The problem with “never blame on malice what can be blamed on stupidity” is that if everyone followed that, all anyone has to do to get away with something malicious is to make it appear to be out of stupidity.
I think that, as a meme, “Never blame on malice what can be blamed on stupidity”, it is destructive to truth and gives people a false illusion of thinking they can use it to magically decipher the truth out of a situation. People always prefer heuristics to details, so this convenient heuristic allows people to ignore the details.
For example, if a study by a pharmaceutical company says a drug doesn’t hurt somebody — how many of us read the data? I don’t. I use heuristics and look at bias — the study was BY the pharmaceutical company, so of COURSE they’re going to say that it’s not harmful. And while heuristics may be right in some of these situations (Vioxx, Anti-Depressants, etc), me thinking this way doesn’t magically make what I think true. I can certainly be wrong. The devil’s in the details. If I don’t actually read the actual study, I could end up coming to the wrong conclusion.
Herustics are absolutely necessary for us to understand the world, but we must be careful not to let them dominate our search for the truth.
There are no tautologies for truth in motives in situations… all combinations can and do happen.
Situations that appear to be stupidity but are actually stupidity;
Situations that appear to be stupidity but are actually maliciousness;
Situations that appear to be stupidity but are actually maliciousness AND stupidity;
Situations that appear to be stupidity but are actually neither;
Situations that appear to be maliciousness but are actually stupidity;
Situations that appear to be maliciousness but are actually maliciousness;
Situations that appear to be maliciousness but are actually maliciousness AND stupidity;
Situations that appear to be maliciousness but are actually neither;
Situations that appear to be both but are actually both;
Situations that appear to be both but are actually neither;
Situations that appear to be both but are actually stupidity;
Situations that appear to be both but are actually maliciousness;
Situations that appear to be neither but are actually both;
Situations that appear to be neither but are actually neither;
Situations that appear to be neither but are actually stupidity;
Situations that appear to be neither but are actually maliciousness.
If you catch me using this phrase — please remind me of this blog post. It’s a mental shortcut that I’d rather not take. I think it’s dangerous becuase propagating the meme of this saying acutally makes people more likely to use a hueristic than to think for themselves.
Mood: ready to party
Music: Kreator – Storm Of The Beast
Claire's blog 
April 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM
from Yates:
“I think the problem with that statement is the ‘never’, not the sentiment itself. It’s nothing more than a useful variant of Occam’s Razor, not a hammer for every nail.”
April 3, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Fair enough, Chris. Though even as a rule of thumb (as a rule of thumb, rules of thumb are right 80% of the time), however, I find it disingenuous, maybe even dangerous.
But most dangerous things are not dangerous if practiced in moderation.
November 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Please do not delude yourself with statements like “right 80% of the time.” First, that number came from your imagination. (You may be wrong.) Second, what does being right 80% of the time mean? In some things, you have to be right 100% of the time in order to be right at all. The problem with using a heuristic is that you don’t know whether it is right or wrong. If you suggest that it is right because it is often right, that’s “appeal to probability”–a well-known logical fallacy (to those who have studied such things). Third, some things are distributed such that what constitutes a very small percentage is extremely important. If 10,000 people are in a stadium and one of them is Bill Gates, you can’t say anything meaningful about average incomes if you exclude Gates.
November 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM
I’d like to see how poorly you’d function if you could not use this thing called heuristics.
If 80% of the time you went outside you got hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat, you’d be pretty stupid for not wearing a helmet because it’s “not 100%”.
I’m sure you had a point to make somewhere in there, but it was lost on me. Liked your other comment, tho!
February 6, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Guessing/heuristics are necessary in life, but you have to realize that there are times when this is a horrible way to go about things. You really need to think if you want to understand things clearly. Pulling percentages like 80% out of your ass is a bad habit of thinking.
This can lead to very wrong ideas becoming widely accepted. Concerning the 9/11 “debate” I wrote the following in response to someone’s “appeal to probability” (logical fallacy) argument:
Whereas people start with little knowledge and yet want explanations (despite not knowing how to be objective and not knowing whether they have the information needed–such as the crucial facts that must be dealt with by any credible explanation), people tend to be superstitious–they have no understanding what gives rise to what they see.
