Speculations Hanlon's Razor

[Impact]

Hanlon's razor is a mental rule that says, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

It's similar to Occam's Razor, but it focuses on motivation rather than whether an explanation is simple or not.

For example, for Shanks to be a "rat" you have to assume there is malice involved.

The truth—as revealed in the Elbaph Arc—is that he has an identical twin brother named Shamrock, the leader of the Holy Knights. Our early belief that it was Shanks relied entirely on our own lack of information regarding the Figarland family

It could've been explained by saying if Shanks wouldn't do it then there must be another person who looks like him yet makes different choices. That requires a leap of faith, but it would be supported by Hanlon's Razor.

In direct contrast, if you applied Occam's Razor in that situation, then the simplest explanation is someone who looks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck. It must be Shanks.

Hanlon's Razor flips that entire idea upside down.

• Occam’s Razor (The simplest explanation is usually the best): The cloaked figure looks like Shanks and has access to the Five Elders. Therefore, Shanks is a traitor. (Simple, direct, requires no new variables).
• Hanlon’s Razor (Attribute to ignorance over malice): If Shanks acting evil contradicts his entire character, we must be missing information. Therefore, we are ignorant of a second person. (Requires a massive leap of faith and introduces a brand-new, unproven variable).

Note: Only a genius like me will explain this to you.

 

[BattalGazi]

So Shanks is a traitor?

 

[Goofball_Your_Nika]

I disagree, malice and stupidity often go hand in hand.

 

[Impact]

I disagree, malice and stupidity often go hand in hand.

You're not actually presenting any mental models at all, it's a bad faith argument.

 

[Goofball_Your_Nika]

You're not actually presenting any mental models at all, it's a bad faith argument.

OK genius

 

[Kumathegoat]

Shanks is still a rat, bro. He poisoned Roger. Accept it

 

[Impact]

If most of the time malicious stupidity is in play, do we have to stop using mental models to determine when it's not?

Do we have to stop using umbrellas just because most days it's sunny out too?

 

[Zenos7]

Hanlon’s Razor (Attribute to ignorance over malice): If Shanks acting evil contradicts his entire character, we must be missing information. Therefore, we are ignorant of a second person. (Requires a massive leap of faith and introduces a brand-new, unproven variable)

It would have to be shanks' ignorance, not the readers, for hanlons razor to be applicable.

Or the malice of the readers who think its shanks because of agenda reasons. But it seems like you are splitting hanlons razor between multiple subjects

 

[Impact]

It would have to be shanks' ignorance, not the readers, for hanlons razor to be applicable.

Or the malice of the readers who think its shanks because of agenda reasons. But it seems like you are splitting hanlons razor between multiple subjects

You don't have to focus on Shanks or the reader as the object, you can focus on "the cloaked figure" whose identity is questionable itself.

If it's Shanks, it's maliciousness, if it's someone else, then it's stupidity. The cloaked entity betrayed one person's character and substituted it for a stupid coincidence involving a lookalike.

If we can't use "the cloaked figure" as the object, then we can make Oda himself the object: when the meeting with Shanks happened, he was either trying to trick us as readers (malice) or he made an inconsistent choice (stupidity).

It's very interesting to me because when you consider the "cloaked figure" as an independent variable that is superpositioned and you can isolate, suddenly the potential of being a malicious Shanks or an ignorant other person are its own traits. On the other hand, if you make Oda the object, then you're trying to determine when he's playing tricks and when he's not.

 

[Zenos7]

If we can't use "the cloaked figure" as the object, then we can make Oda himself the object: when the meeting with Shanks happened, he was either trying to trick us as readers (malice) or he made an inconsistent choice (stupidity).

thats fair, thats not how it sounded at first though.