4 ms·

"Never assume malice for that which can be better explained by incompetence"

bitcharmer 5y ago
I don't like this saying because it generalises too much. For example, if you follow this line of thought you'd never investigate murderous cops simply because their cameras where turned off due to their incompetence rather than purposeful, malicious action.
- throwanem 5y ago
  The first two words of the rule are "never assume".
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum. If you were really honest about the meaning of the quote you should say "never assume malice" because that's the actual statement here.
    - doctor_eval 5y ago
      Not at all. If you have two equally likely possibilities - malice and incompetence - you should assume incompetence. I have another saying though: “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  "Attempting to invalidate random quotes you read on the internet by taking them to logical extremes is kind of missing the point." - Albert Einstein
- alexcosan 5y ago
  I see this more as "do not assume until there's evidence of malice". Not that you should not look for evidence - basically, innocent until proven guilty. There's a tendency to judge every ignorant act as malice when, a lot of times, it's just that - ignorance/incompetence. Not talking specifically about this case, although it may apply, we just read a twitter thread.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  It's not "never investigate". It's "never assume".
mejutoco 5y ago
"Never say never"
UweSchmidt 5y ago
It's the other way 'round. We're all good at tacitly accepting broken processes if it benefits us but will quickly fix things if opportune.
- patrec 5y ago
  Exactly. Just like "Correlation does not imply causation" Hanlon's razor is one of those things people love to trot out to appear sophisticated when it has quite the opposite effect. Would it also be "We eventually figured out something was wrong and went through a very annoying process of learning about royalties and how they interplay with prices, discounts, and other factors and then set things right" if Amazon's mistake was cutting their own fair share in half rather than their business partner's?
ekianjo 5y ago
only valid at the individual level.

I don't like this saying because it generalises too much. For example, if you follow this line of thought you'd never investigate murderous cops simply because their cameras where turned off due to their incompetence rather than purposeful, malicious action.

throwanem 5y ago
The first two words of the rule are "never assume".
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum. If you were really honest about the meaning of the quote you should say "never assume malice" because that's the actual statement here.
  - doctor_eval 5y ago
    Not at all. If you have two equally likely possibilities - malice and incompetence - you should assume incompetence. I have another saying though: “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”.
AussieWog93 5y ago
"Attempting to invalidate random quotes you read on the internet by taking them to logical extremes is kind of missing the point." - Albert Einstein
alexcosan 5y ago
I see this more as "do not assume until there's evidence of malice". Not that you should not look for evidence - basically, innocent until proven guilty. There's a tendency to judge every ignorant act as malice when, a lot of times, it's just that - ignorance/incompetence. Not talking specifically about this case, although it may apply, we just read a twitter thread.
wccrawford 5y ago
It's not "never investigate". It's "never assume".

mejutoco 5y ago

"Never say never"

UweSchmidt 5y ago

It's the other way 'round. We're all good at tacitly accepting broken processes if it benefits us but will quickly fix things if opportune.

patrec 5y ago
Exactly. Just like "Correlation does not imply causation" Hanlon's razor is one of those things people love to trot out to appear sophisticated when it has quite the opposite effect. Would it also be "We eventually figured out something was wrong and went through a very annoying process of learning about royalties and how they interplay with prices, discounts, and other factors and then set things right" if Amazon's mistake was cutting their own fair share in half rather than their business partner's?

ekianjo 5y ago

only valid at the individual level.