While the fundamental forces at work are discovered over time, lead to a better understanding and to rational explanations, those who have superstitious beliefs (or a false understanding of history) are biased by their current thoughts or worldview, making it difficult for them to see new information objectively. Also drive by the superstitious beliefs, social influence may have a subconscious effect, discouraging free thinking.
Some of us want to be objective, to find good answers that deal with the crucial facts. We abhor superstitious thinking and do not want its bias to have any role in our assessment.
Some questions are difficult without a fundamental knowledge of what gives rise to it. “Which came first–the chicken or the egg?” is difficult to know without an understanding of genetics. A clear understanding of thinking itself and of the various Fractal/Complexity/Chaos forces of self-organization is important for understanding many complex problems.
So it bothers me when people point to sites like Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Myths because these sites were written by either very sloppy thinkers or people distributing information to sloppy thinkers. These sites are full of fallacious thinking, but, as also bothers me, most people don’t spot their own fallacious arguments.
A high-level look at arguments (one that does not spot the logical fallacies) can easily be misleading. Governments and religions use fallacious arguments to manipulate people. Learn to spot their deception by understanding the “lower-level” structure of misleading arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (Even true statements can be logical fallacies, so you have to be very careful.)
Let’s take the statement that you made: “[T]he standard, widely held explanation for the events of September 11th 2001 is by far the most likely scenario.”
Absolutely true. We are in agreement so far, but that is also a *fallacious argument* if it is part of your reasoning for putting the matter to rest. One has not demonstrated objective reasoning by using a fallacious argument like that. It’s very important to avoid these sorts of thought distractions.
By definition, Black Swan events are improbable or impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Since you are reasoning concerning a black swan event, you are committing a relatively newly identified logical fallacy: black swan probabilistic reasoning fallacy (for lack of a better name) or, more traditionally, appeal to probability.
Your reason thus restated: An improbable event did not occur because it was improbable.
Even when using rigorous statistical models based upon decades of data to predict what is likely based upon previous data–even then what is within the realm of possibility can be horribly wrong. The “normal” distribution would mislead statisticians to think the Oct 19, 1987 drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average would have seemed so unlikely as not to have occurred one time in the history of the universe. Yet it happened.
Fractal statistics (power law distributions) as explained in The Misbehavior of Markets by Benoit Mandelbrot makes sense of black swan events. Fractal statistics help describe the way nature often works thanks to the ubiquity of fractals not just in shape/geometry but also in time (Chaos Theory) and size (Fractal Statistics). Such “order” comes from the very simple laws of nature that give rise to self-organization.
Thinking about huge conspiracies must take into consideration the notion of self-organization within human social networks.
Perhaps atheists can see this more clearly than most people: Self-organization gave rise to a situation that produce life and then very complex organisms that were ROBUST because 1) they were COMPARTMENTALIZED (cells, organs, individuals within a popoulation); and 2) they were SELF-HEALING (blood clotting, DNA repair, immune system). It definitely is easy to conclude that a “designer” was involved from the start. But that’s the original superstitious belief that blocks the one that better fits the facts (like genetics, the fossil record, etc.)–the explanation that can make very useful predictions.
Huge conspiracies are a result of self-organization. This is how they can become complex and still robust. Memes (ideology) gave rise to structures like institutions.
The fractal-like iterative process (history and the changes it accumulates) gives rise to emergent phenomena.
Many people want to deny the FACT of evolution. They do not use rational means by which to come to this conclusion. They forget that things behave differently on different scales–whether we are talking about time scales or size scales. Nanotechnological advances show us that all the elements of the periodic table need to be re-inspected because they can behave MUCH DIFFERENTLY at different scales of size.
Many people fail to understand the effects of history (scale of time) and what ever-larger government (scale of size) can produce. This is because they do not look very closely at thinking–which itself seems to be a product of fractals/Chaos. (This means this matter of scale can be very confusing because there is no inherent scale–or, stated another way, there are MANY scales.)
