Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Tiny Summary
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Most mistakes are accidents, not attacks. Assume incompetence over malice.
The Principle
When something goes wrong: 1) Incompetence (most common), 2) Ignorance (didn't know better), 3) Accident (honest mistake), 4) Malice (least common)
Examples
PR breaks tests: "They probably didn't run tests locally" (not "They're sabotaging the codebase!")
Buggy code to prod: "Missed deployment checklist step" (not "They intentionally broke production!")
Colleague doesn't respond: "Busy with urgent task" or "On PTO" (not "They're ignoring me on purpose!")
Response: Constructive feedback, fix issues, improve processes, give benefit of doubt.
Why It Matters
Builds psychological safety: Assume good intent, people feel safe making mistakes, encourages experimentation
Reduces conflict: Incompetence → teaching. Malice → anger. Better team dynamics.
Focuses on solutions: "How do we prevent this?" vs "Who do we punish?" Process improvements vs blame games.
When It Doesn't Apply
Repeated behavior after feedback: Once = accident, twice = incompetence, three times = maybe malice
Security incidents: Always investigate thoroughly (but most breaches are still accidental)
Key Insights
People usually aren't trying to cause problems. Most issues stem from misunderstanding, not mal-intent. Assuming good intent makes better teams and builds trust. Verify, don't just trust blindly. Related: Grey's Law ("sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice").