Current Events > This Will Smith debacle is a clear example of Psychological principles.

(+) Yeah! (+)

What Is the Fundamental Attribution Error? The fundamental attribution error refers to an individual's tendency to attribute another's actions to their character or personality, while attributing their behavior to external situatonal factors outside of their control

This goes beyond just ourselves. If it is someone we like, we tend to also apply this fundamental error.

example:

1.We like Will Smith. He clearly acted like a fucking idiotic jackass.
BUT! It is not his fault. The poor man is going through soooo much. We need to understand him and feel sorry for his situation.

We have attributed the excuse to factors outside of his control like we do for ourselves when we do stupid shit.

2.We don't like Chris Rock. How dare he. He should have known better. How can he be so insensitive?
Interesting isn't it that we have NO IDEA what is going on in Chris' life, yet everything that he has done is now instantly because of his own decisions. Why did he make the joke? What environmental factors lead to this? Does he have bad things going on in his life? Did he actually rehearse the joke or in a moment of low sleep it just popped into this head? etc

But if you don't like him, you don't care. You attribute it to his character flaws

There's more ways to look at it than just this but ok

RetsuZaiZen posted...

There's more ways to look at it than just this but ok

"I can't disprove what you said but I will pretend like I can and just say ok."

Not ok.

1.We like Will Smith. He clearly acted like a fucking idiotic jackass.
BUT! It is not his fault. The poor man is going through soooo much. We need to understand him and feel sorry for hissituation.

We have attributed the excuse to factors outside of his control like we do for ourselves when we do stupid shit.

2.We don't like Chris Rock. How dare he. He should have known better. How can he be so insensitive?
Interesting isn't it that we have NO IDEA what is going on in Chris' life, yet everything that he has done is now instantly because of his own decisions. Why did he make the joke? What environmental factors lead to this? Does he have bad things going on in his life? Did he actually rehearse the joke or in a moment of low sleep it just popped into this head? etc

But if you don't like him, you don't care. You attribute it to his character flaws

it sounds like you are the textbook case of this.

Fam_Fam posted...

1.We like Will Smith. He clearly acted like a fucking idiotic jackass.
BUT! It is not his fault. The poor man is going through soooo much. We need to understand him and feel sorry for hissituation.

We have attributed the excuse to factors outside of his control like we do for ourselves when we do stupid shit.

2.We don't like Chris Rock. How dare he. He should have known better. How can he be so insensitive?
Interesting isn't it that we have NO IDEA what is going on in Chris' life, yet everything that he has done is now instantly because of his own decisions. Why did he make the joke? What environmental factors lead to this? Does he have bad things going on in his life? Did he actually rehearse the joke or in a moment of low sleep it just popped into this head? etc

But if you don't like him, you don't care. You attribute it to his character flaws

it sounds like you are the textbook case of this.

Topic.

but what if I like(d) both?

I also haven't seen too many people get on Chris Rock that haven't also said Will was wrong to hit him

Fam_Fam posted...

it sounds like you are the textbook case of this.

Even defends of Will admit he acted like a fucking jackass. That is why the whole narrative exists to say he was going through a lot. If he acted like someone who was not a fucking jackass, there would be 0 need to find environmental factors to explain the situation.

As to Chris Rock, there is a few things we know. He is a comedian. He is paid to roast these people. If you want to grill him and paint him as evil, then go ahead. But doing that while saying Will did not act like a jackass puts you clearly into the target of my op.

I feel like it's a more clear example of Harry Potter/MCU derangement syndrome, wherein every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it. So most of the discourse around every single new event revolves around people arguing who was the "good" side and who deserves praise or scorn.

MrToothHasYou posted...

I feel like it's a more clear example of Harry Potter/MCU derangement syndrome, wherein every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it. So most of the discourse around every single new event revolves around people arguing who was the "good" side and who deserves praise or scorn.

This

Its a bad message to kids it teaches them violence is ok

MrToothHasYou posted...