Looking at one’s own thinking more closely can yield some interesting insights. Don’t use “I don’t believe that” like many people do concerning the FACT of evolution. You are cutting yourself off from seeing some of the most interesting things that exist. Dawkins calls evolution “the greatest show on Earth” but the nature of entire socities falling for “the big lie” is also great.
June 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM
My Attempt at this. Some in positions of power, doesn’t matter what organization (church or Gov.) will harm people. People and organizations will always go through a stage of corruption and some will remain corrupt. The “Fast and Furious” problem with the current admin is an example. The Catholic Church is another. I really hate the fact that some organizations do a lot of good and then turn around and try something corrupt and point to all the good they’ve done…That is not how I run my life.
Some would love to completely dissolve the church by disproving the existence of God. And some that want to dissolve the church have completely different views on how they want to run the country/earth (someone to “dictate” over people-reduction of freedoms). So maybe it might look like this (simply)…..”God doesn’t exist, now you should obey me or do what I want.” Most people that I’ve talked with who want to prove that God doesn’t exist, want to dictate social norms differently than what the church does (almost every other church is better than the Catholic Church). What the church stands for is noble. A big portion of this fight is about influence/power/control/money. If the sentence didn’t exist, then I don’t think that you would have trouble with evolution.
June 21, 2012 at 12:08 PM
lol
April 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Heh, based on the title, this is not where I thought you were going with this. But after reading the whole thing I completely agree with your sentiment.
April 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM
“Herustics are absolutely necessary for us to understand the world, but we must be careful not to let them dominate our search for the truth.”
No, heuristics are necessary for us to *operate* in this world. They actually hamper our ability to understand it (as you point out in the rest of your sentence).
As amazing as the brain is, it is not that good at actual number crunching. So all those mental rules-of-thumb are what let us react to the world in a reasonably timely fashion without getting stuck in processing limbo every few minutes. ;-)
April 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM
“No, heuristics are necessary for us to *operate* in this world. They actually hamper our ability to understand it (as you point out in the rest of your sentence).”
Now that’s an interesting thought. I was thinking something similar this morning, that there is a hierarchy of ways we process information. For example:
* Binary rules for simple decisions (do not touch hot stove burner)
* Rules of Thumb for situations involving the canonical half-dozen pieces of data that we’re able to manage in our conscious minds.
* “Intuition” or subconscious processing when greater amounts of data must be processed
* Scientific method for cases where we can’t observe a reasonable amount of the needed data with our five senses.
April 3, 2009 at 10:10 PM
I have a tendency to interpret this statement mathematically.
“Don’t mistake things that belong in set X with things that belong in set Y.”
So the fact that people will disguise set X’s items to look like set Y’s items does not change the truthiness of the statement. It seems like the problem is how to define which set an item belongs to.
People may interpret the statement wrongly but it seems quite logical and truthful to me. The statement pre-supposes that there is something already attributed to stupidity, while simultaneously being falsely attributed to malice. Example: “Never call something an egg if it is a spam sandwich.” There IS the mutual exclusion problem that you pointed out though. Here is my correction that might help this:
“Never attribute to malice that which can be solely attributed to stupidity”.
April 3, 2009 at 10:11 PM
BTW I just learned this is called Hanlon’s razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
April 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Ahh; I see the Wikipedia version has the modifier that helps the “stupidity” attribution:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
If you pre-suppose that an adequate “stupidity” explanation exists, then malice is not required.
April 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM
I’d have to agree that most malice is born out of stupidity, or a misguided search for self-empowerment.
However, I think the statement is a good rule of thumb because I’ve found that attributing things to stupidity or negligence is a lot less stressful that thinking there is malicious motives behind actions or happenings. This doesn’t address the truth issue, but I, for one, think truth isn’t always right. By that I mean that knowing the truth and letting it be the sole basis for decisions or actions isn’t always the right, or best, thing to do. See, forgiveness, pity, compassion, understanding, humility, and many other ‘positive’ virtues.
