Arguing from unique experience (e.g. "you don't know what it's like as a woman/hindu/farmer") benefits from it being hard to refute. It's a claim that the view naturally results from circumstance, and the only reason you don't agree is lack of exposure to that circumstance.
Conversation
Replying to
It's an appeal to the authority of the speaker, implying your mind would be changed by the truth if it were only exposed to it. While this is sometimes true, it's also a dirty trick. A good refutation is "not all woman/Hindu/farmers think that", which shows that your conclusion-
1
2
38
doesn't necessarily follow from the circumstance. The response to that, however, is usually narrowing the field of experience ("all farmers who've seen drought, then"), or dismissing from category ("not a real farmer").
But in general, viewing your own perspective on life as
3
1
26
inevitable and specially derived from your unique experience can end up trapping you in your current frame, as it removes responsibility from you for believing it and instead feels like some sort of truth eminating from your environment.
2
1
52
Replying to
Whenever I do this I feel like I'm acting in epistemic weakness
It's all too easy to go from sharing unique experience to framing things as victims vs blameworthy others
3
Replying to
New book an the mathematics of inference, causality, and correlation. Highly reputed, but my personal experience not yet formed. amazon.com/Book-Why-Scien
Replying to
I just realized this cognitive bias is the exact opposite of the Fundamental Attribution Error (the bias to ascribe the cause of someone's actions to their *disposition*, as opposed to their *circumstance*).
1