4 ms·

saw that coming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

• btilly 13y ago
  When you combine Hanlon's razor (Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity) with Clarke's law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) you get Grey' corollary (Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice). Anyone who has sufficient exposure to any large bureaucracy will have examples of the last to share. Which then raises the possibility that (as is happening currently with Bank of America) the possibility of advanced stupidity is used to cover actual malice.
  • diminoten 13y ago
    ...which leads us right back to Hanlon's razor (it's probably not malice, just stupidity).
    • btilly 13y ago
      But this time with the "Never" somewhat qualified.
      • diminoten 13y ago
        The "Never" isn't literal in the original razor.
        • jholman 13y ago
          Yes, it is literal. Hanlon's razor is advice about what predictions you should make (or which hypotheses you should advocate, if you like). It says that when you don't know whether something is malice or stupidity, you should never predict/theorize the former.
          • diminoten 13y ago
            If the 'never' is literal, then it's attempting to establish a universal truth, and is entirely useless as that universal truth is incorrect. If it's not literal, then it's argumentative hyperbole and should be interpreted as "usually" or "most often". In this case the truth of the statement is intact and can be a useful guide. So either you're right and the saying is worthless, or I'm right and the saying retains useful meaning.
            • dragonwriter 13y ago
              > If the 'never' is literal, then it's attempting to establish a universal truth No, its not. As a statement about predictions, its about likelihood. "Never assume malice when incompetence is plausible", even if taken literally, need not be an attempt to establish that it is universally true that when both are plausible, malice is always the correct prediction; it is a sufficient premise that there are no circumstances in which both explanatiosn are plausible where malice is more likely.
              • diminoten 13y ago
                IF you CAN attribute something to stupidity, THEN YOU MUST. That's what it'd be saying if you took it literally. It's not a statement about prediction or tendency. It does NOT say "malice is plausible" it says "malice is IMPOSSIBLE, when you CAN attribute an act to stupidity."
• anoncow 13y ago
  I'd attribute this to Heinlein's Razor.