The Fundamental Attribution Error:
When we are unable to fully realize the specific circumstances and perspective from which a person is making their decisions, reaching their conclusions and emerging with their behaviors and attitudes, we are unable to see a condition in which we might do the same, and so instead we tend to attribute it to something fundamental about the person, who they are and how they are different from us. Personally, I tend to view it as a red flag for a narrative, the difference between an understanding a person and describing a character in a story someone tells themselves.
This can greatly impact how we practice typology:
In practice, we might be conflating our notions of how other types behave with circumstantial behaviors. This is probably common in situations were certain social roles create a demand for certain behaviors - so your boss might be more likely to be feel like a ExTJ and your therapist might feel more like an IxFJ, because the first is under pressure to get things done and the 2nd is motivated to understand where you are coming from. Over time, it might even change how they see themselves.
It's even possible that we'll use framing to make a mental fence dividing the same behaviors into the situations in which we are able to understand the circumstances and situations in which we aren't, identifying the first as our own type or a type that has more in common with us and the later as a more distinct type, despite resulting in the exact same behavior.
A step above that, understanding this can either cast doubt or greatly improve how we think about typology:
It is possible that the fundamental attribution error is at the core of typology, and without it there would be nothing left. But I think its also possible that we could use this understanding to do typology better, by stripping away the notion that these are fundamental attributes of how the person is behaving, we can try to empathize with the assumption that however they are behaving and whatever decisions they are making must make sense to them and is legitimized from their own perspective and from their point of view, and use typology to better understand how people digest similar information to construct different points of view.
What are your thoughts?
In what ways have you seen people or caught yourself falling for the fundamental attribution error when practicing typology or trying to understand a person or a type? In what ways do you think typology still holds merit, obscures our willingness to understand where other people are coming from and instead attribute it to type? Alternatively, can typology help us overcome this by allowing us to see how people might be coming from a different perspective then we'd otherwise assume?