The observation that stupidity and incompetence is more common than malice (by many degrees) is correct. It's not a true logical dichotomy, it's just a saying.
The saying presents it as a dichotomy, which is why the saying is wrong. It is also parroted way too often on HN.
It might as well be, "Never attribute to hunger that which can be explained by incompetence." Is it easier to see why that fails as any sort of useful proverb?
It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?
>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity"
It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.
>what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?
It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility, not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidity could adequately explain the action, the saying suggests ruling out malice, which would be incorrect. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy.
It's not a strawman, you just haven't thought about it correctly.
> The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.
No, it isn't, the phrasing is very clear: if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity. It's an implication - if "A", then "B". It doesn't say anything about the case of "not A".
You're just making shit up now, with personal insults ("you're confused", "you haven't thought about it correctly") added as a filler for your weak reasoning.
>if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity.
That is not what it is saying. "Never attribute to malice..." has an entirely different meaning from merely considering stupidity as an alternative as you're suggesting.
It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice. That rules out malice as an explanation. It doesn't say, "maybe don't attribute [action] to malice," or "also consider stupidity," it says, very clearly, "never attribute to malice", which means "do not ever attribute to malice..." So yes, you do seem to be confused about the very clear meaning of this saying.
> It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice
No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity.
Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. And if not, then feel free to attribute it to malice! This is in no way "rules out" malice as an explanation. If there is any evidence of malice, then by definition stupidity will not explain that evidence, and thus will not be an adequate explanation. So there is no dichotomy either.
The very sentence is merely a statement on how to evaluate intentions in light of limited evidence - it says nothing about the truth, as human knowledge is always limited by available information, especially in human relations.
> Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, because both could be present at the same time.
>You are blatantly misquoting the original statement
No, I used ellipses for a reason: "Never attribute to malice..." means there is more to the quote, but I am focusing on this specific part. I could have made that more clear in my writing though. At any rate, we're done here, because we agree on the meaning of the saying.
No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it. You explicitly wrote: "It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice" which I explicitly disagreed with.
Either you have changed your mind, in which case you have no business acting as if you were right all along, or we don't agree.
> I could have made that more clear in my writing though
Yes, you could. Nobody can read your mind, only your words. Try not being so arrogant next time.
>No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it.
Well, which is it? Do we not agree, or have I "finally got it" ("it" being, I assume, what you're trying to convey)? Because if I finally got what you're saying, then that suggests we would be in agreement. Or maybe you mean you've changed your position and I "finally got" your original argument, but now you're onto a new one. If that is the case, then please clarify your new position so I can finally get that one as well.
The saying presents a false dichotomy, which is highlighted here:
>...stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice
This is a false dichotomy because it is saying if stupidity is present, then don't attribute it to malice. But both can be present at the same time, in which case rejecting malice would be incorrect. Do you understand now? It is very simple, and this is what I wrote toward the top of the thread. You're grasping at straws here, and my position has not changed the entire time.
Please, read the saying again, read our discussion again, and think about it before you respond. What you're writing is incorrect.
Do you also believe that the saying "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." means to persuade people to increase their consumption of specifically apples, once each day? Rather than meaning to explain that fruits (and even vegetables) are good for your health in general, with no specific amounts prescribed?
You have to understand, the world is probabilistic and when working with people even more so. No one here is making an absolutely logical dichotomy which is ripe to be disproven by someone like Diogenes exclaiming "Behold! A man!" whilst holding up a featherless biped.