I feel like it's a more clear example of Harry Potter/MCU derangement syndrome, wherein every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it. So most of the discourse around every single new event revolves around people arguing who was the "good" side and who deserves praise or scorn.

Correct. I am not here to say one side did good and the other bad. I am just showcasing this Fundamental Attribution Error at work.

skermy posted...

Its a bad message to kids it teaches them violence is ok

Is it not in certain situations? We could find certain scenarios where violence is indeed excused. Perhaps your contention then is this situation is not one of them.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Is it not in certain situations? We could find certain scenarios where violence is indeed excused. Perhaps your contention then is this situation is not one of them.

Idk I don't think violence should ever be excused. It can be understood, but not condoned.

MrToothHasYou posted...

I feel like it's a more clear example of Harry Potter/MCU derangement syndrome, wherein every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it. So most of the discourse around every single new event revolves around people arguing who was the "good" side and who deserves praise or scorn.

Erm this is a pretty clear cut situation dude

A lunatic ran onto a stage a punched a comedian for telling jokes, then screamed like a child.

That's about as cut and dry as you get. Save that both sides bullshit

UnfairRepresent posted...

Erm this is a pretty clear cut situation dude

A lunatic ran onto a stage a punched a comedian for telling jokes, then screamed like a child.

That's about as cut and dry as you get. Save that both sides bullshit

Lunatic? Please get over yourself.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Lunatic? Please get over yourself.

Slapped a man. Screams like a child. Starts bawling to try and garner sympathy. What else would you call this?

darkphoenix181 posted...

This goes beyond just ourselves. If it is someone we like, we tend to also apply this fundamental error.

example:

1.We like Will Smith. He clearly acted like a fucking idiotic jackass.
BUT! It is not his fault. The poor man is going through soooo much. We need to understand him and feel sorry for his situation.

We have attributed the excuse to factors outside of his control like we do for ourselves when we do stupid shit.

2.We don't like Chris Rock. How dare he. He should have known better. How can he be so insensitive?
Interesting isn't it that we have NO IDEA what is going on in Chris' life, yet everything that he has done is now instantly because of his own decisions. Why did he make the joke? What environmental factors lead to this? Does he have bad things going on in his life? Did he actually rehearse the joke or in a moment of low sleep it just popped into this head? etc

But if you don't like him, you don't care. You attribute it to his character flaws

I'm seeing many varied stances, even on this board and one of the most common one (which I agree with) is that we can understand why Smith got upset but being upset does not condone violence.

As for Rock, he was a comedian animating the Oscars. Making fun of various celebs is to be expected. Did the joke go too far? There is no such thing as an universal standard for that. All we can say is, clearly, Smith felt it did.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Erm this is a pretty clear cut situation dude

A lunatic ran onto a stage a punched a comedian for telling jokes, then screamed like a child.

That's about as cut and dry as you get. Save that both sides bullshit

See what I mean?

WingsOfGood posted...

Slapped a man. Screams like a child. Starts bawling to try and garner sympathy. What else would you call this?

One incident of slapping someone does not suddenly make you a lunatic. Especially when we're talking about the same guy that's tolerated years of people making fun of his marriage without any aggression.

MrToothHasYou posted...

See what I mean?

No not really.

I hope you don't think being centrist and yelling a word salad variant of "both sides" makes you sound intelligent

A guy clearly doing a bad thing and acting like a foolish child doesn't mean every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it.

I guess you're one of those "Well George Floyd had a fake $20 bill" fellas

Some things really aren't that complicated

Such as attacking a comedian for telling a joke and then screaming like a small child

People dont dislike Chris Rock so this argument fails right there. I will give you that Will Smith gets a pass because people like him though.

Individual differences are usually small. Almost always imperceptable in practice. The likelihood is that if you were placed in the same exact contexts, you would react similarly.

UnfairRepresent posted...

No not really.

