Talk:Hanlon's razor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the general idea is: "If you're human, you're stupid." or "Humans are more stupid then evil" --slayemin

Has anyone ever noticed the similarity between Robert J Hanlon and Robert Heinlein? Not that I'd attribute to stupidy something that may have arisen through irony. Wyss 17:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Fortune Cookie Files? 2 Deleted sentence 3 More stupidity quotes 4 Albert Einstein 5 William James 6 Dumbledore 7 This is a terrific entry. 8 Whoopsadaisyists 9 Carol's Answer 10 Yager's Passive-Aggressive Rebuttal of Carol's Answer 11 Do we really need all those stupidity quotes?

[edit] Fortune Cookie Files?

...often showing up in [[sig blocks]], [[fortune cookie]] files...

I'm not sure, but shouldn't this be [[http cookie]] instead of [[fortune cookie]]. I'm going to change it anyways, and if I'm wrong change it back please.--FDIS 08:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading the fortune cookie article, it looks like that's the term that was in indeed intended. --Eric's penguin 04:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Before an edit war gets started here, would the supporter of HTTP cookie please provide an example? (I've seen examples in .sig-block fortune cookies, although I have none at hand.)--Curtis Clark 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that HTTP cookie is a misunderstanding (and simply inaccurate), and fortune cookie is a misrepresentation. That is, there's a program called "fortune" which generates fortunes which are often seen in sig blocks. So between the two terms, [[fortune cookie]] is more accurate, but still falls mostly under sig block anyway. Perhaps the solution is to remove the cookie reference altogether and just leave it at sig blocks. --Eric's penguin 01:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are your friend. Directed to fortune (program). --Darksasami 16:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sentence

I've deleted the following sentence from this article: This epigram does not eliminate the attributor herself as being the origin of the stupidity. I've done so for two reasons:

1. An epigram is a poem, which Hanlon's Razor is not.

2. I don't understand what the sentence was supposed to mean (perhaps that a person who cites Hanlon's Razor could herself do so out of stupidity when it appears she does so out of malice?). If anyone does and cares to put back a clarified version, without the word epigram, then be my guest. Chick Bowen 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. --Darksasami 17:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More stupidity quotes

I was suspicious about the additions by 80.200.248.201, because that IP doesn't have a good track record, but I looked them up and they are correct (I did some minor stylistic changes). But the added paragraph and the one that precedes it seem to be leading away from Hanlon's razor towards a more general discussion of stupidity. I don't see a problem with it yet, but we should keep a watch on it.--Curtis Clark 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Einstein

- "Albert Einstein also believed in the power of stupidity: 'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'" - I believe that this quote is spurious. I have a personal animus against this quote, and this is my chance to do something about it.

• (1) I don't remember ever seeing this quote before maybe sometime in the 1990s
• (2) This really doesn't sound like Einstein to me. He was very good-natured in his public pronouncements and didn't go around calling people "stupid". (Heck, he'd been considered "stupid" himself as a child, so I don't think he'd find this very amusing.)

Therefore, I challenge everyone reading this: can anyone find a good cite for this? (Preferably one dating from Einstein's own lifetime?) -- Writtenonsand 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It reads like some of his private correspondence, for example, describing Princeton as "a village of demigods on stilts". Some of this was published after the (fairly recent) death of his secretary, so the quote may well come from the 1990's and still be authentic. Septentrionalis 16:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William James

The reference to William James has been in the piece since it was first written. Like the Napoleon reference, this may be an effort to label an anonymous quote with a plausible author. But it may also refer to this:

We are practical beings, each of us with limited functions and duties to perform. Each is bound to feel intensely the importance of his own duties and the significance of the situations that call these forth. But this feeling is in each of us a vital secret, for sympathy with which we vainly look to others. The others are too much absorbed in their own vital secrets to take an interest in ours. Hence the stupidity and injustice of our opinions, so far as they deal with the significance of alien lives. Hence the falsity of our judgments, so far as they presume to decide in an absolute way on the value of other persons' conditions or ideals.

and the whole essay of which it is part. If there is no objection or better suggestion, I will so source the next time I pass by. Septentrionalis 16:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore

Dumbledore, when discussing kreacher and sirius at the end of the (5th ?) book, says something like this. Just a thought. -Epl18 11:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a terrific entry.

