thinking requires strict avoidance of the traps and tricks that are so common in casual debate, such as Rhetorical Fallacies, deception, self-deception, entrapment, or withholding information. Someone who lacks critical thinking skills, or who chooses not to apply them, might appear to be slow-witted. But to repeatedly attribute to stupidity a failure to apply critical thinking skills could be perhaps the best example of the stupidity attribution error.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

Self-Serving Bias in Organizations

We all want to believe that we can rely on the good judgment of decision makers when they make decisions that affect organizational performance. But they're human, and they are therefore subject to a cognitive bias known as self-serving bias. Here's a look at what can happen.

Why Scope Expands: I

Scope creep is depressingly familiar. Its anti-partner, spontaneous and stealthy scope contraction, has no accepted name, and is rarely seen. Why?

Historical Debates at Work

One obstacle to high performance in teams is the historical debate — arguing about who said what and when, or who agreed to what and when. Here are suggestions for ending and preventing historical debates.

Overconfidence at Work

Confidence in our judgments and ourselves is essential to success. Confidence misplaced — overconfidence — leads to trouble and failure. Understanding the causes and consequences of overconfidence can be most useful.

Cognitive Biases and Influence: I

The techniques of influence include inadvertent — and not-so-inadvertent — uses of cognitive biases. They are one way we lead each other to accept or decide things that rationality cannot support.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 23: Power Distance and Teams

One of the attributes of team cultures is something called power distance, which is a measure of the overall comfort people have with inequality in the distribution of power. Power distance can determine how well a team performs when executing high-risk projects. Available here and by RSS on October 23.

And on October 30: Power Distance and Risk

Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk. Available here and by RSS on October 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership

On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history. Read more about this program.

Here's a date for this program:

• Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio 44017: November 7, Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
   

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.