Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
2 added 2 characters in body
source | link

I think 'attribute causes to events(line5)' should be 'attribute events to causes' although I am rather sure that I misunderstood. Why did the author write that way? Does attribute mean 'regard something as being caused by (someone or something)' in this context? The meaning evades me.

People are innately disposed to look for causes of events, to form explanations and stories. That is one reason storytelling is such a persuasive medium. Stories resonate with our experiences and provide examples of new instances. From our experiences and the stories of others we tend to form generalizations about the way people behave and things work. We attribute causes to events, and as long as these cause­and­effectcause-­and-­effect pairings make sense, we use them for understanding future events. Yet these causal attributions are often mistaken. Sometimes they implicate the wrong causes, and for some things that happen, there is no single cause. Rather, there is a complex chain of events that all contribute to the result; if any one of the events would not have occurred, the result would be different. But even when there is no single causal act, that doesn’t stop people from assigning one.

The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition

I think 'attribute causes to events(line5)' should be 'attribute events to causes' although I am rather sure that I misunderstood. Why did the author write that way? Does attribute mean 'regard something as being caused by (someone or something)' in this context? The meaning evades me.

People are innately disposed to look for causes of events, to form explanations and stories. That is one reason storytelling is such a persuasive medium. Stories resonate with our experiences and provide examples of new instances. From our experiences and the stories of others we tend to form generalizations about the way people behave and things work. We attribute causes to events, and as long as these cause­and­effect pairings make sense, we use them for understanding future events. Yet these causal attributions are often mistaken. Sometimes they implicate the wrong causes, and for some things that happen, there is no single cause. Rather, there is a complex chain of events that all contribute to the result; if any one of the events would not have occurred, the result would be different. But even when there is no single causal act, that doesn’t stop people from assigning one.

The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition

I think 'attribute causes to events(line5)' should be 'attribute events to causes' although I am rather sure that I misunderstood. Why did the author write that way? Does attribute mean 'regard something as being caused by (someone or something)' in this context? The meaning evades me.

People are innately disposed to look for causes of events, to form explanations and stories. That is one reason storytelling is such a persuasive medium. Stories resonate with our experiences and provide examples of new instances. From our experiences and the stories of others we tend to form generalizations about the way people behave and things work. We attribute causes to events, and as long as these cause-­and-­effect pairings make sense, we use them for understanding future events. Yet these causal attributions are often mistaken. Sometimes they implicate the wrong causes, and for some things that happen, there is no single cause. Rather, there is a complex chain of events that all contribute to the result; if any one of the events would not have occurred, the result would be different. But even when there is no single causal act, that doesn’t stop people from assigning one.

The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition

1
source | link

The meaning of 'attribute A to B' in the context

I think 'attribute causes to events(line5)' should be 'attribute events to causes' although I am rather sure that I misunderstood. Why did the author write that way? Does attribute mean 'regard something as being caused by (someone or something)' in this context? The meaning evades me.

People are innately disposed to look for causes of events, to form explanations and stories. That is one reason storytelling is such a persuasive medium. Stories resonate with our experiences and provide examples of new instances. From our experiences and the stories of others we tend to form generalizations about the way people behave and things work. We attribute causes to events, and as long as these cause­and­effect pairings make sense, we use them for understanding future events. Yet these causal attributions are often mistaken. Sometimes they implicate the wrong causes, and for some things that happen, there is no single cause. Rather, there is a complex chain of events that all contribute to the result; if any one of the events would not have occurred, the result would be different. But even when there is no single causal act, that doesn’t stop people from assigning one.

The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition