According to Joseph Bigler, the quote was first used by Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania, as an epigraph to a collection of various Murphy's Law jokes published in 1980 as Murphy's Law Book Two, or More Reasons Why things are going badly." The epigraph was coined by analogy with Occam's Razor.
A similar phrase occurs in Robert Heinlein's story The Logic of Empire (1941): "You are trying to explain by malice that which is the result of ordinary stupidity." This phrase was cited as a separate quotation in 1995 (five years before Bigler attributed the authorship to Robert J. Hanlon). In fact, the "Hanlon's Razor" is a distorted "Heinlein's Razor". The definition of Heinlein's Razor has since been: "Never ascribe malice to that which is fully explained by stupidity; but do not rule out malice."
A similar phrase is often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "Never ascribe malice to that which is entirely due to incompetence."
Goethe has another statement similar in meaning in the novel The Sufferings of Young Werther (1774): “... misunderstandings and negligence create more confusion in this world than cunning and malice. In any case, the last two are certainly much rarer."
... it is easier to admit that the world is ruled by villainy thought out many moves ahead than to admit the obvious: the world is ruled by a mess - stupidity, complete incompetence and amazing irresponsibility of Decision Makers that does not fit into the usual head.
Kirill Yurievich Eskov. The CIA as a mythology.
Even more briefly and succinctly, this idea was expressed by the Russian writer Viktor Pelevin, to whom the phrase is attributed: "The world is ruled not by a secret lodge, but by obvious crap."
see also
Notes
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what "Hanlon's Razor" is in other dictionaries:
Hanlon's razor is a statement that says: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". See also Razor ... ... Wikipedia
The article is part of a cycle about Scholasticism ... Wikipedia
Razor is a device for shaving. Razor (film) (English Dressed to Kill) feature film in 1980. Occam's Razor methodological principle ("One should not multiply things unnecessarily"). Occam's Razor (Dr. House) ... ... Wikipedia
- "Razor (blade) of Occam" methodological principle, named after the English Franciscan monk, nominalist philosopher William Occam (Ockham, Ockam, Occam; ca. 1285 1349). In a simplified form, it reads: “One should not multiply things without ... Wikipedia
Murphy's law is a universal philosophical principle that if there is a possibility that some kind of trouble can happen, then it will definitely happen. A foreign analogue of the Russian "law of meanness" and ... ... Wikipedia
The Pareto law, or the Pareto principle, or the 20/80 principle is a rule of thumb named after the economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, in its most general form is formulated as “20% of efforts give 80% of the result, and the remaining 80% ... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Conspiracy theory (meanings). Conspiracy theory (from the English conspiracy theory, also known as a conspiracy theory) is a set of hypotheses showing a vital (publicly ... ... Wikipedia
- (English Sturgeon s Law) an aphoristic statement “Nothing can always go right” (option: “Everything sometimes goes wrong as we would like”) (English “Nothing is always absolutely so”), expressed by science fiction writer Theodore ... ... Wikipedia
This article should be wikified. Please format it according to the rules for formatting articles ... Wikipedia
Don't lose. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.
In philosophy, the term “razor” is understood as a tool that helps to discard (“shave off”) unlikely, implausible explanations. In this article, we will look at three of these razors and learn how to use them with benefit in our lives.
Occam's razor
Occam's Razor, the principle of thrift, or the law of economy, is a methodological principle that states that to explain something, one should not involve new entities if it is not necessary.
William of Ockham, the English nominalist philosopher, wrote: "What can be done on the basis of a smaller number [of assumptions] should not be done on the basis of a larger number." And also: "Variety is not to be assumed unnecessarily."
Simply put, if a conclusion can be reached by two logical chains - from two judgments and from three, then the first chain is preferable, because. it attracts fewer judgments. A simple explanation is better than a complex one if they are equally accurate.
It's not a rule, it's a presumption - you don't always have to use this principle, but in most cases Occam's razor does indeed lead to the best solution.
