It’s not a fallacy if the thing your projecting onto is an actual human with an actual human mind. Another way to see this is as using the priors on how humans tend to behave that evolution has provided you.
That only works if you’re (a) not running in to cultural differences and (b) not dealing with someone who has major neurological differences. Using your default priors on “how humans work” to handle an autistic or a schizophrenic is probably going to produce sub-par results. Same if you assume that “homosexuality is wrong” or “steak is delicious” is culturally universal.
It’s unlikely that you’ll run in to someone who prioritizes prime-sized stacks of pebbles, but it’s entirely likely you’ll run in to people who thinks eating meat is wrong, or that gay marriage ought to be legalized :)
Using your default priors on “how humans work” to handle an autistic or a schizophrenic is probably going to produce sub-par results.
They’re going to produce the result that this human’s brain is wired strangely and thus he’s liable to exhibit other strange and likely negative behaviors. Which is more-or-less accurate.
Because his comment is evidence for the hypothesis that he has a divergent neurology from mine, and is therefor liable to exhibit negative behaviors :P
Indeed, and it probably needs to be emphasized that nations are not monocultures. Americans reading mainly utilitarian blogs and Americans reading mainly deontologist blogs live in different cultures, for instance. (To say nothing about Americans reading atheist blogs and Americans reading fundamentalist blogs, let alone Americans reading any kinds of blogs and Americans who don’t read period.)
That only works if you’re (a) not running in to cultural differences and (b) not dealing with someone who has major neurological differences. Using your default priors on “how humans work” to handle an autistic or a schizophrenic is probably going to produce sub-par results. Same if you assume that “homosexuality is wrong” or “steak is delicious” is culturally universal.
It’s unlikely that you’ll run in to someone who prioritizes prime-sized stacks of pebbles, but it’s entirely likely you’ll run in to people who thinks eating meat is wrong, or that gay marriage ought to be legalized :)
They’re going to produce the result that this human’s brain is wired strangely and thus he’s liable to exhibit other strange and likely negative behaviors. Which is more-or-less accurate.
Why on Earth is this comment getting downvoted?
Because his comment is evidence for the hypothesis that he has a divergent neurology from mine, and is therefor liable to exhibit negative behaviors :P
My guess is it’s in response to the phrase “negative behaviors” describing a non-neurotypical person’s behavior.
Indeed, and it probably needs to be emphasized that nations are not monocultures. Americans reading mainly utilitarian blogs and Americans reading mainly deontologist blogs live in different cultures, for instance. (To say nothing about Americans reading atheist blogs and Americans reading fundamentalist blogs, let alone Americans reading any kinds of blogs and Americans who don’t read period.)