April 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Congratulations on the most illogical comment yet, Kipp. You’d rather attribute something falsely to avoid a painful truth? Sounds like the mantra of worshipers of sky fairies to me. Go ahead and lie to yourself, but don’t pretend avoiding truth is ever superior. It’s not.
April 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Nope, I’m not lying to myself. I would just rather err on the side of atrributing something to stupidity, accident, poor judgement, etc; rather than by default attributing things to malice.
Also, it would be more respectfult to say ‘religous beliefs’ or ‘belief in God’ rather than sky faries. It’s belittling.
April 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Religion is a cancer and deserves to be belittled. I’m not the only one who laughed at “I, for one, think truth isn’t always right.” Sounds like a quote straight from the lips of people who like to believe in lies.
April 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Kipp, your first comment said that if you find out the truth, you’re going to be forgiving, understanding, compassionate, etc.
I think the point of Clint’s post is to not “default” one way or another, but rather to find out the truth of the situation – was it malice or was it just stupidity? Was the wrong deliberate or an accident?
So, from your first post, I gathered that if you found out someone did something wrong deliberately, that you would forgive them and just decide that even though they did it deliberately, that it must have just been stupidity. So, should everyone forgive Hitler? No, we all do not have to forgive people. You’re saying Hitler should be forgiven because his malice was born out of his misguided search for empowerment.
July 20, 2011 at 11:50 PM
Disclaimer:
I am neither pro-Nazi nor a holocaust-denier.
Devil’s Advocate Alert:
We rely a lot on history for many of our so-called facts. However, the victors write the history books. Had the Nazis prevailed you might be asking if Churchill or Wilson should be forgiven, Perhaps Adolf was simply misunderstood. How can we know what is in a person’s heart.
End Alert
How can one hope to correctly weigh a person’s intent if one lacks the empathy afforded by forgiveness, understanding, and compassion. Without them all is malice.
April 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM
but is the statement meant as a meme? it is like taking a horse and saying that it is a bad spider.
“The problem with “never blame on malice what can be blamed on stupidity” is that if everyone followed that”
This argument can be easily solved by simply adding to not rule out either outcome whether it be malice or stupidity.
Heinlein: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but keep your eyes open.
It is just a way for people to think before they act. Would you disagree that people get more offended by acts of malice against them?
Would you not agree that most people do things to satisfy their own needs and are quite often oblivious (aka stupidity according to the statement at hand) to how their actions can really effect others?
May 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
This illogical meme is useful only if you trying to delude someone.
Generalizing the problem to make it easier to recognize: This sentiment (“Never ascribe to malice…”) is a heuristic argument–an argument based on a rule of thumb. As such, it may or may not be applicable to any given context, but there is no guarantee that it applies to all contexts. To blindly apply some rule to a context without regard to whether it is fitting is quite unwise.
A heuristic argument is a means of generating a perspective, not a fact. People often forget this and thereby give inordinate weight to heuristic arguments and even use such opinions as excuses not to look at facts.
Confusing fact and fiction/opinion significantly reduces one’s chances of finding truth and of being wise. In my view, being wise is the art of seeing things in context. In some cases/contexts, it is wise to err on the conservative side–that is, to not ascribe to incompetence that which could be ascribed to malice. In some situations, you need to be sure which is which.
Being wise and logical requires vigilance in identifying and avoiding “conventional wisdom” heuristic arguments and other means of delusion like arguments based on logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
If you doubt the danger of not being able to recognize members of the heuristic argument class for what they are, take a look at the 9/11 debate. Many people make heuristic-based excuses not to look at the facts like “Americans wouldn’t do that” (also an argument from ignorance and a “no true Scottsman” argument). Or they claim that the media would expose a huge cover-up and that this would have been too big to be a conspiracy. Additionally, some persons put forth straw-man or otherwise poorly constructed arguments, which other people use as an excused to avoid the facts.
Here is a humorous example of ignoring certain evidence (argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy and, as such, is a propaganda technique):
Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11
(2 min)
Yet, when you give enough time to check your ideas against reality, you realize that in science you must do tests and they must be replicated for people to trust you.
The government has made numerous bare assertions to form their argument against the nanothermite hypothesis. (Those are logical fallacies.)