Practical use:
- When you explain something, use the shortest logical and causal chains, if this does not lose the general meaning.
- If you see several equally effective solutions to a problem, choose the simplest one.
- When proving the validity of any judgment, choose the shortest chain of arguments.
Hanlon's Razor
According to Hanlon's razor, in unpleasant events, human error as a cause must be assumed before someone's intentional atrocity.
That is, one should not attribute to malice that which could well have happened due to ignorance or inattention.
People rarely resort to using this razor, but in fact, stupidity and inattention are much more likely to cause disasters than the conscious atrocity of someone.
It is also important to remember that, like Occam's Razor, this is only a presumption. Some events do occur due to malicious acts, but still you should not consider such a cause in the first place.
Practical use:
If something happened to you, first think about what mistake could have been made, and only then think about who and how could harm you.
Hitchens razor
According to Hitchens' razor, the one who believes that it is true must prove the truth of a statement. If a person cannot provide convincing evidence, then further argument does not make any sense.
This principle sounds best in the aphoristic form in which it was formulated by the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens: “What can be argued without evidence can also be refuted without evidence.”
According to Hitchens' razor, arguments like "it's true because you can't prove it's false" are not valid.
Practical use:
- Appeal to Hitchens' razor when, instead of proving the truth of your judgment, your opponent will ask you to refute it.
- When formulating your own judgments, be satisfied only with the presence of evidence, and not the absence of rebuttals.
“The world is ruled not by a secret lodge, but by an obvious crap”.
V. Pelevin.
It's time to get acquainted with another glorious tool of a thinking person.
The "Hanlon's razor" is formulated as follows:
Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity or incompetence.
Together with common sense, the humorous wording attributed to Robert J. Hanlon is an excellent tool for "gutting" conspiracy schemes - the drug "chewing gum" of lovers of "exciting secrets" and "brutally observant" laymen.
Let's look at the most iconic examples, the most common in the post-Soviet space.
1. Americans didn't go to the moon. The most popular conspiracy scheme, on which everyone who is not lazy is already warming their hands. Meanwhile, even a cursory glance at the "whistleblowers" reveals among them a suspiciously large number of outcasts, half-educated people, "couch academics" and simply inadequate. But the number of supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" who can really be responsible for their words, somehow: serious scientists, astronauts, even functionaries of space agencies, for some reason tends to zero ... Oh yes, they are in a conspiracy... All-all-all... :)))
2. The attack on the "twin towers" of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was organized and orchestrated by American intelligence agencies. Many publications have been devoted to this, even several books have been published. Meanwhile, 15 years have passed since the tragedy. What did America get from this, besides the "Afghan mousetrap"? I immediately recall the fairy tale about "tops and roots" ...
3. The collapse of the USSR is the result of the subversive activities of the Western intelligence services and the betrayal of the top leadership. Countless "interesting" publications and dozens of "exciting" books have been written on this subject. Meanwhile, in my humble opinion, this myth stems directly from the principle leader's infallibility. That is, it is much easier for an orthodox communist to believe that the general secretaries Andropov and Gorbachev were recruited than into the blatant incompetence of the top, at times turning into insanity ....
Try to debunk the story about "secret world government" I suggest to readers. :))
It should be noted that the refutation of conspiracy schemes is very costly, and sometimes simply impossible. In fact, even if regular flights to the Moon are opened, "vigilant" half-educated will squeal that all the "evidence" vile conspirators secretly delivered there.
Why do conspiracy schemes appear? Because this is a great opportunity for the marginalized, half-educated and inadequate to express themselves. Plus - INEXHAUSTABLE feeder for the yellow press. Why Conspiracy schemes like the townsfolk? Because they raise a sense of self-importance! "We all know about you!" :)))
Dunbar's number, Hanlon's Razor, Herzberg's Hygiene - what is it and why is it all needed?
