BP and the Fundamental Attribution Error
Essays, Featured — By Stephen Simpson on June 2, 2010 at 2:00 pmThe fundamental attribution error is psychological jargon for attributing one cause to something with many causes . The phrase is typically used in reference to human behavior, but I think it can be applied to social and cultural phenomena. For example, when I’m stuck in traffic and start
shouting at the cars in front of me to move faster, I’m committing a fundamental attribution error. I’m stuck in traffic because of systemic problems. The number of cars, the geometric properties of the road, and fender benders on the other side of town all conspire to slow my morning commute. In fact, I’m adding to the problem by trying to get to work at this time on this road. I am the traffic. I might as well yell at myself.
We oversimplify complicated situations all the time. We throw pat answers at intricate problems. We don’t do this because we’re evil or even stupid. Our brains are parsimonious when it comes to causation. Our neurological default is to identify single causes. We have to learn to think systemically.
After the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill, I expected vitriol from my liberal friends. I was stupefied when everyone, including some Facebook friends of Sarah Palin, began raging against BP. They accused BP of being irresponsible, greedy, and hostile toward the environment. I don’t know enough about the company or the situation to intelligently rebut any of these claims. However, making BP the evil corporate giant and the rest of us a bunch of hapless victims oversimplifies a massive and complex problem.
Blaming BP for the catastrophe in the Gulf is a classic case of the fundamental attribution error. We rely on oil for fundamental human needs. Western civilization would collapse without transportation. For example, most cities in the United States would run out of prescription drugs and medical supplies within weeks. We need fuel to survive. We all know this, but we don’t think about it. If we did, maybe we’d push harder for the widespread introduction of alternative fuels.
We all know where oil comes from. Did any of us really think that extracting petroleum from the ocean floor and processing it on top of the ocean was not dangerous? We accept the risk because we don’t have a choice. I rely on oil and so do you. Until that changes, the political, economic, and environmental problems related to oil will escalate. This is our problem as much as BP’s.
Widespread use of alternative fuel sources needs to start as soon possible. Clean, viable alternatives already exist, but change won’t happen overnight. And, as much as some of us might hate the idea, the change needs to be done in a way that protects the oil companies as much as possible. Though I’m sure evil oil barons exist somewhere, most of the people working for companies like BP are not bad people. The oil companies should be invited to join the transition in a way that will ultimately be profitable. Otherwise, we’ll have to fight them. Fighting leads to blame and oversimplification.
I am not defending BP. From what I understand, this problem was avoidable. They should suffer the consequences for a long time and put all their resources toward fixing this problem. I don’t know to what degree they understand that, but this video shows what they are doing to fix the problem. Before watching it, I couldn’t understand what was taking so long, but it seems the problem is more complicated than sticking a cork in a bottle.
Our dependence on oil is a complicated problem. Moreover, it’s our problem, one that requires us all to think and act systemically.
12 Comments
thanks for this… you’ve named the elephant in the room: all of us need, and use…oil. that we complain (and I’m loudest among them) when this kind of thing happens, and pour our rage on the company or the government reveals our shallow hypocrisy at many levels. Sure, BP could have taken steps. But we’re all users, and now we’re blaming the dealer for the repercussions.
I’ve said for years that Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben are on to something when they call us to localized economies, and their posited way of life would surely address some of this. In spite of my interest though, I’m about to go outside and BBQ some grass fed Australian ground beef for burgers tonight. I ponder what it will take for us to actually live differently, and perhaps the saddest part of the entire incident is that this remains the missing conversation.
Well said.
Smart post!
Not to mention the fact that oil bubbles up from the ocean floor all the time, and the concentration of it for harvesting actually makes beaches and coastlines more palatable, so we benefit in more ways than just oil consumption.
I don’t think the amount of oil that “bubbles up all the time” (I’ve never even heard that) is even comparable to the 15,000 gallons A DAY that have been spilling into the gulf for almost a month. There is NO arguing against the catastrophic hit the gulf is going to take environmentally because of this disaster.
Pretty sure that’s NOT what I said (if we both use CAPS are we even?), but some scientists would argue that just as much if not more surfaces from the ocean floor naturally and that the problem is not the presence of oil, but our concentration of it and disruption of the ecosystem by removing, through this concentration, the oil from some places where it would occur naturally, while overwhelming other places with it. I’m not sure which numbers are correct, but certainly it does rise naturally, and sometimes virtually erupts if there is no systematic pressure release (such as routine pumping/drilling).
I was alluding to the fact that the conveniences we experience go beyond basic consumption of oil. We have changed the landscape by changing the way that oil reaches the surface and what it does once it gets there. When the environment has learned to cope and adapt, the way that many already have, it isn’t as simply or easy as saying “stop drilling”.
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/ocean-bubbling-up-half-its-oil-reserves-from-seafloor_100157571.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219101658.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8254386&mesg_id=8254703
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/putting-the-gulf-oil-spill-into-perspective—natural-oil-seepage-from-the-oceans-floor-is-common/blog-334195/
Now you’ve heard it.
