Person A therefore assumes that person B should be able to do X too.
Isn't that what toddlers learn? That they are an individual and different individuals know different things.
You'd assume so, but it's shocking how quickly it gets forgotten when it suits.
Let's take an obvious such example:
Person A has worked hard and made lots of money.
Person B is poor.
Person A therefore assumes that if person B worked hard, they would have more money too.
Oh, you mean a Hincapism.
Oh, you mean a Hincapism.
Another example:
Person A has travelled.
Person A assumes that because they were able to travel, person B should be able to too.
Another example:
Person A has travelled.
Person A assumes that because they were able to travel, person B should be able to too.
A form the of the psychologist's fallacy?
[FnG]magnolia;29225843 said:You've used the same word in both examples: assumes.
Is there a reason that you don't think this is the fallacy, or are you asking from a more technical description point of view?