I feel like this quote is probably intended to be a joke. But, I have to ask anyway:
I always heard this quote as “never attribute… explained by ignorance,” with the moral being that ignorance is repairable, but malice is a (presumably?) permanent character trait. Is incompetence supposed to be a repairable or a permanent trait, in this phrasing?
Interesting question… I never thought of it in that way.
I thought of it more along the lines of “don’t think they’re out to get you… they’re much more likely to be just incompetent”.
Both malice and incompetence can be fixed… but I think the quote is more about how to perceive other people. I have a vague idea that “assuming ill intentions” is a bias in itself.
There was never ayn intention that you could fix other people’s malice…
The post that I replied to was implying that malice was a fixed trait that cannot be changed in any way, and that is not my understanding at all. A person can choose to become less malicious if they wish.
But to your point (even though it diverges from the original intention). It is plausible you could attempt to fix somebody else’s malice using some of the standard ideas: explain that other people have feelings too. Ask how they’d feel in the situation they’re putting the other person. I’d ask them if they wanted to live in a world where it’s ok for everyone was nasty to each other, and talk in general about “the social contract”. I’d also point out the negative utility in doing something that makes many enemies and how it’s quite difficult to get along in this world with more enemies than friends.
ie I’d start by trying to trigger their empathy. If that fails—I’d work on their sense of fairness, then if that doesn’t work, fall back to purely selfish utility reasons.
Note—all of the above may still fail—but it may serve to persuade some.
If I personally were trying to fix the maliciousness of an actual person that I cared about fixing—I’d also spend some time to go look up the psychology of maliciousness and strategies in persuading them otherwise.
The quote is commonly called “Hanlon’s razor” (by analogy with Occam’s Razor)
It is usually interpreted as pointing out that the prior probability of incompetence is much, much higher than the prior probability of evil. So that with any given fuck-up, even if it seems obviously evil, is still more likely to be caused by incompetence.
In this case, it is very unlikely that there is any person or persons in the DoT that is amused by PhilGoetz’s frustration and rage. It is highly likely that, between unions, and construction companies, and highway patrol departments, and schedule slips and general inattention, there is systemic incompetence in the DoT industrial complex.
It is highly likely that, between unions, and construction companies, and highway patrol departments, and schedule slips and general inattention, there is systemic incompetence in the DoT industrial complex.
It’s also highly likely that things are organized the way they are organized because it benefits someone—e.g. unions, and construction companies, etc. etc. -- and nobody cares about the convenience of the masses.
But that’s exactly what I mean. The union, the construction company, all have a stake, but none of them evil. It could even be all good guys. Say the planners are all looking out for the little guy. But one is worried about construction noise, and another about worker safety, and another about secondary traffic effects in local neighborhoods and another about cost overruns.
It’s the n-dimensional, multiplayer tug of war that produced a fucked up result, not actual malice on anyone’s part.
The union, the construction company, all have a stake, but none of them evil.
What do you mean, “evil”? They all have a stake and they all arrange the situation to benefit themselves. It’s not malice, just, as noted, “good business”.
I feel like this quote is probably intended to be a joke. But, I have to ask anyway:
I always heard this quote as “never attribute… explained by ignorance,” with the moral being that ignorance is repairable, but malice is a (presumably?) permanent character trait. Is incompetence supposed to be a repairable or a permanent trait, in this phrasing?
/end randomness...
Interesting question… I never thought of it in that way.
I thought of it more along the lines of “don’t think they’re out to get you… they’re much more likely to be just incompetent”.
Both malice and incompetence can be fixed… but I think the quote is more about how to perceive other people. I have a vague idea that “assuming ill intentions” is a bias in itself.
I am curious—how would you go about fixing other people’s maliciousness?
There was never ayn intention that you could fix other people’s malice…
The post that I replied to was implying that malice was a fixed trait that cannot be changed in any way, and that is not my understanding at all. A person can choose to become less malicious if they wish.
But to your point (even though it diverges from the original intention). It is plausible you could attempt to fix somebody else’s malice using some of the standard ideas: explain that other people have feelings too. Ask how they’d feel in the situation they’re putting the other person. I’d ask them if they wanted to live in a world where it’s ok for everyone was nasty to each other, and talk in general about “the social contract”. I’d also point out the negative utility in doing something that makes many enemies and how it’s quite difficult to get along in this world with more enemies than friends.
ie I’d start by trying to trigger their empathy. If that fails—I’d work on their sense of fairness, then if that doesn’t work, fall back to purely selfish utility reasons.
Note—all of the above may still fail—but it may serve to persuade some.
If I personally were trying to fix the maliciousness of an actual person that I cared about fixing—I’d also spend some time to go look up the psychology of maliciousness and strategies in persuading them otherwise.
The quote is commonly called “Hanlon’s razor” (by analogy with Occam’s Razor)
It is usually interpreted as pointing out that the prior probability of incompetence is much, much higher than the prior probability of evil. So that with any given fuck-up, even if it seems obviously evil, is still more likely to be caused by incompetence.
In this case, it is very unlikely that there is any person or persons in the DoT that is amused by PhilGoetz’s frustration and rage. It is highly likely that, between unions, and construction companies, and highway patrol departments, and schedule slips and general inattention, there is systemic incompetence in the DoT industrial complex.
It’s also highly likely that things are organized the way they are organized because it benefits someone—e.g. unions, and construction companies, etc. etc. -- and nobody cares about the convenience of the masses.
“It’s just good business”—Lord Cutler Beckett.
But that’s exactly what I mean. The union, the construction company, all have a stake, but none of them evil. It could even be all good guys. Say the planners are all looking out for the little guy. But one is worried about construction noise, and another about worker safety, and another about secondary traffic effects in local neighborhoods and another about cost overruns.
It’s the n-dimensional, multiplayer tug of war that produced a fucked up result, not actual malice on anyone’s part.
What do you mean, “evil”? They all have a stake and they all arrange the situation to benefit themselves. It’s not malice, just, as noted, “good business”.