5 ms·

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

m000 4y ago
Yes, but with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred [1]. It's a razor fight then! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
rfrey 4y ago
I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
  - valuearb 4y ago
    The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.
      - ravi-delia 4y ago
        Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round. Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their benefit outweighs the potential backlash either. Russia really doesn't risk backlash, but on the first order seems more harmed than not. Maybe it would force Europe to reckon with a winter without Russian gas before the winter comes? Seems pretty flimsy.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > but there's no practice round. Sure there is. The Polish Navy could practice finding the pipeline as much as they want. They could also practice blowing things up underwater as much as they want. Doing both at once isn't much more of a problem. Also I think the backlash issue is overstated, particularly for America. What would Germany do, rage-quit NATO? Not a chance. Get pissy about it but do nothing? Very likely. Bury the evidence so they don't have to explain it to their public? Also very likely. In this regard, America has much more leeway than Poland.
        ravi-delia 4y ago
        Is there any plausible way a navy ship could have blown up the pipeline? Everyone knew about it pretty quickly, no? Like before a ship got more than 30 miles away? I assumed it would have been done by a small team of saboteurs on a plausibly deniable vessel, but I'm not an expert. What's the consensus? I don't think rage-quitting NATO would be the concern, but a trade war. The US bombing the pipeline is like a tariff applied outside their borders, you can't firmly discount the possibility that someone would take issue with it. Is it likely? Honestly I doubt it, but for the US to benefit western Europe would definitely need to crack come winter (which is by no means guaranteed), and it would be have to be easier to import from America than from Russia even if they did, which isn't obvious. If the US had the capacity to sell enough gas to Europe to profit from this, they wouldn't be worried about energy-hungry nations breaking the embargo!
  - rfrey 4y ago
    There is exactly one imperialist aggressor in this conflict, and it isn't the US.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      You're implicitly assuming that the destruction of the pipeline was an imperial act of aggression, rather than a response to imperial aggression. I don't think that's a sound assumption.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      There is only one Empire on this planet, and that is the US. Since the collapse of the British Empire, there's no other country that falls so perfectly into the definition of an empire.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    US / UK interests are well enough aligned that if one had a motive, the other might have done it for them as a favor in return for some other unknown favor. And whatever issues the UK is having now, it would not have precluded doing something as easy as this. The UK is not my first or even second suspicion, but it could have been them.
  - Filligree 4y ago
    Factions in Russia do gain from it; specifically, Putin’s. There’s no point in overthrowing him to turn the pipeline back on if the pipeline doesn’t exist.
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      I doubt Putin's subjects would want to overthrow him because they want to be able to sell gas again. They might overthrow him, but for other reasons.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Subjects selling gas? I don't think he's implying a populist uprising to champion free market principles. Gazprom executives may wish to resume their lives of absurd luxury yachting around the Mediterranean. They probably don't enjoy being sanctioned and deprived of the luxury they think they're entitled to.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. I don't know who that leaves...
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. It doesn't matter if it hurts Europe, if it benefits the USA. The capital never cares about the colonies, and weakening own colonies and enemies, while at she same times strengthening themselves, is a valid strategy. Machiavellian or not, doesn't matter. Long term, Europe is bound to be dependable on LNG gas imports from the USA. Many companies are shutting down in Europe and considering moving to the place with much cheaper energy.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. How do you calculate the hurt? Absolute hurt, or relative hurt? If I take $20 from you and $10 from a homeless man, I've taken more from you in absolute terms but more from the homeless man in relative terms.
    - oceanplexian 4y ago
      The US and EU have collectively given Ukraine something like ~$100B in military aid. If they wanted someone to sabotage the pipeline (And they are the elephant in the room, with the most to lose if said pipeline is turned back on) they certainly could find the resources to do it.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Or who doesn't get harmed by it? Sometimes you might have some relatively unrelated country flexing to keep things in shambles.
jjoonathan 4y ago
Don't cut yourself on Hanlon's razor. Its frequent success comes from an excess of stupidity in the world, not from a shortage of malice. Kids learn how to "play dumb" before they can even string complete sentences together and they only get better. Hanlon's razor is often correct, but always exploitable.
jamesredman 4y ago
Hanlon’s razor seems like something a King would imagine and peasants would repeat as if they thought themselves wiser than the King.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Hanlon's razor is foolish; every who's up to no good knows the "pretend it was an accident" trick. Children figure it out. Not assuming malice is a good policy in ordinary everyday situations, but the razor lacks that nuance and says to Never assume malice, which is going too far.
- teekert 4y ago
  Still best to initially assume no malicy because it is insulting if it really wasn't. I typically adhere to Hanlon's razor because of this.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    "Initially assume" is good policy, "never attribute" is bad policy.
ouid 4y ago
Just because it has a wikipedia article doesnt mean is isn't nonsense, but first we must agree on what we think the heuristic is. We observe a event that is harmful to us, and we have to decide whether that behavior was caused by a rational agent. Hanlons Razor, as you are using it, says that is usually not the case. There is a reason for the heuristic to hold for a time after a big change in human society. This usually corresponds to a time when the peoppe in power don't understand what was going on. They had strategies that were successful in the previous age and those strategies are obsolete now. The first usage seems to be approximately in the time of Napoleon, when gunpowder fundamentally changed feudalism. For another example, compared to its younger brother, World War 1 could have had Yakety Sax as its soundtrack. There is also a really compelling machanism by which Hanlon's razor fails to apply. Eventually it is the case that competent, selfish strategies prevail and proliferate. They don't go away once they exist, they just accumulate. Eventually, behavior you encounter can be most easily explained by deducing the optimal strategy for the agents involved. This is roughly how biologists operate, and they only study things with comparatively low intelligence. It should be noted that Hanlon's razor is, as a rule, completely incompatible with the equally popular Chesterton's fence heuristic. If incompetence is likely the correct explanation for the fence, then its fine to get rid of.
kornhole 4y ago
Except if someone said they were going to do something, and then it happened. https://lbry.tv/@RT:fd/JoeExplainThis_YT:0 https://lbry.tv/@RT:fd/JoeExplainThis_YT:0