They claimed to have no knowledge of certain types of evidence, as well (argument from ignorance) despite some of the evidence having been demonstrated as fact.
Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11
(2 min)
Similar bare assertion fallacies were employed by John Gross and NIST to claim that explosives were not used:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” (Click the green “DOWNLOAD” button.)
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
If you use the heuristic argument that the government and the media are credible and therefore to be trusted, you are making an appeal to authority argument–again, a logical fallacy.
To reconcile this cognitive dissonance, perhaps it is worth considering the context in which you live–society and its consciousness-leading force, the media.
In 1977, famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein revealed that over 400 US journalists had been employed by the CIA. These ranged from freelancers who were paid for regular debriefings, to actual CIA officers who worked under deep cover. Nearly every major US news organization has had spooks on the payroll, usually with the cooperation of top management. (Original source: The book “The CIAs Greatest Hits” by Mark Zepezauer Online Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html )
Iran-Contra’s ‘Lost Chapter’ By Robert Parry (A Special Report) June 30, 2008 – http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/062908.html
May 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Thank you for making my point better than I could! I had the feeling everyone else just wasn’t getting it! :)
October 28, 2009 at 7:11 PM
You should set your mind at ease. You are quoting Hanlon’s Razor. However, this is probably a corruption of Heinlein’s Razor which I believe you would prefer:
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.”
In any case, the social responsibility of the person causing the event which needs explaining is to ensure that it cannot be construed as malicious regardless of the good intent. Which leads you back to the older adage “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
November 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Thank you for your input.
November 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM
It’s also (equally?) destructive to assume that every bad thing that happens to you is the result of someone’s deliberate malice — sometimes people just cock up without meaning anything by it. The law is a recognition of that you shouldn’t sweat the world’s hidden conspiracy to ruin your life unless you have something more solid to go on.
I normally think it needs to be read in light of the fool me once rule too.
January 5, 2010 at 2:52 AM
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
I view any heuristic (including the malice/stupidity meme) as the starting point in the process of modeling the world. As new information presents itself, one updates one’s model to reflect this new understanding.
The malice/stupidity meme is (probably) based on a general empirical regularity: stupidity is much more prevalent than active malice. This serves as a “naive” hypothesis with which to interpret an initial unpleasant event. Of course, if in subsequent interactions with the relevant party(if any), one notices behavior inconsistent with this hypothesis, one can reject it in favor of another that better fits the updated data: this is a malicious person.
As you said, others can attempt to mask their malice with the vestments of stupidity and thus hide any evidence that would cause reevaluation. This is hard work however, since we have some tools to detect false sincerity and since this person comes up against the monitoring capabilities of the local social network if they intend to become a more permanent fixture in our lives.
January 5, 2010 at 8:45 AM
It’s not hard work to mask, though. It’s easier than being caught, which makes it worth doing, which makes it easy work by providing motivation.
August 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM
I know this is a bit old, but I stumbled on this while looking for the exact wording of the phrase.
Many people before have said this, but this statement – and all phrases of this nature – aren’t meant to be taken as permanent, all-situations truths, in my opinion.
The phrase itself is useful. I’ve met innumerable people who are paranoid of everything. They think everyone is out to get them. Conspiracy theorists, drug-addicts and psychology majors (excuse the overlap) are common perpetrators. Those who would explain everything with Freudian abandonment issues, those who think the human race are evil creatures deserving of punishment or erasure.
People are often more likely to look for the dramatic, complex, or poetic explanation. More often than not, it is far simpler.
Just like all these phrases, it should never be used as a guide to life, nor should it be used as the motto of a society. It should be used to remind yourself and others around you of a simple message; in this case, don’t overthink mistakes, and do not be paranoid of things which don’t warrant paranoia.
Your main problem with the phrase seems to be as a fixture of law, which, well, it basically already is. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ could be seen as a more refined version of the phrase, stating that stupidity (or carelessness, or pure bad luck) should be assumed until there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. And it works pretty well for the law. It’s not easy to hide a crime; when the police REALLY want to find you – ie murder – you’re usually screwed. And if they already HAVE found you and only need to investigate you, you pretty much ARE screwed, which is what this phrase would relate to.
