Hanlon's Razor is the adage: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Or sometimes, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence."

It appears in a similar form by the inimitable Johann Wolfgang von Goethe as, "And I have again observed, my dear friend, in this trifling affair, that misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence," in The Sorrows of Young Werther. The same sentiments are also shared by William James, Churchill, and H.G. Wells. More recently, Douglas Hubbard gave a more modern version in his book The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system."

The mistake of assuming bad intentions was brought home to me when puzzling why people kept leaving paper towels in the sinks of the bathrooms at university. How hard is it to put them in the bin?? A year after assuming my fellow students were either lazy or inconsiderate or both, I was washing my hands when another student dried his hands on the towel, walked to the door, opened it by covering the handle with the paper towel — presumably to avoid the germs — and then aimed his paper towel at the bin which was between the sinks. He missed, and it landed in the sink as he walked off down the corridor. Suddenly, it was clear to me that the hygiene of the door handle was higher in consideration of towel-in-the-sink people than whether or not their towel hit their target (and whether it was worth checking if their towel had hit the bin). It made sense. Someone later moved the bin next to the door, and it didn't happen again.

Besides towels in sinks, I've seen people get mad at others pushing in line when the pushers-in didn't realise other people were queuing. I've seen drivers shouting at another driver who's in blissful ignorance of the trouble they've caused. I've seen agents blamed for terrible customer service when the system is at fault, and customer service blame users when the product is at fault. I've seen people despairing at others leaving litter in the park or on the street when animals had dragged out the mess overnight. I've seen people vilified for not moving down on a train when they weren't aware of the squeeze at the other end. And, usually, I think people aren't smart or capable enough, or in fact wicked enough, to carry out the conspiracies that people credit them for. Very often it's the person assuming bad intentions and getting mad who suffers the most.

To be sure, there are different degrees of negligence. We can all make mistakes, but if you're doing your taxes, it's not okay to make a mistake because you didn't read the instructions. If you're standing on a busy train, you owe it to others to be aware that you may be blocking an aisle, and we should do our best to make sure our rubbish stays where we put it. But none of us are perfect and so often I think Hanlon's Razor has some truth to it.

Perhaps a better formulation of Hanlon's Razor would be, "Before attributing to malice, try attributing to incompetence." But I'm not a fan of the wording with 'stupidity' or 'incompetence'. Awareness is so often the necessary start and what's missing.

Since posting this a few people also shared with me, Clarke's Corollary:  "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." And another relevant name for a similar situation is Cock-up Over Conspiracy.

Hanlon's Razor, which encourages us first to consider innocent mistakes rather than assuming ill will, was a submission to Murphy's Law, book two: more reasons why things go wrong, by Arthur Bloch (p52). Murphy's Law is "If anything can go wrong, it will." I've also previously covered Muphry's Law, where, when criticising spelling or grammar, you will make a spelling or grammar mistake yourself.

Fundamental Attribution Error (someone shared Hanlon's Razor with me on posting this)

More conjectures and thinking named after people:

Hanlon's Razor

The fundamental attribution error is the attribution of the source of behaviour to the character and personality of a person above the consideration of context. It's sometimes described as over-attributing causes to disposition over situation.

In a classic example, if a driver swerves in front of you suddenly, it's easy to attribute the cause of the behaviour to the driver being a jerk, i.e. to their character. What we may not see is that the driver is late to pick up their kids, was distracted by a challenging conversation they just had at work, and they're worried they've gone the wrong way and are driving an unfamiliar car.

If a colleague is late to meet us, we might infer that the person is lazy or disrespectful when, in fact, they may have been held up by a traffic accident, been on the phone with a sick relative, and have had trouble sleeping lately. If we are late for a meeting, well, then it's probably for all sorts of good reasons outside our control.

Like confirmation bias, the fundamental attribution error is a big one that can easily colour our interactions with others without us being aware of it.

Remember that what we see is just a tiny fraction of any other person's life and that we don't see the complete picture.

