6 ms·

Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) I believe the thinking is: "This is a great filter to ensure we only get great and passionate people!" wh

Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) I believe the thinking is: "This is a great filter to ensure we only get great and passionate people!" when the reality is: "This is a great filter to ensure that only desperate or unimaginative people will apply!"

kuramitropolis 4y ago
>Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) This keeps getting repeated. But honestly these days I can't tell the god damn difference. What is malice, other than incompetent people struggling to survive like anyone else, and paradoxically sticking up for each other through the same repetitive cycle of abuse that prevents them from aspiring to competence?
- ozim 4y ago
  This and that road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- svnt 4y ago
  Malice is the conscious identification of that same pathway and the active exploitation of it for the harm of others. It’s a fairly high bar in terms of the behavior of others. Functionally, though, your experiences may be very similar on the receiving end of incompetence vs malice. edit: I want to append this to say: The purpose of the original phrase in my opinion was to encourage cooperation and communication as the solution. In a sufficiently structured corporate environment this solution may be impossible for reasons other than malicious behavior, in which case the statement is without practical value.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    > The purpose of the original phrase in my opinion was to encourage cooperation and communication as the solution. I agree that this might have been the original intention, yet the phrase has become a way of virtue signaling and looking down on those who assume malice. IMHO, difference is minuscule, because in many cases consequences are the same.
  - kuramitropolis 4y ago
    Exactly. Malice is a legal, quasi-religious concept. A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as malicious - because we don't attribute concsiousness to it in the same way we attribute it to humans. To have "malice", you need "intent", for which you need need "consciousness", in the classical folk understanding of the term: taking "selfhood", "free will", and "adequate theory of mind" as axioms. Whatever the scientific consensus on those, they seem to have little explanatory power in the domain of business. They're also a pretty high bar, so to speak - certainly higher than we give 'em credit for. If those words really meant what they purported to mean, we'd be functioning in a much more humane economy; but for whatever reason these concepts just don't "stick" to what's really going on in the day-to-day. They're just the wishful thinking of Western humanist authors who were trying to set an example, i.e. mold the world in their own image a little bit. > Functionally, though, your experiences may be very similar on the receiving end of incompetence vs malice. Precisely. And since we're just people who just have objectives to accomplish, and our understanding of the consciousness of others takes at best a pragmatic role in pursuing those, our response to others failing us ends up being essentially the same: looking for ways to enforce compliance so that the counterparty delivers. At the end of the day, "attributing malice" vs. "attributing incompetence" is about saving face - for the counterparty as well as for ourselves. Either way, dedicating effort to saving face detracts from the effort of understanding the problem at hand, which like you said is fundamentally structural.
    - tpxl 4y ago
      I'm going to disagree with you. > A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as malicious A tiger is not malicious when it harms prey, because the intent is survival, and it cannot have that without harm. The survival of abusive CEOs and managers does not require harm to be done to anyone, yet they do it (sometimes for no tangible benefit). > To have "malice", you need "intent" You need not intend for your actions to be malicious, for them to be. If you are willfully ignorant of malicious consequences of your actions, your actions are still malicious. This is why "I didn't know what I was doing was harming people" defense doesn't fly, not in the legal sense and not in the moral. At some point it is your duty to determine the consequences of your actions, and something being your job is definitely over that threshold.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  I don't think it's really different in a metaphysical sense, but one views the object of irritation more as a potential pupil than as an established enemy.
shapefrog 4y ago
> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) Actually this thought process has been problematic for me. Seeing that everyone is actually incompetent is more dangerous than there being a reason (good, bad or otherwise) for their actions.
ben_w 4y ago
> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) While this is true — I would be very surprised if anyone was actively malicious towards their hiring pool — it's not an important distinction when trying to decide which employer to apply for.
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  If someone is malicious they have a potential victims pool, not a hiring pool.
- dcminter 4y ago
  > it's not an important distinction when trying to decide which employer to apply for Oh I completely agree. The funny thing is I actively enjoy writing - but I look at the long questionnaire for some otherwise quite attractive companies and sigh, and assume that everything internally is just as clueless and so just pass them by for a company who won't waste my time.
ruined 4y ago
folly is the cloak of knavery
ManlyBread 4y ago
>Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) I no longer subscribe to this line of thought after seeing several borderline sociopaths use this very same mental model in order to try and manipulate people into doing their bidding.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  There's probably a term for it, but I'm noticing being "deliberately unsuccessful" is becoming more of a thing with the sketchier members of my family. Seems to be a tactic in the NEET playbook. As I see it, "intentional failure" is just a euphemism for sabotage.
  - Tangurena2 4y ago
    A term you may be interested in is "weaponized incompetence". https://www.theskimm.com/wellness/weaponized-incompetence https://www.theskimm.com/wellness/weaponized-incompetence https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/weaponized-incompetence https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/weaponized-incompeten... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weaponized-incompetence-women_l_61e71983e4b0d8b665717814 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weaponized-incompetence-women...
heisenbit 4y ago
The problem is the potential for malice in a place where incompetence reigns. Management incompetence is malice waiting to happen - not necessarily by the incompetent ones which makes it really hard to fight when it does.
q-big 4y ago
> I believe the thinking is: "This is a great filter to ensure we only get great and passionate people!" Assume this were true. Even if this were the case, this might backfire: "passionate" easily works against a company. This means that if you filter for passionate people, but reject such passionate candidates, these candidates might passionately work against your company (e.g. tell every friend what a shithole of a company this is etc.). So, filtering for passionate people in the hiring process (even if it worked) is in my opinion dangerous idea.
- dcminter 4y ago
  I sincerely doubt that kind of second order thinking is much in evidence in HR departments.
eschneider 4y ago
At the interview stage, one doesn't need to decide if they're evil or stupid. Just say 'no' and move on.
jbirer 4y ago
I doubt they are looking for talents / very competitive people. It's more in the lines of "competent just enough but very obedient / willing to put up with a lot".
bluGill 4y ago
You will not find many passionate people anywhere. There are a lot of great people who will do a good job for 8 hours and then go home. You can find a few passionate people who dream of working for you, but not enough who are also great that you can staff a company on them. I work for John Deere, one of those companies that (where I live) has a lot of loyal customers who teach their children we are the best. Even still the majority of great people I work with just want to work their job and go home. (to avoid burn out we don't allow the passionate to work more than 8 hours very often, so the difference between great; and great and passionate isn't significant)
FpUser 4y ago
>"Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;)" One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
PainfullyNormal 4y ago
> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) Please stop saying this, especially if you have no actual evidence of incompetence. It's the equivalent of clicking your heels together three times because you really, really don't want to live in a world full of casual malice. Wishing doesn't make it so.
- ianai 4y ago
  When we’re talking about widely observed practices across broad swaths of activity (this case hiring practices) then we can, ought, and need to move from assuming incompetence to assuming malice. That saying was always meant to be tied with another saying “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” And the other quote about doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is a good definition of insanity.
MrPatan 4y ago
Yes, but sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistiguishable from malice
Tangurena2 4y ago
The first time you end up working for a malignant narcissist, you will never ever state that quote ever again. As long as you live. If you ever work for a sociopath, it might take a couple of jobs getting abused by sociopaths to wipe that quote out of your memory.