No, it shouldn’t be seen as a rule, but like every other phrase it’s a good reminder for a lot of situations where people can lose their cool and assume something dumb. Out of stupidity, of course, not malice. ;D
August 14, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Re: “Many people before have said this, but this statement – and all phrases of this nature – aren’t meant to be taken as permanent, all-situations truths, in my opinion.”>
What part of the word NEVER don’t you understand?
This is NOT a matter of opinion: never implies permanence and in all situations. You can’t just tack “in my opinion” onto any false statement to defend it. Yes, it may be your opinion, but opinions are sometimes wrong and not of equal validity as fact. You are simply wrong.
August 14, 2010 at 2:43 PM
I don’t really want to do this to you but since the actual adage is “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice” (from a book called “Murphy’s Law Book Two, More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong”) what’s actually happening is you’re misquoting it and then complaining that other people have misunderstood the original quote.
August 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM
As you can see, that last part is seldom remembered. (Btw, who says what the original quote was anyway?)
This does not have the weight of a useful heuristic like Occam’s razor (which is also often misused to justify poor reasoning).
There’s no excusing the poor thinking I was previously exposing. This is a poor heuristic. It’s essentially worthless when you add the disclaimer, as you did, because it doesn’t help you in any way. It’s worse than worthless without the disclaimer (it’s wrong), as I previously explained.
There’s no point in promoting the use of this phrase except to confuse people who are easily confused, and that’s how this phrase is used most often.
August 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Here’s the entire process for working out what the original wording of Hanlon’s Razor is: you look at what Robert Hanlon wrote.
Before you deconstruct the language just think about this – the thing first appeared in a joke book in the 1980s. You know? Just think about what means for a minute. You seem to think that people are living their lives based on advice from a joke book.
Based on how no one lives by advice in joke books it works just fine – if someone spills coffee on you you can say they’re bad or they messed up. If the messed up explanation adequately covers what happened why bother looking for the international conspiracy to spill coffee on you? It might be there but, seriously, it probably doesn’t exist.
I only came into this because you bit someone’s head off for explaining the thinking behind the complete, full quote and you seem to think that it’s ok to criticise the wrong thing as long as hardly no one remembers you’re wrong. That’s poor thinking too.
July 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM
I doubt that most people who repeat the phrase ever read the original work.
July 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Sure, but you’re complaining about what it means, right? So you would look at the source.
July 18, 2011 at 8:24 PM
You’d think… But what’s the fun in doing that? I’m not going to my own blog to do work… It’s to amuse myself. At least for these kinds of posts…
July 18, 2011 at 8:40 PM
There’s a lot of sense in not believing in black helicopters are coming for you unless there actually are black helicopters but if the source is a joke book it’s going to affect the analysis.
If you think of it as a case of joke books making poor life advice when taken absolutely literally it suddenly seems a lot more obvious.
August 14, 2010 at 6:26 PM
“Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.”
– E.B. White
July 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM
Cliff,
I ran across your rant while researching Hanlon’s Razor.
Hanlon’s Razor is an eponymous adage that reads:
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
For the record, HR is an adage not a meme. That is, it is only guideline not an absolute truth.
Heuristics is precisely this adage’s point. The goal is to put a tack in the search for truth in a way that doesn’t derail the quest into a cesspool of ad hominem and invective. In no way is this to imply that the assumption of stupidity precludes continuing to look for evidence of malice. We are just playing the odds. Stupidity is just more common than malice. As are thoughtlessness and indifference among others.
I would also argue there is no such thing as absolute truth in subjective reality.
Regards, Mikel
July 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM
Thanks. My main issue is the use of the word “never” makes the statement sound like an absolute truth.
July 19, 2011 at 12:27 AM
Indeed, never say never. Absolutely!
Epistemology sure is a hoot!
Mikel
July 19, 2011 at 8:05 AM
Re: joke book commentary> A phrase is not tied to its origin. How long have you been speaking? Do you know where all the phrases you use came from? No, you do not. So you don’t consider the origin of something when you say it. You just consider what you think it means. Your comment is a joke, and not the funny kind.