Bell Beth Cooper is the creator of Buffer and Exist and maintains a popular science and social media blog.
Psychological theories often seem too confusing to me (I'm sure there is a theory that will explain this too), but there are some that are quite easy to understand and that I often recall, especially when interacting with other people. Here are three that are especially important in business, marketing, leadership, and communication skills in general.
Dunbar number
Robin Dunbar is an evolutionary psychologist who developed a model for predicting the social factors of primate behavior based on their brain size. Dunbar used neocortex volumes to measure these dimensions, since it is the neocortex that accounts for most of the brain expansion in primates. In particular, Dunbar studied the size of social groups and close, caring partners in different species of monkeys. For example, among chimpanzees, social groups consisted of about 50 monkeys, but each monkey had only two or three "close friends."
Based on the size of the neocortex, Dunbar learned to very accurately predict the size of the social group and inner circle in different species of primates. When applied to people, it turned out that most social groups should consist of about 150 people: about the number of people you can ask for a favor and expect that the request will be granted.
Our closer circle is about 12 people. But 150 is an important number. This is the maximum number of people with whom most of us can maintain stable social ties. Anything above this number already strains our brain, and as new people are added, old ones will fall away. Dunbar himself gave this definition: "This is the number of people with whom you will not be ashamed to ask for a drink together if you meet one of them in a bar."
Writer Rick Lacks tried to refute Dunbar's thesis, but ended up finding this: “In trying to prove Dunbar wrong, I proved him right. I proved that even if you know about the Dunbar number, and even if you specifically set aside time to expand your social capital, the number of friendships is still not infinite. More specifically, less than 200.
Dunbar's number is especially interesting in terms of marketing, branding, and social media work. If you keep in mind that each person you communicate with emotionally counts only about 150 other people, this greatly simplifies communication. Instead of getting frustrated that your brand doesn't connect with customers, consider that every emotional connection they make with you costs them a relationship with a friend or family member. So when people do get attached to your brand, it's a breakthrough.
One might think that Dunbar's number contradicts the idea of social networks. On the contrary, this is why the social network Path limits the number of contacts to 150. On the other hand, social networks rely on weak ties: "friends of friends" or "the theory of six handshakes." Morten Hansen writes in his book Collaboration that it is not so much the number of contacts that a person maintains that matters, but their diversity, the number of different types of people, experiences, technologies, points of view that people access through their social networks. Weak ties help "build bridges to worlds we don't walk on," while strong ties tend to be with people in worlds we already know.
Hanlon's Razor
This is the thesis that goes like this: "Never ascribe to malice that which is fully explained by stupidity."
If you've heard of Occam's Razor, then you know that the razor is a philosophical tool that cuts off unlikely explanations, leaving us with more convincing versions.
Although the phrase "Hanlon's razor" contains the word "stupidity", I prefer to speak of "ignorance" because lack of information often explains what we consider stupidity. The main idea is that when it seems that someone is treating you with malicious intent, you should dig deeper and see if ignorance is the cause.
Have you ever had a letter from a colleague that seemed to attack your idea? At first, it is tempting to explain this with bad intentions, but if you look closely, the reason can only be misunderstanding. So the next time you have doubts about a tweet or letter, remember Hanlon's razor.
Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory
You can rely on this theory in communication about work - with colleagues, with employees, even with friends and spouses. The theory formulated by psychologist Frederick Herzberg is that satisfaction and dissatisfaction with work should be measured differently, not on the same scale.
Job dissatisfaction comes from "hygienic" factors - the physical environment at work, stability, salary. Satisfaction with work, however, is explained by “motivating” factors such as the content of this work, the ability to feel one's achievements, to take responsibility.
From Herzberg's research, we can conclude that eliminating the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction does not necessarily lead to job satisfaction. Therefore, even with a high position, a large salary and a comfortable working environment, we can feel bad if we do not have real responsibility and do not feel that we are achieving something.
