Thesis: Hanlon's Razor is garbage.
-
Thesis: Hanlon's Razor is garbage.
-
Thesis: Hanlon's Razor is garbage.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
What's the empirical or theoretic basis for that heuristic? Maybe it's just a made-up excuse that only sounds pseudo-truthy because of the radiance of Occam's razor?
And why "never"? And when is something "adequately" explained by stupidity alone?
Generally, there are some extra incentives at work, e.g. ones leading to the people in question being *deliberately* obtuse. -
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
What's the empirical or theoretic basis for that heuristic? Maybe it's just a made-up excuse that only sounds pseudo-truthy because of the radiance of Occam's razor?
And why "never"? And when is something "adequately" explained by stupidity alone?
Generally, there are some extra incentives at work, e.g. ones leading to the people in question being *deliberately* obtuse.An excuse? Because it sure acts like one.
Does it make a big difference whether malice is "actually" obtuseness - especially when it comes to people in positions of power?
Those supporting an unjust system can be deliberately obtuse as well. Does that excuse their behaviour?
-
An excuse? Because it sure acts like one.
Does it make a big difference whether malice is "actually" obtuseness - especially when it comes to people in positions of power?
Those supporting an unjust system can be deliberately obtuse as well. Does that excuse their behaviour?
I like to counter it using another modification (of an aphorism of Arthur C. Clarke):
Sufficiently advanced incompetence can be indistinguishable from malice.
-
I like to counter it using another modification (of an aphorism of Arthur C. Clarke):
Sufficiently advanced incompetence can be indistinguishable from malice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
- end of diatribe -
-
Thesis: Hanlon's Razor is garbage.
@quincy I think it was intended as a joke--a droll starting point to analyze actions and that once malice is sufficiently proven, we move on from the razor and quickly.
-
@quincy I think it was intended as a joke--a droll starting point to analyze actions and that once malice is sufficiently proven, we move on from the razor and quickly.
@photovotary Ah, that makes sense. But it backfired -- people seem to take it seriously, as an article of faith!
-
@photovotary Ah, that makes sense. But it backfired -- people seem to take it seriously, as an article of faith!
@quincy I think you are correct about that. People latch on to aphorisms without context. I'm not a big fan of aphorisms although they are quite concise and handy.
-
@quincy I think you are correct about that. People latch on to aphorisms without context. I'm not a big fan of aphorisms although they are quite concise and handy.
@photovotary I like them because they are concise and handy, but in any case one has to try and assess their truth :)
-
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
What's the empirical or theoretic basis for that heuristic? Maybe it's just a made-up excuse that only sounds pseudo-truthy because of the radiance of Occam's razor?
And why "never"? And when is something "adequately" explained by stupidity alone?
Generally, there are some extra incentives at work, e.g. ones leading to the people in question being *deliberately* obtuse.@quincy
apart from that: »stupid« is an ableistic notion, individualizing societal conditions, like educational chances etc -
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on