kuramitropolis 4y ago

>Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) This keeps getting repeated. But honestly these days I can't tell the god damn difference. What is malice, other than incompetent people struggling to survive like anyone else, and paradoxically sticking up for each other through the same repetitive cycle of abuse that prevents them from aspiring to competence?

ozim 4y ago
This and that road to hell is paved with good intentions.
svnt 4y ago
Malice is the conscious identification of that same pathway and the active exploitation of it for the harm of others. It’s a fairly high bar in terms of the behavior of others. Functionally, though, your experiences may be very similar on the receiving end of incompetence vs malice. edit: I want to append this to say: The purpose of the original phrase in my opinion was to encourage cooperation and communication as the solution. In a sufficiently structured corporate environment this solution may be impossible for reasons other than malicious behavior, in which case the statement is without practical value.
- laserlight 4y ago
  > The purpose of the original phrase in my opinion was to encourage cooperation and communication as the solution. I agree that this might have been the original intention, yet the phrase has become a way of virtue signaling and looking down on those who assume malice. IMHO, difference is minuscule, because in many cases consequences are the same.
- kuramitropolis 4y ago
  Exactly. Malice is a legal, quasi-religious concept. A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as malicious - because we don't attribute concsiousness to it in the same way we attribute it to humans. To have "malice", you need "intent", for which you need need "consciousness", in the classical folk understanding of the term: taking "selfhood", "free will", and "adequate theory of mind" as axioms. Whatever the scientific consensus on those, they seem to have little explanatory power in the domain of business. They're also a pretty high bar, so to speak - certainly higher than we give 'em credit for. If those words really meant what they purported to mean, we'd be functioning in a much more humane economy; but for whatever reason these concepts just don't "stick" to what's really going on in the day-to-day. They're just the wishful thinking of Western humanist authors who were trying to set an example, i.e. mold the world in their own image a little bit. > Functionally, though, your experiences may be very similar on the receiving end of incompetence vs malice. Precisely. And since we're just people who just have objectives to accomplish, and our understanding of the consciousness of others takes at best a pragmatic role in pursuing those, our response to others failing us ends up being essentially the same: looking for ways to enforce compliance so that the counterparty delivers. At the end of the day, "attributing malice" vs. "attributing incompetence" is about saving face - for the counterparty as well as for ourselves. Either way, dedicating effort to saving face detracts from the effort of understanding the problem at hand, which like you said is fundamentally structural.
  - tpxl 4y ago
    I'm going to disagree with you. > A tiger can also quite actively exploit weaknesses and imbalances for the harm of its prey, yet we don't judge the animal as malicious A tiger is not malicious when it harms prey, because the intent is survival, and it cannot have that without harm. The survival of abusive CEOs and managers does not require harm to be done to anyone, yet they do it (sometimes for no tangible benefit). > To have "malice", you need "intent" You need not intend for your actions to be malicious, for them to be. If you are willfully ignorant of malicious consequences of your actions, your actions are still malicious. This is why "I didn't know what I was doing was harming people" defense doesn't fly, not in the legal sense and not in the moral. At some point it is your duty to determine the consequences of your actions, and something being your job is definitely over that threshold.
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
I don't think it's really different in a metaphysical sense, but one views the object of irritation more as a potential pupil than as an established enemy.