And vice versa, if you love the work itself, if your merits are recognized, this does not remove the issues of low pay or an uncomfortable working environment.
This theory makes you think a lot: why certain companies are considered good employers, how best to motivate a person or an entire team. I think this theory can also play a big role in those moments when we have to listen to complaints from friends, colleagues or subordinates about their work. I will never say “But you get paid so much!” in response to these complaints.
Useful article? Subscribe to our channel in Zen and follow the best updates and discussions on "Ideonomics"
","nextFontIcon":" ")" data-theiapostslider-onchangeslide=""""/>
Few places manage to create such a positive image of idiots as in the State Duma. The other day I read in the press that deputies of the LDPR faction in the State Duma of the Russian Federation are developing a bill on a complete ban on the use of a flavor enhancer - monosodium glutamate in food products
This is one of the most abundant amino acids in nature, which is part of almost all the proteins of our body, and indeed the proteins of any living organism found on our planet. It is one of the 20 amino acids that are encoded by the standard genetic code. Glutamate is found in significant amounts in any meat, in any fish, in any bird, in all dairy products (and even in breast milk), in tomatoes, mushrooms, in peas, in eggs, plus our body itself synthesizes it.
The idea that monosodium glutamate can be bad for people's health is associated with a completely anecdotal story when someone Robert Ho Man Kwok wrote a letter to one of the leading medical journals around the middle of the last century that after going to Chinese restaurants, he somehow it feels weird. Strange symptoms, namely numbness of the back of the neck, gradually spreading to both arms and back, weakness and increased heartbeat, according to Robert Ho Man Kwok, occurred 15-20 minutes after eating the first course. He called it "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome". MSG is known to be used heavily in Chinese restaurants as a flavor enhancer, but no causal relationship has ever been shown between MSG consumption and any of these symptoms. Of course, this whole story made the press very happy, which is always in an active search for an informational reason for the next horror story. But Robert Ho Man Kwok couldn't pinpoint exactly what caused his symptoms.
Of course, if you eat a lot of glutamate, this can lead to negative consequences (up to death), as, for example, if you eat a lot of another common flavor additive (because of which riots were once staged in Russia!), Containing chlorine (which is deadly poisonous gas that the Germans used as a chemical weapon during the First World War!), a chemical substance with the formula NaCl (chemistry!), that is, sodium chloride (ordinary table salt). True, in glutamate, as experiments on rats show, the semi-lethal dose (from which half of the rats die) is 15-18 grams per kilogram of body weight, which is about 5 times morethan table salt. That is, glutamate is about 5 times less toxic than table salt. If we roughly translate the data on rats per person (whose mass is about 60 kilograms), then it turns out that for semi-lethal poisoning, you need to eat about a kilogram of glutamate. At the same time, a small package of seasonings with glutamate, weighing tens of grams and containing not only glutamate, is enough for the whole family for weeks.
For years, parents and teachers have been telling children that if they don’t study biology, mathematics and other school subjects, they won’t find a job, they’ll be poor, they’ll be hungry, they won’t find their soul mate, they will become alcoholics, like Uncle Vasya from the next entrance. For some children, this is a significant incentive to study well. But some deputies in one fell swoop cross out all this educational practice. Don't want to go to school? Nothing. In extreme cases, you fit into the deputies.
And why does no one protect children from astrologers who are talking complete anti-scientific nonsense, because of which children and adults still believe in cosmic fables? I heard about such stories: a young man leaves a girl (or vice versa) because they allegedly did not harmonize any astrological aspects or, some socionic test showed “incompatibility of characters”. Who is responsible for this nonsense? Why is natural selection responsible? And why is it considered normal when children at school are shown anti-scientific films like “the great secret of water” or lectures by “professor” Zhdanov about farting bacteria with eyes and telegony? If deputies need to protect children from someone, let them start by protecting children from the delusional ideas of the deputies themselves, religious and occult obscurantists and pseudo-scientists.