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

m000 4y ago

Yes, but with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred [1]. It's a razor fight then! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

rfrey 4y ago

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

Ekaros 4y ago
And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
- valuearb 4y ago
  The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round. Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their benefit outweighs the potential backlash either. Russia really doesn't risk backlash, but on the first order seems more harmed than not. Maybe it would force Europe to reckon with a winter without Russian gas before the winter comes? Seems pretty flimsy.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > but there's no practice round. Sure there is. The Polish Navy could practice finding the pipeline as much as they want. They could also practice blowing things up underwater as much as they want. Doing both at once isn't much more of a problem. Also I think the backlash issue is overstated, particularly for America. What would Germany do, rage-quit NATO? Not a chance. Get pissy about it but do nothing? Very likely. Bury the evidence so they don't have to explain it to their public? Also very likely. In this regard, America has much more leeway than Poland.
        ravi-delia 4y ago
        Is there any plausible way a navy ship could have blown up the pipeline? Everyone knew about it pretty quickly, no? Like before a ship got more than 30 miles away? I assumed it would have been done by a small team of saboteurs on a plausibly deniable vessel, but I'm not an expert. What's the consensus? I don't think rage-quitting NATO would be the concern, but a trade war. The US bombing the pipeline is like a tariff applied outside their borders, you can't firmly discount the possibility that someone would take issue with it. Is it likely? Honestly I doubt it, but for the US to benefit western Europe would definitely need to crack come winter (which is by no means guaranteed), and it would be have to be easier to import from America than from Russia even if they did, which isn't obvious. If the US had the capacity to sell enough gas to Europe to profit from this, they wouldn't be worried about energy-hungry nations breaking the embargo!
- rfrey 4y ago
  There is exactly one imperialist aggressor in this conflict, and it isn't the US.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    You're implicitly assuming that the destruction of the pipeline was an imperial act of aggression, rather than a response to imperial aggression. I don't think that's a sound assumption.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    There is only one Empire on this planet, and that is the US. Since the collapse of the British Empire, there's no other country that falls so perfectly into the definition of an empire.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  US / UK interests are well enough aligned that if one had a motive, the other might have done it for them as a favor in return for some other unknown favor. And whatever issues the UK is having now, it would not have precluded doing something as easy as this. The UK is not my first or even second suspicion, but it could have been them.
- Filligree 4y ago
  Factions in Russia do gain from it; specifically, Putin’s. There’s no point in overthrowing him to turn the pipeline back on if the pipeline doesn’t exist.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    I doubt Putin's subjects would want to overthrow him because they want to be able to sell gas again. They might overthrow him, but for other reasons.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Subjects selling gas? I don't think he's implying a populist uprising to champion free market principles. Gazprom executives may wish to resume their lives of absurd luxury yachting around the Mediterranean. They probably don't enjoy being sanctioned and deprived of the luxury they think they're entitled to.
- RajT88 4y ago
  I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. I don't know who that leaves...
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. It doesn't matter if it hurts Europe, if it benefits the USA. The capital never cares about the colonies, and weakening own colonies and enemies, while at she same times strengthening themselves, is a valid strategy. Machiavellian or not, doesn't matter. Long term, Europe is bound to be dependable on LNG gas imports from the USA. Many companies are shutting down in Europe and considering moving to the place with much cheaper energy.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. How do you calculate the hurt? Absolute hurt, or relative hurt? If I take $20 from you and $10 from a homeless man, I've taken more from you in absolute terms but more from the homeless man in relative terms.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    The US and EU have collectively given Ukraine something like ~$100B in military aid. If they wanted someone to sabotage the pipeline (And they are the elephant in the room, with the most to lose if said pipeline is turned back on) they certainly could find the resources to do it.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Or who doesn't get harmed by it? Sometimes you might have some relatively unrelated country flexing to keep things in shambles.

