https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7pkrsz/eli5_what_hanlons_razor_is/
created by skullgamer on 11/01/2018 at 02:05 UTC
29 upvotes, 9 top-level comments (showing 9)
The textbook definition, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,” has been confusing me for a while.
Comment by [deleted] at 11/01/2018 at 04:35 UTC
62 upvotes, 3 direct replies
You go to a door and grab the door handle to open it. The door handle is shaped weird and has sharp edges.
You could assume that the person who made the door handle that way is an evil jerk who was trying to cut your fingers.
You could also assume that the person who made the door handle was an idiot who probably didn't care about you or anyone who might actually use that door.
Hanlon says you should assume the latter: there are more lazy or stupid or uneducated people that accidently ruin your day, than there are bad guys who are trying to ruin your day.
Comment by IArgyleGargoyle at 11/01/2018 at 05:02 UTC
15 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Philosophical razors are tools that help you narrow down a number of possibilities to the most likely ones. It doesn't guarantee anything, though. Just keep that in mind.
Say someone cuts you off in traffic and you have to slam on your brakes. A lot of people would go straight to exclaiming "That guy tried to kill me!"
There are many other possibilities. Maybe they didn't see you. Maybe they were in a hurry and didn't consider the other drivers around them. Maybe their goal in life was to slow you down. Maybe they were rushing to the hospital for some reason.
The main thinking behind Hanlon's razor is that stupidity or incompetence are more likely than malice to be the cause of something bad, so to narrow down the possibilities, use this razor to cut out the malice. Of all the reasons for that guy to cut you off in traffic, it's less likely that it's because he was out to get you.
Comment by rhomboidus at 11/01/2018 at 04:24 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
A lot of people are stupid, and a much smaller number are hostile. So don't assume someone is out to get you if their actions can be explained by them just being dumb.
Comment by kouhoutek at 11/01/2018 at 05:09 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In general, stupidity is more common than malice. People might selfish and self-centered, but rarely overtly wish ill of others.
In other words, that guy who has his shopping cart turned sideways while spending five minutes trying to decide whether he is ready to step up to "spicy nacho" or should play it safe with "cool ranch", he isn't specifically trying to infuriate you, he just has his head up his ass.
Comment by torpedoguy at 11/01/2018 at 05:38 UTC*
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It's a general explanation of negative things happening in life. It does have a point of failure and an outright reversal of course, but, generally speaking most people out there are not "out to get you".
Let's take customer service, for example. If you order a burger, and it comes with no bacon, then either someone mindlessly pushed the wrong button in the order, or someone didn't read the order right, or a hand slipped, or they all got it right but then handed the orders to the wrong people. Maybe it's even you who ordered wrong!
Same with that slippery floor; chances are the guy cleaning up aisle 3 didn't purposefully trip on his bucket to try and break your arm ten minutes from when it happened. Sure it's not *impossible*, but it's quite the statistical improbability: such criminal genius is very rare indeed!
However Hanlon's razor can not only fail but invert itself outright: When something requires multiple levels of review, consideration and authorization by numerous entities in charge of making sure of everything that's being done, suddenly it's stupidity and accidents that become the exception rather than the norm.
When some change to the law introduces carefully-worded new loopholes specifically aimed at certain "contributors" of those writing it, or when a company hides the results of research and pretends their product is safe, their cars aren't polluting, or their wheels aren't exploding under normal operating conditions?
At that point it's in no way some single worker (or "rogue agent") who tripped up: the entire upper chain of command planned, ordered and ok'd malicious actions through and through. Incompetence *may* occur, but is as likely as accidentally losing a probe from it bouncing right off Mars' atmosphere because you forgot that everyone else uses Metric.
Comment by stawek at 11/01/2018 at 11:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Malice is a deliberate action that resulted in harm *according to the plan*. That's the entire point: it's hard to achieve success, whether the action is morally good or evil.
It's more likely that any harm is a result of failed good intentions than successful bad intentions.
Comment by stawek at 11/01/2018 at 12:18 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Malice is a deliberate action that resulted in harm *according to the plan*. That's the entire point: it's hard to achieve success, whether the action is morally good or evil.
It's more likely that any harm is a result of failed good intentions than successful bad intentions.
Comment by lordzeel at 11/01/2018 at 21:10 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I means "Don't assume someone was being mean if it's just as likely they were being stupid" or in other words, assume that most bad stuff happens because someone made a mistake, or made a bad choice. Don't assume that bad stuff is caused by someone intentionally wanting a bad outcome.
To "attribute" something to something else means you are saying "this is because of this", and "malice" means "evil intent" so when it says "Never attribute to malice" is means "don't assume a thing is caused by evil intent."
And "adequately explained by stupidity" means "the thing is likely caused by someone being stupid." so we end up with:
"Don't assume a thing is caused by evil when it is more likely caused by someone being stupid."
The idea is to evaluate the reasons we assume others have for their actions. It's easy to assume people are trying to harm us, ruin our day, or make us look bad. But for the most part, people don't have "malicious" (evil) intentions. It's far more common that people are stupid, ignorant, lazy, or distracted. So Hanlon encourages us to assume the cause of a problem is incompetence or stupidity, rather than someone "out to get us."
Comment by [deleted] at 11/01/2018 at 04:59 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The concept is confusing or the language he uses is confusing?