5 ms·

- Hanlon’s Razor: never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance or stupidity. Or, more broadly: - There is "what happened," and there is "th

by nhod 5y ago

- Hanlon’s Razor: never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance or stupidity. Or, more broadly: - There is "what happened," and there is "the meaning you assign to what happened," and crucially, _they are not the same thing._ This one lesson underlies virtually every mindfulness and personal development practice in the world.

capableweb 5y ago
Similarly, never assume you know the context. I tend to apply this while driving a lot, when someone is speeding past me. "Idiot! But, maybe his wife is in the middle of birthing his son and he is rushing to the hospital?", helps me keep calm when others act like idiots. There is also a funny video you can share with people to explain the same idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9Gci8MuHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9Gci8MuHw
- baby 5y ago
  Or: always focus on the intent. People do things for different reasons, but you should only judge them based on the intent. For example, all lives matter, sounds good, but what is the intent behind that? Is it really to signal that all lives matter?
  - guntars 5y ago
    Intentions can be very nebulous. We are not always aware of why we’re doing something and tend to come up with explanations after the fact. These can even change over time. Ultimately we can only guess at what happens in other people’s minds. Alternatively we can look at the effects of an action. To use your example, when someone says “all lives matter” it, among other things, alienates black people. IMO makes it a lot more clear cut.
    - baby 5y ago
      Unfortunately whatever you say you’re always going to offend someone. That’s why I think intention is what matters most, otherwise you’re just following an angry crowd into cancelling someone for no good reasons.
mistermann 5y ago
> There is "what happened," and there is "the meaning you assign to what happened," and crucially, _they are not the same thing. Also known as Brahman vs Maya: https://www.yogapedia.com/brahman-and-maya-an-explanation-of-reality-versus-non-reality/2/8086 https://www.yogapedia.com/brahman-and-maya-an-explanation-of... Unfortunately, since these concepts are presented through a religious lens, Maya renders many people unable to even consider (and therefore falling back to binary heuristic thinking, not realized as such) the valid neuro-scientific concepts contained within. A simpler, secular version of the same general idea: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
- saeranv 5y ago
  I don't understand the fish story in the context of the "meaning you assign to what happened". Can someone explain?
  - pavas 5y ago
    The fish are swimming because they are in water, that is what is actually happening. If they do not know they are in water, they ascribe some other meaning as to why they are moving their bodies (swimming).
  - mistermann 5y ago
    My interpretation is that the lack of realization of the young fish that they are swimming in water is analogous to a lack of wisdom, that people tend to not realize that their perceptions of reality (that they consider to be reality itself) are actually just a clever illusion constructed by the subconscious mind, and are based on all sorts of inherited cultural and experiential axioms. Interestingly, people tend to be very good at identifying lack of wisdom in other people (particularly the members of their outgroups), but are terrible at identifying it in themselves - the classic example is people laughing at the stupidity of Trump supporters, anti-vaxxers, etc. However, smart people are also very vulnerable to the very same phenomenon, I think it can be seen in this thread (and you'd be hard pressed to find a group that takes thinking more seriously than Rationalists): https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/qz596o/why_dont_people_often_try_to_earnestly_persuade/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/qz596o/why_... Another lovely articulation of the same general idea: Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? - Frank Herbert
kgwxd 5y ago
I absolutely hate Hanlon's Razor, it's an automatic pass for people acting with malice as long as they play the plausible deniability angle.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  That requires a certain level of intelligence to pull off. Think of how stupid the average person you know is, and realize that half the population are stupider than that (another mental model I ascribe to).
  - kgwxd 5y ago
    The difference between average "stupid" and average "smart" is nowhere near significant enough to make a practical difference. It's a question of how willing someone is to take advantage of their situation. By maybe 3 years old, humans figure out they can lie about their ignorance of what's generally good or bad to get away with a ton and that will be taken advantage of until some sense of accountability and honor is learned, or there's some significant threat to their personal well-being. A lot of people don't get past that stage until their late teens, but young people don't have much opportunity to do a ton damage with that mindset, they don't tend to have much power. Some people never develop the sense of accountability and go on to test the limits of their feigned ignorance until they find the lines, and walk them as close as possible. As adults, on average, they may not "succeed" as much as "smart" people, but the problem is, people like that are more likely to seek a position that allow them to get away with it, and "smart" people keep letting them off with a look of disappointment, and the assumption that they've "learned from their mistake" and won't do it again, but what they've really learned is they're not as close to the lines as they thought and go a little further next time.
mrjangles 5y ago
This is the worst saying ever. I have only ever heard people say it who were either incredibly naive, or worse, malicious. I would go so far as to say: "Never ascribe to stupidity what can reasonably be ascribed to malice." EDIT: perhaps a clearer way of phrasing this would be "If something can reasonably be ascribed to malice, never ascribe it to stupidity"
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Wait, what? You consider it malicious to not assume that everyone is out to get you unless proven otherwise?
  - mrjangles 5y ago
    Your comment is an excellent example. You completely straw manned my argument. There is zero connection between what you claimed I said, and what I actually said. Zero. Your comment was obviously malicious, but I guarantee you will now proceed to avoid responsibility by feigning ignorance. To those you wish to manipulate, particularly those without particularly good linguistic ability, your comment could work to trick them into ignoring what I said. However, to everyone else who can clearly see that isn't what I said, you will pretend to have 'simply not understood what I was saying'.
    - Vanit 5y ago
      Agreed, there is definitely a great example in this little thread of a malicious comment that everyone else can clearly see.
      - mrjangles 5y ago
        lol, well I'm glad I got my point across, one way or the other.
    - sabertoothed 5y ago
      You're really testing the boundaries of Hanlon's razor here. Some verbal disarmament would be good.