jjoonathan 4y ago

Don't cut yourself on Hanlon's razor. Its frequent success comes from an excess of stupidity in the world, not from a shortage of malice. Kids learn how to "play dumb" before they can even string complete sentences together and they only get better. Hanlon's razor is often correct, but always exploitable.

jamesredman 4y ago

Hanlon’s razor seems like something a King would imagine and peasants would repeat as if they thought themselves wiser than the King.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Hanlon's razor is foolish; every who's up to no good knows the "pretend it was an accident" trick. Children figure it out. Not assuming malice is a good policy in ordinary everyday situations, but the razor lacks that nuance and says to Never assume malice, which is going too far.

teekert 4y ago
Still best to initially assume no malicy because it is insulting if it really wasn't. I typically adhere to Hanlon's razor because of this.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  "Initially assume" is good policy, "never attribute" is bad policy.

ouid 4y ago

Just because it has a wikipedia article doesnt mean is isn't nonsense, but first we must agree on what we think the heuristic is. We observe a event that is harmful to us, and we have to decide whether that behavior was caused by a rational agent. Hanlons Razor, as you are using it, says that is usually not the case. There is a reason for the heuristic to hold for a time after a big change in human society. This usually corresponds to a time when the peoppe in power don't understand what was going on. They had strategies that were successful in the previous age and those strategies are obsolete now. The first usage seems to be approximately in the time of Napoleon, when gunpowder fundamentally changed feudalism. For another example, compared to its younger brother, World War 1 could have had Yakety Sax as its soundtrack. There is also a really compelling machanism by which Hanlon's razor fails to apply. Eventually it is the case that competent, selfish strategies prevail and proliferate. They don't go away once they exist, they just accumulate. Eventually, behavior you encounter can be most easily explained by deducing the optimal strategy for the agents involved. This is roughly how biologists operate, and they only study things with comparatively low intelligence. It should be noted that Hanlon's razor is, as a rule, completely incompatible with the equally popular Chesterton's fence heuristic. If incompetence is likely the correct explanation for the fence, then its fine to get rid of.

kornhole 4y ago

Except if someone said they were going to do something, and then it happened. https://lbry.tv/@RT:fd/JoeExplainThis_YT:0 https://lbry.tv/@RT:fd/JoeExplainThis_YT:0