The Fallacy of Composition and Judging True Character
Some people are gracious sometimes but not most of the time. Other people are generous on occasion but not as a rule. And some are charming when they want to be but turn off the charisma when it doesn’t serve their interests.
Showcasing a skill, behavior, attitude, or persona at times doesn’t mean that’s who people are. It simply means they have the ability to project an aspect of themselves when they want to.
How they behave and show up consistently is who they really are.
The authentic self is displayed by what people do most often. Consistency is the key. The question for those who judge and assess people and their talents and character is how to know what is temporary and what is permanent. Said another way, what is on display and what is real?
One common fallacy makes this judgment even harder. The Fallacy of Composition posits that people commonly infer what is true of a part must be true of the whole.
In other words, if a person shows compassion in a given situation, then they must be compassionate. Of course, we intuitively know this isn’t true, but the efficiency such a fallacy provides is too tempting to pass up.
People like to make general inferences about the qualities of people from small examples. It makes judging people so much easier.
This fallacy is compounded by how good people are at impression-making. People are taught from a young age how to display what other people want to see and hear from them. They know how to project a positive slice of who they want to be on command.
This makes discerning authenticity in others tremendously difficult, especially without the time to observe them in multiple situations and settings.
Leaders who are best at judging people know what inferences to make and what conclusions not to draw about people on skimpy data. While they recognize that many highly developed skills can’t be faked or offered selectively, behaviors that display character, attitudes, and personality do not always represent the whole person.
They guard against the Fallacy of Composition by asking questions from several different angles, triangulating the data they collect, and observing people in as many different situations as possible.
They especially prefer to observe people in settings where impression-making is not as salient, such as while dining, exercising, traveling, and engaging in high-pressure activities. They also rely on the experience of trusted colleagues to fill in the gaps, knowing all too well that the Fallacy of Composition influences them as well.
As a rule, all leaders are tempted by the Fallacy to overestimate people and their qualities. Therefore, the best leaders are slow to draw strong conclusions about character. They seek more direct experience with those they assess. Without more data, it is just too easy to be dead wrong.
For those interested, you might want to read about Walter Michel’s Strong and Weak situations - Mischel averred that, in "strong" situations, behavior is relatively uniform regardless of one's personality characteristics. In "weak" situations, that is, those that lack clear behavioral expectations, behavior is not constrained by the situation and is free to covary with personality.
Good morning,
Solid points. I was rereading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki. In it he mentions three ways to assess people and situations:
1. Observation.
2. Control
3. Avoid.
I try to keep this in mind when assessing a situation and/or helping a fellow teammate. I start with the first, if this fails; I jump in. If this fails, then sometimes, we have to move on. Moving forward can seem cold and callous, but what other options do we have?
As stated previously, if the individual lacks character, AND is unwilling/unable to put in the work. We must be willing to confront the brutal facts (Collins.2001). A sandbag must be cut loose....
Thank you for your time.