This is much more than an environmental issue, it is spiritual. We have a responsibility to care for the earth. If we are truly following Christ we should care for His creation.
It is about time the church stood up and said enough is enough. Wouldn’t it be great, if at least ONCE, we were on the leading edge of social reform?
Good perspective.
Steve, Christians have often been the cutting edge of social reform, such as the abolition of slavery and civil rights,
i hear you but i think you’re applying blinders to the situation at hand. people do have a right to be angry at BP specifically. your argument fails to integrate the key point that drilling in the gulf at 1mile plus can be done safely and that drilling too aggressively and not abiding by safety standards is a form of negligence. the reason for all the anger is not that people are angry that oil is being extracted from the gulf and that we need oil but rather that this company has made such an incredible mess of the situation. we have all assumed all this time (at least I did) that any company that was sophisticated enough to drill this far below the ocean’s surface was investing as much time in developing failsafe mechanisms. obviously they didn’t. what people are reacting to personally is that BP’s negligence has laid bare the fact that these companies are not being held to the high standards of safety and responsibility that we expect. It’s perfectly legit in my mind for people to vent at BP as when they are dealing with the kind of liability they do they better have a backup plan. It’s like they were drilling a well in the gulf without a net. And now over a month later we see how out of balance their corporate culture is. This is personal and people should be quite validly angry at BP for corporate irresponsibility. I feel that your argument tries to dilute that responsibility — the folks who manage risk to provide energy for us need to take on the responsibility as well. and they didn’t here.
Stephen,
Thanks for sharing…you make some great points. I’ve been wondering if Obama would have the guts to make a speech calling on Americans to stop using so much oil in light of this disaster a la Carter’s so-called malaise speech?
Anyway, I saw this today and thought of your piece:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1657515/a-theory-called-a-fundamental-attribution-error
I hadn’t heard of the fundamental attribution error until your article, and now I’ve heard it twice in one week!
Stephen this is an excellent post from the context of our reaction to this disaster. But I have two points I think we all need to consider in both our current reaction and our future.
1.) Eleven (11) people died in this tragedy. The media coverage and the popular daily comments have already seen to forget this fact. Moreover, many of the people trying to fix this are co-workers and friends of those 11 who are working furiously despite their grief. They not only know the stakes of every day that goes by until this is fixed, but also the costly stakes of an error.
2.) Dependence on oil is global, and a sudden or even gradual removing of a dependence on oil would have global effects. During the past few decades, especially going back into the 70s, there is talk again and again about how we need to be less dependent on foreign (aka middle eastern) oil. There are two options for that: a.) develop our own oil b.) alternative fuels.
I’m as much for alternatives as anyone, and if you came to our house, you would see just how environmental conscious we recycle, conserve, and live – not because we have to by law, but because we want to and see the benefits. But it is well documented by economic, political, and sociological forecasters that if the US were to be no longer dependent on middle eastern oil, 25 million middle eastern men would become unemployed. We would simply crush their economy. We think we have had it bad the last few years…
Of course, that’s taking it to one extreme. Will we ever be fully independent of oil? Probably not. If we used the Canadian oil sands more effectively, for example, that might help stave off this type of current disaster. But just as honking at the car in front of us isn’t the answer to traffic, finding a completely different route to work may lead to just a different kind of traffic problem or impact – maybe not to us, but to someone.
I hope the constant seen in both of my points are that people’s lives were or are at stake. We can’t forget that in our reaction to this today or the reaction that changes our actions in the future.
Even though with each passing day as more details of the tragedy come out I become more convinced that BP has acted immorally and irresponsibly in the interest of financial gain, the blame really lies on us.
The US is addicted to oil. Bottom line. We love our luxury, our cars, and driving places we could easily walk to, and consider it an attack on our freedom and liberty anytime something might require us to change our ways. I’m guilty too, just today I drove to work rather than bike because if looked like it might rain. We have created a huge demand for a product, and BP, as well as all the other oil giants, are capitalizing on it. This is what corporations do, and they try to do it with the biggest net profit possible. Call it immoral, but this is a fundamental characteristic of Capitalism. People were appalled with Toyota with the delayed recalls, guess what, every automaker assesses whether or not to have a recall the exact same way. They’re trying to sell a product, and sure, customer satisfaction and safety is important, but its one of many variables that influence decisions. Corporations don’t typically self regulate until pressured or forced, and there are countless examples of this (if anyone knows of good examples of companies willingly taking a loss and do the right thing without any legal pressure or risk of a PR disaster let me know, because I’ve tried to think of one).
Call me cynical (you wouldn’t be the first), but I think this is why the US, and China (ironically the biggest pollutors) have the highest percentage of global warming skeptics. But if we admit its real, then it would be immoral not to change our ways. But we deny it, so we can keep our excessive lifestyle. I’m not trying to start a global warming debate, I do that enough at family reunions. We don’t need oil, we just love it. And as long as there is a market for it, oil companies will do the same thing, and until there is a market for alternative fuels, it will remain a small part of our economy that undergoes limited development.