this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
1221 points (98.9% liked)
Science Memes
17291 readers
2350 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Isn't that already what cynicism prescribes?
It would seem, at least to me, we might not be disagreeing much but instead at a point of not quite getting our ideas across to each other, which is fair because words can have multiple meanings even within the same context.
I would say my point of contention are these 2 sentences
As to me, they seem somewhat contradictory, as the first with the benefit of the doubt seems contrary to the second with looking for the signs that they might not be worthy.
I'd characterize my view as understanding that people may be motivated by selfish concerns, but not assuming that any given person I'm interacting with is. As far as "skeptical" in this context, I'd say it's a little too strong to describe my process/viewpoint. In the purest, binary form of "skeptical" vs. "unquestioning", sure, skeptical. But in the sense of "eying suspiciously", not so much.
"Extend[ing] the benefit of the doubt" and "keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me", for me, both describe what I'll try to describe more deeply:
Barring prior contrary experience with or knowledge of a person, I begin with the assumption that they are honest and not intend to take advantage of me. Any simple statements or requests they make that don't seem costly or detrimental to anyone, I'll generally accept at face value. If they present a statement contrasting with my current understanding, or if they request something of me that could potentially cause myself or someone else harm (bodily, reputation, resources, whatever), I start more consciously evaluating what they say/do to ensure as best as I can that I'm not being convinced of something out of line with my interests. I still don't assume here that their motives are malign, just that they may have too different of a worldview for me to risk not carefully considering what is presented to me.
In the event that I have or gain reason to think the person's interests may be against my own, I stay on much higher alert to avoid being conned or convinced of anything. Generally I'll also try to increase the physical and/or social distance between us, because my natural state is not suspicious and it's exhausting to keep that much guard up.