Many people substitute trite adages for actual thinking, especially when it suits their purpose of avoiding real thought.
People actually do mindlessly use this phrase in discussing important matters. This phrase has no legitimacy being uttered by any educated person, as it is not at all logical and there is nothing funny about it. It’s only an excuse for stupidly avoiding real thinking.
July 19, 2011 at 8:27 AM
You’re complaining that something out of a joke book isn’t logical when quoted out of context and interpreted literally and you’re absolutely right about that. To be honest though, I just don’t see that as a problem with a joke book.
Given that you probably shouldn’t strictly analyse every word of a joke book looking for hidden tips on life it works: ironically enough the phrase just means don’t sweat the small stuff.
July 19, 2011 at 8:43 AM
re: “many people”
Come to think of it, there’s two years of comments here either 1) complaining about how you should never follow it or 2) pointing out that you never world. Is there anyone who actually does follow “never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity” as a guiding principle in their life who can fooled by malicious people pretending to be stupid?
I’ve been saying that people shouldn’t put so much weight on something that appeared in a list of jokes about Murphy’s law but it’s occurred to me that I don’t think anyone does.
July 19, 2011 at 10:08 AM
There certainly are. They’re called management.
July 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Y’all,
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
~ Hanlon’s Razor
The word, “adequately,” is a powerful modifier that gives HR more flexibility than the word, “never,’ seems to imply. The word, “adequately,” is a very subjective. What is adequate for one person or situation is not so to a different person or situation. Also, I the word, “Stupidity,” is too limited. It can be replaced with “incompetence,” “recklessness,” “thoughtlessness,” “indifference,” “miscalculation” and “unintended consequences.” This list is incomplete and should includes all permutations of non-mutually exclusive intentions, excluding malice. IMO, the following is better:
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by motivation(s) other than malice.”
~ Anderson’s Razor (modified Hanlon’s Razor)
Intention is a very slippery thing to pin down. Furthermore,the consequences are the same regardless of what anyone’s intentions were or are. The absolute truth doesn’t exist in the realm of subjective reality. And subjective truth is … well … subjective.
Regards,
Mikel
——————————————————-
“Even Satan tells the truth when it suits his purposes.”
July 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM
That still kind of implies to me that malice is somehow less possible than everything else, which to me is dangerous, because it hides malice behind other things. It just strikes me as idealistically and unrealistically optimistic. But I suppose it all hinges on the ambiguous words like “adequately” :)
July 21, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Y’all,
I agree Clint that HR has been used in an attempt to mislead or to escape responsibility. Such misuse doesn’t invalidate HR’s gist nor tell us much of anything about its usefulness. Contrariwise, polemicists, on all sides, paint their opponents with the tar brush of “malice” for the purpose of derailing the search for truth and providing shelter for the intellectually lazy ho would rather not evaluate the evidence for themselves. (BTW, I have a similar visceral response when I see “class warfare,” disparaged and denied. The “malefactors of great wealth frequently try to conceal their greed and mendacity with the thin fabric of this denial. The last thing they want is to admit class warfare is real and they are winning. Revolting isn’t it?)
The gist of HR is that affording others the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions is advantageous to the pursuit of truth. We can and do play the odds when weighing intent. The odds further depend on what is at stake and with whom you are dealing — what one poster called context. If it is life or death and you are surrounded by scoundrels it might be wise to assume malice first and ask stupid questions later. However, IMO, when engaged in civil discourse in a civil society, it is a useful rule-of-thumb and more often valid than not. Within these limits It is heuristically sound and promotes civil discourse.
We are taught as children not to speak to strangers. This is prudent because there are some very sick and dangerous people out there. However, we grow up and learn to provisionally trust new people until it becomes clear they cannot be trusted. Society is not possible without a social contract. HR, is about giving people the benefit of the doubt until a pattern of malice becomes clear.
So, what is closer to the truth? Is HR useful tool or dangerous tool? In the hands of skilled craftsman it is a useful tool; in the hands of a fool it is dangerous. In other words, it’s both.