Minimise judgment, particularly around character and personality.

Where appropriate, ask if anything is bothering others.

Build empathy for others as you would for yourself.

Reflect on the positive things others do.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

A self-serving bias is one where we attribute our failures to external factors and our successes to our own admirable qualities and efforts.

So, a tennis player might internally credit their athleticism and skill for their victory, while the loser may blame the umpire's decisions, their racket or the court. You might have seen it in professional sports.

Self-serving bias may be rational and positive, maintaining our self-esteem and a positive view of ourselves. Conversely, it can hide reality (and give referees and umpires a more draining job) or cause us to reject negative but objective feedback.

Self-serving bias is a form of attribution bias where we misattribute behaviours or events to characteristics rather than circumstances or vice versa.

Self-serving bias is covered nicely (pdf) by Donelson R. Forsyth in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd Edition.

Self-serving bias

Attribution bias includes a set of more specific biases where we may attribute behaviour to fixed personality traits or characteristics of a person rather than specific circumstances or actions.

For example, a child may be labelled a genius or gifted when they actually had a supportive environment and worked hard, or someone may be labelled a loser rather than recognising specific circumstances that led to some failures.

Criticism — one of the four horsemen of relationship apocalypse — can become toxic when it's attributed to someone's personality traits. For example, calling someone 'lazy' rather than sharing how it makes you feel when they don't keep the place tidy.

A form of attribution bias may be applied to whole societies via the Destiny Instinct.

Specific examples of attribution bias include the fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias.

Attribution bias

Optimism bias is a tendency to believe that things will turn out well in spite of past evidence or circumstances.

It can be extremely helpful. It allows us to attempt things that many may deem impossible. It probably helps drive entrepreneurs even when everyone is doubting them. Optimists are often healthier and happier.

But it can also undermine us. We might overestimate our chances of success because of what we want to happen rather than what's likely to happen. We may feel pressure from others to give a rosier outlook — like when you might underestimate a timeline when speaking with your boss. We might want others to succeed, or they may be paying us money and be hoping for good news. We probably think we'll get more done next week. We probably think we'll be more disciplined than we will be. We might think that this time it'll be different, or that everyone can't be wrong. Or we may be just discounting evidence without realising it.

Optimism bias

Being clear is not just being helpful. It's actually being kind.

Being unclear about expectations, fuzzy on what you really need, or skirting around an issue, is actually unkind — it sets people up to fail and creates problems in the future.

If you don't give clear feedback, you're holding that person back from improving.

If you say two weeks, but you're really expecting one week, you'll resent it when it's not done in time.

If you say it's really fine when it's not, you'll continue to be upset about how things are going.

Clear is kind is a simple reminder, though by no means always easy, of how being clear in your communication is the generous, brave, helpful, and kind thing to do.

I learned clear is kind, and unclear is unkind from Brené Brown in Dare to Lead. She said she first heard it in a 12-step meeting. I borrowed the dancing emphasis from the always excellent Eva-Lotta Lamm.

Clear is kind

Chesterton's fence put simply is: Don't take a fence down unless you know why it was put up.

It is tempting, in a spirit of progress, to want to do away with old designs, laws, policies, or institutions that no longer help. To think, perhaps, that the people that made them weren't maybe as smart as we are, or seeing things in the right way. Yet institutions, policies, or fences, weren't usually made by accident — they require effort and action, even putting up a fence. Chesterton's fence, after GK Chesterton, is a reminder that before we remove the old and perhaps replace it with the new we would do well to at least understand why the original was put in place.

Once we understand why the fence was there in the first place if we still think it's of no use, then by all means pull it down.

Read more on Chesterton's fence, including its origins.

Chesterton's fence

Confirmation bias is the big one. The bias that leads us to live in a world of our own choosing, finding the information that already fits with our beliefs and ignoring or discounting what doesn't. It's the bias that makes two sides get further apart rather than closer together.