I hope you don't think being centrist and yelling a word salad variant of "both sides" makes you sound intelligent

A guy clearly doing a bad thing and acting like a foolish child doesn't mean every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it.

I guess you're one of those "Well George Floyd had a fake $20 bill" fellas

Some things really aren't that complicated

Such as attacking a comedian for telling a joke and then screaming like a small child

lol

MrToothHasYou posted...

lol

There's never any nuance or context with that guy.

skermy posted...

Its a bad message to kids it teaches them violence is ok

On the contrary, it can help some of them immensely.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Erm this is a pretty clear cut situation dude

A lunatic ran onto a stage a punched a comedian for telling jokes, then screamed like a child.

That's about as cut and dry as you get. Save that both sides bullshit

100%
Will was wrong in numerous ways

RetsuZaiZen posted...

There's never any nuance or context with that guy.

I hope you don't think being centrist and yelling a word salad variant of "both sides" makes you sound intelligent

A guy clearly doing a bad thing and acting like a foolish child doesn't mean every narrative needs to have a "good" side and a "bad" side in order for people to be able to engage with it.

I guess you're one of those "Well George Floyd had a fake $20 bill" fellas

Some things really aren't that complicated

Such as attacking a comedian for telling a joke and then screaming like a small child

There really isn't a whole lot of nuance in this context.

You're the one proclaiming that means there's no nuance in every context. As opposed to this one.

And the fact the pair of you can't defend Will Smith's actions and instead just go "both sides" then "lol" and ad hominems kinda demonstrates that you don't really believe there is a justification for his childish actions.

Physical violence, screaming like a small child... Because a comedian told a joke.

Actions that would get any non celebritiy arrested. Actions that would get an immigrant deported.

This isn't an abortion or some complex moral dilema of battling compelling arguments. It's really pretty clear cut.

You wouldn't even be pretending to defend it if it wasn't someone like Will Smith.

UnfairRepresent posted...

There really isn't a whole lot of nuance in this context.

You're the one proclaiming that means there's no nuance in every context. As opposed to this one.

And the fact the pair of you can't defend Will Smith's actions and instead just go "both sides" then "lol" and ad hominems kinda demonstrates that you don't really believe there is a justification for his childish actions.

Physical violence, screaming like a small child... Because a comedian told a joke.

Actions that would get any non celebritiy arrested. Actions that would get an immigrant deported.

This isn't an abortion or some complex moral dilema of battling compelling arguments. It's really pretty clear cut.

You wouldn't even be pretending to defend it if it wasn't someone like Will Smith.

Its pretty telling that you think Im taking the position of defending Will Smith, here. Speaks pretty loudly about your mindset and continues to illustrate my point.

"People are acting like running on stage and attacking comedian because they told a joke and then screaming like a child, actions that would get any non famous person arrested, are bad actions. Just so they can pretend there's a "good" and "bad" side when in reality it's a really nuanced situation I just can't explain how and also you have derangement syndrome.

I'm not defending him!"

Uhuh...

Want to try a second draft?

UnfairRepresent posted...

"People are acting like running on stage and attacking comedian because they told a joke and then screaming like a child, actions that would get any non famous person arrested, are bad actions. Just so they can pretend there's a "good" and "bad" side when in reality it's a really nuanced situation I just can't explain how and also you have derangement syndrome.

I'm not defending him!"

Uhuh...

Want to try a second draft?

Whats really funny to me is that the TCs point was that people were using this psychology phenomenon to defend Will and denigrate Chris, and I came in and was like yeah its fucked up how people do that when no one was right in that situation but they always gotta find someone to be the good guy and your response to that discourse was holy shit I cant believe you people have the nerve to defend Will Smiths violent outburst!

Make it make sense my man.

COVxy posted...

Individual differences are usually small. Almost always imperceptable in practice. The likelihood is that if you were placed in the same exact contexts, you would react similarly.

When you say "same exact contexts" do you mean that I lived Will Smith's life up to this point?

Because idk whether that's saying much unique about this situation.