by nhod 5y ago

capableweb 5y ago

Similarly, never assume you know the context. I tend to apply this while driving a lot, when someone is speeding past me. "Idiot! But, maybe his wife is in the middle of birthing his son and he is rushing to the hospital?", helps me keep calm when others act like idiots. There is also a funny video you can share with people to explain the same idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9Gci8MuHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9Gci8MuHw

baby 5y ago
Or: always focus on the intent. People do things for different reasons, but you should only judge them based on the intent. For example, all lives matter, sounds good, but what is the intent behind that? Is it really to signal that all lives matter?
- guntars 5y ago
  Intentions can be very nebulous. We are not always aware of why we’re doing something and tend to come up with explanations after the fact. These can even change over time. Ultimately we can only guess at what happens in other people’s minds. Alternatively we can look at the effects of an action. To use your example, when someone says “all lives matter” it, among other things, alienates black people. IMO makes it a lot more clear cut.
  - baby 5y ago
    Unfortunately whatever you say you’re always going to offend someone. That’s why I think intention is what matters most, otherwise you’re just following an angry crowd into cancelling someone for no good reasons.

mistermann 5y ago

> There is "what happened," and there is "the meaning you assign to what happened," and crucially, _they are not the same thing. Also known as Brahman vs Maya: https://www.yogapedia.com/brahman-and-maya-an-explanation-of-reality-versus-non-reality/2/8086 https://www.yogapedia.com/brahman-and-maya-an-explanation-of... Unfortunately, since these concepts are presented through a religious lens, Maya renders many people unable to even consider (and therefore falling back to binary heuristic thinking, not realized as such) the valid neuro-scientific concepts contained within. A simpler, secular version of the same general idea: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

saeranv 5y ago
I don't understand the fish story in the context of the "meaning you assign to what happened". Can someone explain?
- pavas 5y ago
  The fish are swimming because they are in water, that is what is actually happening. If they do not know they are in water, they ascribe some other meaning as to why they are moving their bodies (swimming).
- mistermann 5y ago
  My interpretation is that the lack of realization of the young fish that they are swimming in water is analogous to a lack of wisdom, that people tend to not realize that their perceptions of reality (that they consider to be reality itself) are actually just a clever illusion constructed by the subconscious mind, and are based on all sorts of inherited cultural and experiential axioms. Interestingly, people tend to be very good at identifying lack of wisdom in other people (particularly the members of their outgroups), but are terrible at identifying it in themselves - the classic example is people laughing at the stupidity of Trump supporters, anti-vaxxers, etc. However, smart people are also very vulnerable to the very same phenomenon, I think it can be seen in this thread (and you'd be hard pressed to find a group that takes thinking more seriously than Rationalists): https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/qz596o/why_dont_people_often_try_to_earnestly_persuade/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/qz596o/why_... Another lovely articulation of the same general idea: Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? - Frank Herbert

kgwxd 5y ago

I absolutely hate Hanlon's Razor, it's an automatic pass for people acting with malice as long as they play the plausible deniability angle.

dimitrios1 5y ago
That requires a certain level of intelligence to pull off. Think of how stupid the average person you know is, and realize that half the population are stupider than that (another mental model I ascribe to).
- kgwxd 5y ago
  The difference between average "stupid" and average "smart" is nowhere near significant enough to make a practical difference. It's a question of how willing someone is to take advantage of their situation. By maybe 3 years old, humans figure out they can lie about their ignorance of what's generally good or bad to get away with a ton and that will be taken advantage of until some sense of accountability and honor is learned, or there's some significant threat to their personal well-being. A lot of people don't get past that stage until their late teens, but young people don't have much opportunity to do a ton damage with that mindset, they don't tend to have much power. Some people never develop the sense of accountability and go on to test the limits of their feigned ignorance until they find the lines, and walk them as close as possible. As adults, on average, they may not "succeed" as much as "smart" people, but the problem is, people like that are more likely to seek a position that allow them to get away with it, and "smart" people keep letting them off with a look of disappointment, and the assumption that they've "learned from their mistake" and won't do it again, but what they've really learned is they're not as close to the lines as they thought and go a little further next time.

mrjangles 5y ago

This is the worst saying ever. I have only ever heard people say it who were either incredibly naive, or worse, malicious. I would go so far as to say: "Never ascribe to stupidity what can reasonably be ascribed to malice." EDIT: perhaps a clearer way of phrasing this would be "If something can reasonably be ascribed to malice, never ascribe it to stupidity"

jiggawatts 5y ago
Wait, what? You consider it malicious to not assume that everyone is out to get you unless proven otherwise?
- mrjangles 5y ago
  Your comment is an excellent example. You completely straw manned my argument. There is zero connection between what you claimed I said, and what I actually said. Zero. Your comment was obviously malicious, but I guarantee you will now proceed to avoid responsibility by feigning ignorance. To those you wish to manipulate, particularly those without particularly good linguistic ability, your comment could work to trick them into ignoring what I said. However, to everyone else who can clearly see that isn't what I said, you will pretend to have 'simply not understood what I was saying'.
  - Vanit 5y ago
    Agreed, there is definitely a great example in this little thread of a malicious comment that everyone else can clearly see.
    - mrjangles 5y ago
      lol, well I'm glad I got my point across, one way or the other.
  - sabertoothed 5y ago
    You're really testing the boundaries of Hanlon's razor here. Some verbal disarmament would be good.