Edward De Bono in Water Logic suggested a metaphor for thought as channels of water. As water runs through the channels the channels get deeper, and as they get deeper it pulls more of the water into the main channels until there is only one way. Confirmation bias can act like that.

It's important to work to understand different opinions, not discount them upfront. To use our empathy to understand why others feel the way they do. And when we deliberately seek out information that challenges our point of view we will usually find a richer, more nuanced world that helps build bridges with others rather than drive us apart.

Confirmation bias

It all matters. Be it one person, one bird, or one tree. We are all connected. As John Muir wrote in My First Summer in the Sierra:

"As soon as we take one thing by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe."

The sketch is Heart Lake in his beloved Sierra Nevada.

Hitched to everything else in the universe

John Gottman and colleagues identified what he calls the four horsemen of the apocalypse for relationships. They are called this as, left unchecked, they can spell the death knell to a once healthy relationship. In fact, they found that by watching just 3 mins of a conflict conversation between a couple they could predict whether they would still be together years later with over 90% accuracy.

Criticism: framing problems as the partner's defect

Defensiveness: counterattacking, whining, being the innocent victim

Contempt: talking down from a position of superiority, insults, eye-rolling, name-calling — the most dangerous of all

Stonewalling: withdrawing from the conflict, refusing to engage

In my first draft of this sketch I left it at that, but it felt a bit negative to leave it hanging on everything we do that's wrong and harmful. Fortunately, there are antidotes to the four horsemen, the traits they saw the masters at relationships use instead. The Gottman Institute explains the four horsemen and their antidotes in more detail.

Watch John Gottman explain the four horsemen in his own words.

The 4 horsemen of relationship apocalypse

The Peter Principle is that “every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”

The logic of the Peter Principle of management

Someone good at their job is likely to get promoted. However, the promoted position will likely require different skills. If they’re good, they may get promoted again, but if not, they will stay. At some point, each employee in an organisation will be incompetent in their position.

The Peter Principle was an observation originally meant as satire. Laurence Peter later wrote a book called The Peter Principle: Why things always go wrong.

I like this short take on the Peter Principle by Tim Harford.

We discussed the Peter Principle in the Sketchplanations podcast. During the podcast, I learned about a counterpoint to the Peter Principle called the Paula Principle.

In his book, The Paula Principle: why women lose out at work ― and what needs to be done about it, Tom Shuller explains that the Paula Principle is "most women work below their level of competence."

Tom explains that the Paula Principle is caused by at least five factors: Discrimination, Caring responsibilities, Self-confidence, Lack of vertical networks, and what Tom calls Positive choice. Read more about the Gender, competence and the Paula Principle in the workplace.

The Peter Principle is a specific case, the case of people, of the Generalised Peter Principle which states that "Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging situations until it fails." See rule number 1 of indoor games.

Keeping the Peter Principle in mind might help be more tolerant of mistakes from higher-ups—they may be out of their depth.

The Peter Principle is different from the Peter Parker Principle, which is: "With great power comes great responsibility." Though Spider-Man popularized this wise proverb, many precursors of the sentiment exist.

The Peter Principle

The destiny instinct is the mistaken belief that people, countries, cultures, or religions can't change. But even slow change can lead to large changes over time.

Change tends to happen slowly in large, complex things like people, countries, religions, or cultures. And because the change is small, we might think they’re not changing at all. Our instinct may be that they can’t, in fact, change because of their innate characteristics. But the destiny instinct misleads us.

Small change adds up to big changes over enough time. And while things may not seem to change in a week or a month, or a year, when you look back over decades, huge changes can happen. Changes in poverty, life expectancy, economies, women’s rights, or attitudes to homosexuality — things that may have seemed at one time that they were hardly changing at all —  have all transformed when we look back over sufficient time. Change that may not have seemed like it was adding up to much is still change.

Read more from the Roslings: Culture, nations, and religions are not rocks — they’re always changing.