MrToothHasYou posted...

Whats really funny to me is that the TCs point was that people were using this psychology phenomenon to defend Will and denigrate Chris, and I came in and was like yeah its fucked up how people do that when no one was right in that situation but they always gotta find someone to be the good guy and your response to that discourse was holy shit I cant believe you people have the nerve to defend Will Smiths violent outburst!

Make it make sense my man.

Ok several things

1. Chris Rock was "right in that situation"
2. Yes this is a defensive of Will Smith. You are constantly strawmanning and downplaying what he did and making veiled claims that it's a deeply nuanced situation when it isn't.
3. My response wasn't "You're defending Will" it was

Erm this is a pretty clear cut situation dude

A lunatic ran onto a stage a punched a comedian for telling jokes, then screamed like a child.

That's about as cut and dry as you get. Save that both sides bullshit

And you ignored it. YOUR response to this discourse was "lol" and then lies.

It was a direct attack on your silly claim that anyone who criticizes Will Smith's pretty objectively stupid and harmful actions is "Deranged" and "Can only see black and white where they praise good and denouce bad."

That was a stupid claim on your part and you ran away when it was challenged. Now you're strawmanning that it wasn't your weak point that was attacked, but instead you were simply accused of defending Will.

No one even said anything about Chris Rock being a "good guy" you inserted that. He was being a comic. He told a joke.

Then Will Smith attacked him and screamed like a child.

This isn't Israel and Palestine. It's a dude who did nothing wrong and a lunatic who did several things wrong.

And again the fact you have to repeatedly lie and strawman (while not being able to defend your point) demonstrates this.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Ok several things

1. Chris Rock was "right in that situation"

Sure, except that no, he wasnt.

MrToothHasYou posted...

Whats really funny to me is that the TCs point was that people were using this psychology phenomenon to defend Will and denigrate Chris, and I came in and was like yeah its fucked up how people do that when no one was right in that situation but they always gotta find someone to be the good guy and your response to that discourse was holy shit I cant believe you people have the nerve to defend Will Smiths violent outburst!

Make it make sense my man.

Pretty accurate and not far off how I see it.

Anteaterking posted...

When you say "same exact contexts" do you mean that I lived Will Smith's life up to this point?

Because idk whether that's saying much unique about this situation.

Yeah. Just saying that the differences largely aren't intrinsic, and therefore aren't tied to essentialist properties like "character".

MrToothHasYou posted...

Sure, except that no, he wasnt.

Once again you ignore every point that rips your incredibly poor argument apart including pointing out all your many lies and strawmen.

And how in any way was Chris Rock in the wrong?

He was a stand up comic who was being paid to stand up and tell jokes. So he stood up and told jokes.

Then a lunatic leaped onto the stage, attacked him and screamed like a child.

Then Chris Rock professionally continued his job.

How is calling the lunatic's actions bad a deranged demonstration of not being able to see nuance in any discussion or situation?

Again if it wasn't Will Smith or someone like him, you wouldn't be saying this nonsense that even you don't believe for a second.

UnfairRepresent posted...

And how in any way was Chris Rock in the wrong?

Making fun of someone with a medical condition is low and is done with the purpose to offend that person and put an unwanted spotlight on them.

That doesn't justify what Will Smith did. Understanding why someone is offended or upset doesn't mean you justify everything they do afterwards.

I'm also not saying Chris Rock is some ruthless asshole either. I doubt he wanted to offend them and it's entirely possible he didn't know it was a sore spot.

Also for fuck's sake can we stop with the "lunatic" sensationalist nonsense? One incident of a grown man slapping another grown man for perceived disrespect towards his wife doesn't make him a "lunatic" and everybody on their high horse shit right now has probably done stupid, emotionally charged things at some point in their life too.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Making fun of someone with a medical condition is low and is done with the purpose to offend that person and put an unwanted spotlight on them.

That doesn't justify what Will Smith did. Understanding why someone is offended or upset doesn't mean you justify everything they do afterwards.

