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.
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.