shapefrog 4y ago

> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) Actually this thought process has been problematic for me. Seeing that everyone is actually incompetent is more dangerous than there being a reason (good, bad or otherwise) for their actions.

ben_w 4y ago

> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) While this is true — I would be very surprised if anyone was actively malicious towards their hiring pool — it's not an important distinction when trying to decide which employer to apply for.

HelloNurse 4y ago
If someone is malicious they have a potential victims pool, not a hiring pool.
dcminter 4y ago
> it's not an important distinction when trying to decide which employer to apply for Oh I completely agree. The funny thing is I actively enjoy writing - but I look at the long questionnaire for some otherwise quite attractive companies and sigh, and assume that everything internally is just as clueless and so just pass them by for a company who won't waste my time.

ruined 4y ago

folly is the cloak of knavery

ManlyBread 4y ago

>Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) I no longer subscribe to this line of thought after seeing several borderline sociopaths use this very same mental model in order to try and manipulate people into doing their bidding.

jstarfish 4y ago
There's probably a term for it, but I'm noticing being "deliberately unsuccessful" is becoming more of a thing with the sketchier members of my family. Seems to be a tactic in the NEET playbook. As I see it, "intentional failure" is just a euphemism for sabotage.
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  A term you may be interested in is "weaponized incompetence". https://www.theskimm.com/wellness/weaponized-incompetence https://www.theskimm.com/wellness/weaponized-incompetence https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/weaponized-incompetence https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/weaponized-incompeten... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weaponized-incompetence-women_l_61e71983e4b0d8b665717814 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weaponized-incompetence-women...

heisenbit 4y ago

The problem is the potential for malice in a place where incompetence reigns. Management incompetence is malice waiting to happen - not necessarily by the incompetent ones which makes it really hard to fight when it does.

q-big 4y ago

> I believe the thinking is: "This is a great filter to ensure we only get great and passionate people!" Assume this were true. Even if this were the case, this might backfire: "passionate" easily works against a company. This means that if you filter for passionate people, but reject such passionate candidates, these candidates might passionately work against your company (e.g. tell every friend what a shithole of a company this is etc.). So, filtering for passionate people in the hiring process (even if it worked) is in my opinion dangerous idea.

dcminter 4y ago
I sincerely doubt that kind of second order thinking is much in evidence in HR departments.

eschneider 4y ago

At the interview stage, one doesn't need to decide if they're evil or stupid. Just say 'no' and move on.

jbirer 4y ago

I doubt they are looking for talents / very competitive people. It's more in the lines of "competent just enough but very obedient / willing to put up with a lot".

bluGill 4y ago

You will not find many passionate people anywhere. There are a lot of great people who will do a good job for 8 hours and then go home. You can find a few passionate people who dream of working for you, but not enough who are also great that you can staff a company on them. I work for John Deere, one of those companies that (where I live) has a lot of loyal customers who teach their children we are the best. Even still the majority of great people I work with just want to work their job and go home. (to avoid burn out we don't allow the passionate to work more than 8 hours very often, so the difference between great; and great and passionate isn't significant)

FpUser 4y ago

>"Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;)" One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

PainfullyNormal 4y ago

> Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice ;) Please stop saying this, especially if you have no actual evidence of incompetence. It's the equivalent of clicking your heels together three times because you really, really don't want to live in a world full of casual malice. Wishing doesn't make it so.

ianai 4y ago
When we’re talking about widely observed practices across broad swaths of activity (this case hiring practices) then we can, ought, and need to move from assuming incompetence to assuming malice. That saying was always meant to be tied with another saying “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” And the other quote about doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is a good definition of insanity.

MrPatan 4y ago

Yes, but sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistiguishable from malice

Tangurena2 4y ago

The first time you end up working for a malignant narcissist, you will never ever state that quote ever again. As long as you live. If you ever work for a sociopath, it might take a couple of jobs getting abused by sociopaths to wipe that quote out of your memory.