Regards,
Mikel
——————————————————-
“RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.”
~ The Devil’s Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce
http://www.richardgingras.com/devilsdictionary/index.html
August 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Just thought of this, and wanted to share:
“Never attribute to evil genius what can be attributed to an innocent mistake.”
– an unknown evil genius
… Yeah I just made that up!
August 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Motivation is the key. A lot of selfishness comes from the brain’s propensity to “avoid pain and seek pleasure” and “fight or flight” and this drives our subconscious motives and our conscious motives. There have been evil geniuses and I would think that some have never been caught. Some people accept what their leader says is true(good people remained quiet). I know people make mistakes. I do expect that people should think before they act…maybe that’s too high of an expectation. And I would prefer to help people based on fact but people(both leader and follower) do make problems bigger than they are and just want attention. I’ve done some stuff that I wish I could take back. I think that Ronald Reagan said it best, trust but verify and as cliche as it sounds, we are not perfect.
And …lol..now that I’m thinking. Let me just point out some observations that I see. I’m not saying these observations are totally correct because I don’t have the same experiences as others. I will acknowledge that we need to have a simple clear argument structure for certain issues, either black or white, right or left, right or wrong. But assigning issues, whatever they maybe, in this manner should be done sparingly or it only becomes an intellectual competition for those with education(education can lead to arrogance) and diminishes the potency and wont be effective for when a real need comes. Secondly, it becomes a tool of influence for the mind of those who are not as educated or have a “follower” personality type. We should be empowering people not making dependent people.
Those that don’t have as much formal education, and therefore not invested into a field of study, can be influenced by black or white issues. Those that have the “follower” personality type reinforce the black and white issue. Debate is always about winning over followers never about winning over the debater.
So from the top, there can be a goal to accomplish some change in culture or people group and sometimes those goals are met, either permanent or temporary-with reward and consequences, sometimes they are not.
I cite Asch’s Conformity Experiment and the The Milgram Experiment. These two experiments and Thought Contagion Theory, along with other refinements in “seed planting” in the minds of humans(advertising/trend setting with all the media-radio, TV, Internet) can lead to significant influence or at least create an income for someone. This reflects what the human mind thinks it needs as far as control and security.
Not sure if I’ve tied it together well enough. I was trying to type this out with many distractions….
October 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM
The problem is, the quote was changed from the original, wherein incompetence was used instead of stupidity. Different shades of meaning emerge, then.
January 27, 2013 at 5:59 AM
Huh, weird to do a Google search on “never attribute to malice” and have the third (!!!) link be from a person I’ve actually met in real life. Awesome!
January 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM
There’s whole posts on here based on you, too! ;)
March 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM
See I agree with Mr. Eagle, most of your issue comes with the fact that you are using a misquote. The actual quote is “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Now given that we know that drug companies are not stupid, this rule does not apply.
Furthermore the best use of this phrase is usually to imply that someone who’s done something bad is actually just a moron, ie to deflate their ego rather than allowing them to think that being bad is somehow clever.
Finally it’s a “razor” law and these all suffer from the same issue. Which is that they only have utility when you are stumped. In any case where there is some evidence that one of the two choices has more validity than the other then you should not be applying any razor law. I often see people misusing Occam’s razor in this way.
July 12, 2016 at 5:34 PM
If I were a malicious person, I would have come up with Hanlon’s razor too. Does that mean Rob Hanlon was a malicious person? Probably.
I think it’s misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. I think we should use the opposite, Ceej’s Razor: “Never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice.”
This would solve two problems:
1, It would reduce stupidity. People would think more if they knew stupidity which could be mistaken for malice would be punished as if it was malice, unless it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t. It would also completely eliminate wilful stupidity.
2. People like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin would stop feigning stupidity to get away with their evil deeds because we would assume malice right off the bat.
“But, Ceej!” I hear you cry, “What if they really were legitimately stupid!?”
Well… Then it sucks to be them, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Besides, if their stupidity was dangerous enough where it could be explained by malice, then they shouldn’t be loose on the streets wreaking havoc on us with it.