amiriqbal
·My point was to boil it down to what I consider to be a logically obvious understanding, with a dash of facetiousness, nothing more.
I can't reply to this as definitely, or eloquently, as @M'Bob did. He hasn't left too much else to say!!
However this article may be of interest:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201406/why-we-dont-give-each-other-break?amp
It is a good summary of the principle we are talking about.
The whole point is that this is not a 'logically obvious understanding' until it is pointed out, either by a powerful anecdote, as per @M'Bob, or by applying a label and definition to a recurrent observed human behaviour.
If we are made aware of this default bias, within us all, then the hope is that we can enter situations forewarned, that although we may think we know what someone is about (and we may be right), as we can not read minds, or have overview of situational/contextual factors, we should strive to 'think the best' and try and not be mired to immediately assume observed behavior = character