Gwyneth seems to mean well albeit ignorant, but I don’t know how Chris Martin put up with her for so long in their marriage. I don’t even know what he saw in her if she is a cuckoo from the start.
I am of the opinion that Hanlon’s Razor best applies to isolated or infrequent occurrences. When something has been going on for monrhs months or years that hurts or takes advantage of people, the more likely explanation becomes malice.
Edit: just the typo correction evident in the text.
What is the use of a rule of thumb that is only useful in exceptional cases and requires so much additional filtering?
More than, that, I’m not sure I agree as many types of manipulative behaviours thrive of people using your ruleset. Think many things sales people do, basically most police questions, and on and on.
Pen testers for companies regularly abuse the fact so many people think like this to breach companies with tactics as simple as “aw shit, I forgot my badge at home”.
Permit me to restate: Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity. That said, any situation of importance (security or health, for example) has too great a risk to rely on Hanlon’s Razor, and people facing these should remain vigilant.
As far as basic interpersonal relationships and other relatively low-stakes scenarios, sure, granting some benefit of the doubt can be useful when there aren’t glaring red flags.
All that said, I suppose I agree with you that Hanlon’s Razor is probably not broadly applicable enough in our world to be valuable as a rule of thumb. I prefer to “imagine others complexly”, keeping in mind that the motivations, feelings, and histories of other people are not really reducable to simple caricatures. As such, I try not to make judgments/assumptions about why someone might say or do a particular thing, and where possible/reasonable extend them grace. This is not meant to interfere with the social contract of tolerance: anyone willfully intolerant of someone else who is protected by the contract of tolerance is not protected by the contract of tolerance.
Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity.
I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.
If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not, I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky.
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify”, I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me. I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be. Please don’t take any of this to imply blind trust.
Gwyneth seems to mean well albeit ignorant, but I don’t know how Chris Martin put up with her for so long in their marriage. I don’t even know what he saw in her if she is a cuckoo from the start.
I would gladly curse his whole bloodline for daylight savings.
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/uk/clocks-go-back-daylight-saving-time-chris-martin-william-willett-4388708
Giving this much benefit of the doubt to people will be the end of us all.
I’m serious. Hanlons razor, that stupid rule of thumb, has probably caused the most harm of any phrase ever uttered.
I am of the opinion that Hanlon’s Razor best applies to isolated or infrequent occurrences. When something has been going on for
monrhsmonths or years that hurts or takes advantage of people, the more likely explanation becomes malice.Edit: just the typo correction evident in the text.
What is the use of a rule of thumb that is only useful in exceptional cases and requires so much additional filtering?
More than, that, I’m not sure I agree as many types of manipulative behaviours thrive of people using your ruleset. Think many things sales people do, basically most police questions, and on and on.
Pen testers for companies regularly abuse the fact so many people think like this to breach companies with tactics as simple as “aw shit, I forgot my badge at home”.
Permit me to restate: Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity. That said, any situation of importance (security or health, for example) has too great a risk to rely on Hanlon’s Razor, and people facing these should remain vigilant.
As far as basic interpersonal relationships and other relatively low-stakes scenarios, sure, granting some benefit of the doubt can be useful when there aren’t glaring red flags.
All that said, I suppose I agree with you that Hanlon’s Razor is probably not broadly applicable enough in our world to be valuable as a rule of thumb. I prefer to “imagine others complexly”, keeping in mind that the motivations, feelings, and histories of other people are not really reducable to simple caricatures. As such, I try not to make judgments/assumptions about why someone might say or do a particular thing, and where possible/reasonable extend them grace. This is not meant to interfere with the social contract of tolerance: anyone willfully intolerant of someone else who is protected by the contract of tolerance is not protected by the contract of tolerance.
I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.
If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not, I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky.
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify”, I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me. I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be. Please don’t take any of this to imply blind trust.