Happening across something like this entry is part of what makes Wikipedia great. Sweet job. - Reaverdrop 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"We all occasionally ask silly questions (but sometimes only realise they are silly when we've asked them) but there is no cure for stupidity."

Jackiespeel 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoopsadaisyists

I must say I am fond of the term Whoopsadaisyists as a pejorative for proponents of the Cock Up Theory :)

[edit] Carol's Answer

I am certain that I read this long before Katrina. Unfortunately I cannot cite a source at the moment.

On close examination, it's likely. *Adds to list of things to do at some point* --Kizor 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The first Usenet use of that formulation that Google finds is by Vernon Schryver in news.admin.net-abuse.email on May 1, 2002. --Psmith 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yager's Passive-Aggressive Rebuttal of Carol's Answer

Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity or incompetence.

Terry Yager 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need all those stupidity quotes?

The quotes that specifically discuss the attribution of stupidity versus evil are relevant, but I don't see how some of the general statements about human stupidity apply.

Benfea 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed my rebuttal here instead of on the main page to avoid unnecessary clutter. My point is that sometimes it's impossible to apply Hanlon's Razor because when either malice or incompetance advances to a certain level, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. As examples, I'll cite the Rosemary Wood's excuse, in which she claimed incompetance in having 'accidentally' erasing the White House tapes, although the majority of people believe her intent was malicious. Then there was the Nixon defense, where he claimed ignorance of any of the covert activities of CREEP, etc, and (almost) managed to pull it off, despite the fact that 'all the president's men' were convicted of various felonies. More recent is the Janet Reno Waco defense, where she claimed incompetance, even though her motive is widely considered to have been malice. In fact, going back a couple of years, the Reagan/Bush claims of having no knowledge of any Iran-Contra arms-for-dope-for weapons deals by the CIA, etc. Of course, I will give Reagan the benefit of the doubt, since he was probably suffering from the early stages of Alzhiemer's disease, but H-dubya can't hide behind that same excuse. Terry Yager 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the above post. Hanlon's Razor ignores the reality of powerful vested interests (e.g. the tobacco lobby, to name just one non-political or religious entity) which are known to have made a project of sowing artificial doubt in order to protect their power base or billions of dollars of sales income.

Indeed a corporation which is not prepared to do everything in its power to deceive the public in the interests of its profits is arguably violating its only substantive obligation - to maximise those profits. This is sorta kinda Hanlon's Razor at a deeper level - the stupidity of the way corporations are constituted is expressed in malicious behaviour - but it is stupid to ignore the known presence online of paid advocates for pro-corporate points of view who are likewise known to intentionally ignore, cast doubt on or otherwise obfuscate the facts - especially where no opposing corporate interests exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.130.226 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Methinks thee takes this matter much too seriously. These are, after all, only meant to amuse and parody the human condition. The fact they now appear falatious lies in the unforeseen depth of despicability to which our species has fallen. Hopefully mother nature will out and our children witness the return of sanity to the human race.  ;-) JimScott 22:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how one should decide when it is reasonable to presume that stupidity is involved. For instance, if a man is the President of the United States of America, would it be unreasonable to presume a great deal of stupidity on his part? Much of my judgement tells me that a person whose actions are mostly guided by stupidity is extremely unlikely to ever be elected president, suggesting the conclusion that when the President takes actions that could be interpreted as stupid, he is really acting on malice. However, given the fact that most high schoolers have a better grasp of the English language than does our President, I cannot accept the conclusion that his decisions are guided by malice rather than stupidity. So I guess what I'm looking for here is an example of a scenario where it would be unreasonable to presume that stupidity is at work rather than malice, because clearly it doesn't apply to U.S. Presidents or NASA astronauts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.14.66 (talk • contribs).

The whole point of Hanlon's razor is to assume stupidity until malice can be demonstrated. That doesn't mean that malice is never a factor, but rather that stupidity meets that other razor, of Ockham, because it requires fewer outside assumptions than malice.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)