Carpooling to work today, it was fitting that the conversation between the driver and myself drifted to the topic of Pearl Harbor. Today is after all, the twelfth anniversary of another day that will live in infamy.
When discussing the possibility that Pearl Harbor may have been allowed to happen to justify U.S. entrance into the war, the driver seemed skeptical and paraphrased Hanlon’s Razor:
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
More accurately, he paraphrased an interpretation of that maxim from Sir Bernard Ingham:
“Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they
would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.”
The basic idea implied of course is that conspiracy is a far more elusive jackelope than human ineptitude.
Seems true doesn’t it? After all, we all know stupid people, but in truth we probably don’t know very many outright evil people (though we tend to use good/evil hyperbole in vain in our rhetoric) so the statement resonates with our own experience. Adherence to this self-evident postulation then allows us to dismiss the very notion that there might be a conspiracy afoot because we are very well-acquainted with human error, and its (counter-intuitively) more comforting to believe human beings are stupid rather than clever.
Well, the problem here is that we tend to associate conspiracy with evil, when more accurately it could be described as “Competitive Deselection.” In fact, conspiracy itself rarely (if ever) amounts to more than an advantageous commercial/power consolidation decision which has pronounced detrimental impacts on others while benefiting those who perpetrate it. Evil has nothing to do with it, its simply the ultimate expression of the behaviour demanded by the world we live in. Namely, getting ahead at the expense of all others.
Once you demystify it and eliminate evil out of the equation, you see that so-called conspiracy exists all around us. After all, who among us has not been screwed out of earnings or exploited or robbed? We typically don’t attribute these actions against us to conspiracy, but this has less to do with their dissimilarity from formal notions of conspiracy (i.e. shadowy, behind closed doors, nefarious dealings) than it does with our lack of imagination when extrapolating the consequences of the actions of ourselves and others.
But think how easily this maxim can be manipulated to discredit alternate, often more plausible explanations. For example, you have often heard me rail against superstitious concepts like good and evil
, but they serve as much simpler
explanation for human behaviour than things like systems theory
or sociological studies. So, should Occam’s Razor be applied here?
Similarly, early explanations of men in the sky (gods) are much more simplistic than concepts like gravitation, electro-magnetism et al.
, but should Occam’s Razor, or more accurately Occam’s Razor as it is widely (mis)understood, be applied uniformly because it sounds true
Of course not.
Now I must qualify what I am saying by mentioning one of my favourite quotations from the samurai, Musashi
: “If you know the way broadly, you will see it in all things”
It’s the difference between saying that some countries are wealthy due to better governance, mineral wealth and scientific progress, and saying that some countries are wealthy due to a global system based on differential advantage. Notice how both explanations are very simple but only the latter serves to explain socioeconomic divisions at the regional, municipal and individual levels as well (After all, you can’t explain the financial disparity between two next-door neighbours by making reference to better governance, mineral wealth and scientific progress). It is this simplicity, that of having a single explanation which can be applied to all levels of the phenomena being discussed which I think should be gleaned from Occam’s Razor.
Now I started out writing this post aiming to point out the inherent lies in some of our taken-for-granted turns of phrase and truisms, but it ended up being more of call to be aware of how to judiciously apply your truisms, because these statements (the ones examined and others) do hold at least a kernel of truth if nothing else. But if you misapply truth you might as well be lying.
One response to “When Truisms Lie”
Pingback: One Fish, Two Fish, Putin, Obama – A Study in Imposed Dualities | Write-Errantry