I'm also not saying Chris Rock is some ruthless asshole either. I doubt he wanted to offend them and it's entirely possible he didn't know it was a sore spot.

You can't even keep your story straight.

Chris Rock never wanted to offended them, the joke was not "made with the purpose of offending them" it was to make people laugh. Which for the record, Will Smith did before he then pretended to be offended.

Chris Rock didn't do anything wrong. Will Smith's wife being offended doesn't make Chris Rock telling a joke wrong.

If a guy smashes up your car with a crowbar, him going "Well my wife said you looked at her funny and I was offended" doesn't mean you were both in the wrong. It was just him. 100%

UnfairRepresent posted...

You can't even keep your story straight.

I don't know what the actual story is because I don't know either person, the context of their relationships towards each other, the moments that lead up to that moment or what was running through their minds as they were doing it.

It is possible that Chris Rock wanted to get a rise out of them but didn't expect it escalate like this. It's also possible that he just didn't know she had a medical condition and the joke didn't land as he intended. That's what people mean by nuance. There's no story for me to keep straight. It isn't my story.

It's silly, over the top celebrity drama that isn't all that serious as much as people want it to be. It's a slap and a tantrum in response to being offended over a joke. I think it's okay for them to be offended over the joke but it's not okay for Will to react like he did.

People are going to read into this story however they want. That's celebrity life I guess.

Punished_Blinx posted...

I don't know what the actual story is because I don't know either person, the context of their relationships towards each other, the moments that lead up to that moment or what was running through their minds as they were doing it.

It is possible that Chris Rock wanted to get a rise out of them but didn't expect it escalate like this. It's also possible that he just didn't know she had a medical condition and the joke didn't land as he intended. That's what people mean by nuance. There's no story for me to keep straight. It isn't my story.

It's silly, over the top celebrity drama that isn't all that serious as much as people want it to be. It's a slap and a tantrum in response to being offended over a joke. I think it's okay for them to be offended over the joke but it's not okay for Will to react like he did.

Every single one of you who is doing the "I'm not defending Will Smith but both sides, nuance, you're all deranged!" nonsense keeps doing the same thing where you cut out all the parts of the post that rip your point apart and only quote one sentence to respond too

Absolutely none of this puts Chris Rock in the wrong, which was your claim. It's not "nuance" go to "Well maybe Chris Rock thought will Smith would be offended and maybe he didn't."

And again, "offended" Will Smith laughed at the "Offensive joke that was intended to be offensive but Chris Rock didn't intend to cause offense."

"We don't know what was going through Chris Rock's head, therefore both him and Will Smith are in the wrong" is nonsense

Again if a guy smashes up your car because he claims his wife thought you lookedat her funny and was offended, the point of "Well maybe you did look at her funny, maybe she took the look the wrong way. Therefore you're both in the wrong, it's nuanced. You're deranged and can only see one good side and one evil side in every situation!" is total nonsense

This whole argument is utterly nutterly butterly and only being presented because the dude in the wrong is someone like Will Smith

The fact none of you can even keep your claim consistent or respond to people's points tearing it apart just shows you don't even believe it yourselves.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Again if a guy smashes up your car

This isn't quite the same situation as literal property damage.

People laugh at almost anything in a live show. I doubt what Rock had said had actually sunk in. But if you want to use it as proof that Will Smith faked being offended so he could act like a lunatic for whatever reason then you do you. It's pretty obvious why you're getting so rustled over tame statements when you have invested yourself into that narrative already.

Comparing a 'look' to a joke making fun of someone's appearance made in front of millions of people means the allegory doesn't work sorry. Try find a better one.

Punished_Blinx posted...

People laugh at almost anything in a live show. I doubt what Rock had said had actually sunk in. But if you want to use it as proof that Will Smith faked being offended so he could act like a lunatic for whatever reason then you do you

Yeah because he didn't want his wife to be mad at him

. It's pretty obvious why you're getting so rustled over tame statements when you have invested yourself into that narrative already.