And, at a time of the year perfect for reflection, here are four ways to control our destiny instinct from Gapminder:

Keep track of gradual improvements. A small change every year can translate to a huge change over decades.

Update your knowledge. Some knowledge goes out of date quickly. Technology, countries, societies, cultures, and religions are constantly changing.

Talk to Grandpa/Grandma. If you want to be reminded of how values have changed, think about your grandparents’ values and how they differ from yours.

Collect examples of cultural change. Challenge the idea that today’s culture must also have been yesterday’s and will also be tomorrow’s.

The Destiny Instinct

Muphry's law states that when criticizing spelling or grammar, you’ll make a mistake yourself.

Muphry's Law is a variation of Murphy’s law which is: "If anything can go wrong, it will."

Muphry's Law teaches me to be humble and more tolerant of errors.

Muphry’s Law

Compliments are gifts is a lovely metaphor for making the world brighter.

I can’t remember where I heard or read it, but I have found that when I think of a compliment as having a gift for someone, if I don't let them know my compliment, then it's like having a gift with their name on it and holding it back.

This reframe has made me take the time to share compliments more often with friends, colleagues, shopkeepers, the person who always has a cheery smile in the morning, the person who organised the event, my kids, my wife, and pretty much everyone. And life seems a better place. Do it!

Thank you for following and checking out this sketch. It’s a privilege.

Compliments are gifts

Whenever I think of the convenience of someone doing something for me I usually conclude it’s easily worth a tip. So I have taken to adding one. Then hopefully they’ll be happy to do it again in the future too.

Volunteer your own booking fee

As giving makes people happy, what better way to make someone happy than to give something they can give to others. Not all the time maybe, but I reckon it’ll be a hit.

Give gifts others can give

Learning and using kind words first when traveling will take you further than others. Before I enter a country with a new language, I write a list of these words and find out how to say them. It has served me well.

Learn kind words first in new countries

It achieves nothing but bitterness. I am yet to witness an occasion where saying "I told you so" or an equivalent led to a net positive effect.

Never say “I told you so.”

The Generalised Peter Principle states that "Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging situations until it fails.

The Generalised Peter Principle is a specific case of the Peter Principle, which is the same idea but applied to people 😱.

I observed the Generalised Peter Principle when packing a minivan in Cambodia.

The Generalised Peter Principle

A little nugget of wisdom from a book I read long ago called Technotrends by Daniel Burrus.

Don’t fix the blame, fix the problem

Lessons from Lewis

Having been on the other side of this countless times, those small moments of generosity and openness from locals can literally transform your perceptions of the world. We are all ambassadors.

Be nice to tourists

Hofstadter's Law is “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you account for Hofstadter’s Law.”

Hofstadter's Law is one of my favourites, and I share it time and time again.

We are bad at estimating. We don't allow for the unexpected. We don't know the unknown unknowns. We are overly optimistic. We suffer from recency bias. Generally, we struggle with big, complex things.

In the law's recursion, it's a little like this guidance from Clean Code:

“The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that.”—Clean Code

Or omit unnecessary words from Steve Krug

Given how easy it is for us to underestimate how long things will take, be kind to each other.

From Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (1979)

Hofstadter’s Law

It's a wonderful thing how at bedtime one day can be a disaster with a child and you can be the person they least like in the world and the next day, without fail, all is forgotten and you can be their favourite once more. Every day is a clean slate and a fresh start to be nice to each other and do something wonderful together. It's such a refreshing attitude when compared to adults who can willingly or unintentionally hold a grudge for decades.

Don’t hold grudges

When someone gives you a compliment, accept it.

I learned this after I disagreed with a compliment someone gave me, which took a generous compliment for me and made both of us less happy.

If someone has a compliment for you, whether you agree with it or not, it's their view, and the least you can do to accept it gracefully.

Or as Kevin Kelly says: "Denying or deflecting a compliment is rude. Accept it with thanks."

Kindness sketches