"tame" statements like when someone attacks someone else and screams like a child. You claim both people are in the wrong but can't explain why....

No pointing out the gigantic flaws in your argument is not "Being too invested in that narrative" and you know it. Hence why all you can do is ignore every point people make.

Comparing a 'look' to a joke making fun of someone's appearance made in front of millions of people means the allegory doesn't work sorry. Try find a better one.

"I can't respond to that point so I won't."

Typical. You know your entire "narrative" is totall bullshit and are too cowardly to admit it

Chris Rock did nothing wrong.

Will Smith was acting like a lunatic and so people saying that's bad.

"Well maybe Chris Rock thought it would offend him and maybe he didn't." isn't nuance, it doesn't make this complicated. This is obvious. This doesn't mean those people are deranged, nor that every situation is this cut and dry.

If it was any random joe and not Will Smith or someone like him. They would be arrested.

And you know this is true. No matter how many points you ignore, how many lies you tell, how many times you change your story and how many times you say "narrative."

If you attack a comedian for telling a joke and then scream like a child. You're in the wrong and the comedian isn't.

My only narrative is;

• Chris Rock shouldn't have made the G.I Jane joke
• Will Smith was legitimately upset and offended from it which lead to his meltdown
• Will Smith shouldn't have slapped Chris Rock

That's it.

And here you are writing out essays, calling people lunatics and talking about smashing up cars.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah because he didn't want his wife to be mad at him

You're imprinting a narrative that may not actually exist. Which is why you are offended over the MCU post.

UnfairRepresent posted...

If it was any random joe and not Will Smith or someone like him. They would be arrested.

People have slapped others after being offended and have avoided being arrested pretty often.

If you mean a stand-up comedy show? Of course. But this is elevated celebrity drama. I can shave my head and be taken into an ambulance and not have pictures of it plastered around the world. Celebrities are on a different level.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Chris Rock shouldn't have made the G.I Jane joke
Will Smith was legitimately upset and offended from it which lead to his meltdown
Will Smith shouldn't have slapped Chris Rock

That's it.

No it's not. You claimed Chris Rock was in the wrong for the joke. That's different to "shouldn't have made."

Chris Rock did nothing wrong and his joke doesn't make the situation nuanced.

And again, if it wasn't someone like Will Smith, if it was Bill and Ben at the bar, you would not be pretending it did

You probably shouldn't have given the dude who smashed up your car's wife a funny look.

You still did nothing wrong.

And here you are writing out essays, calling people lunatics and talking about smashing up cars.

only person I called a Lunatic was Will Smith

And the smashing car example was to point out how stupid your logic was that if someone else does something wrong to someone, they're both in the wrong because "well he claims he was offended."

And claiming every point that proves your wrong is "an essay" doesn't work as an excuse to ignore it. It's a lazy handwave of ironclad points you can't counter.

Punished_Blinx posted...

You're imprinting a narrative that may not actually exist. Which is why you are offended over the MCU post.

You say a moment after claiming Will Smith was offended...

You'd have less hypocrisy if you kept your story straight

Dude chose to defend the honor of his wife. Nothing wrong here. Move along.

Though if you're looking for nuance, Jada did do him wrong with the cuck thing. Technically he shouldn't be married to her because of that. But he chose to continue, so it is what it is.

*eye roll* I really hate how soft people in this country have become sometimes.

UnfairRepresent posted...

No it's not. You claimed Chris Rock was in the wrong for the joke. That's different to "shouldn't have made."

Why?

As for your analogies
https://twitter.com/SAINTDIAVOLO/status/1508300545051840515

UnfairRepresent posted...

You say a moment after claiming Will Smith was offended...

I believe he was offended and angry yes.

If you don't then there's no possible nuance, understanding or empathy that's going to be possible for you to reach. So there's nowhere else for this conversation to go.

What is the difference between action and behavior?