Dunbar's number, Hanlon's Razor, Herzberg's Hygiene - what is it and why is it all needed?
Bell Beth Cooper is the creator of the Buffer and Exist services and runs a popular blog about science and social networks.
Psychological theories often seem too confusing to me (surely there is a theory that will explain this too), but there are also some that are quite simple to understand and which I often think about, especially when interacting with other people. Here are three that are especially important in business, marketing, leadership, and overall communication skills.
Dunbar number
Robin Dunbar – evolutionary psychologist who developed the prediction model social factors behavior of primates based on their brain size. Dunbar used the volume of the neocortex to measure these dimensions, since this is where most brain growth occurs in primates. In particular, Dunbar studied the dimensions social groups and close partners caring for the individual different types monkeys For example, chimpanzees had social groups of about 50 monkeys, but each monkey only had two or three “close friends.”
Based on the size of the neocortex, Dunbar learned to very accurately predict the size of the social group and inner circle in different species of primates. When applied to people, it turns out that most social groups should consist of about 150 people: that's about the number of people you can ask for a favor and expect the request to be granted.
Our closer circle is approximately 12 people. But 150 is an important number. This is the maximum number of people with whom most of us can maintain stable social connections. Anything above this number already strains our brain, and as new people are added, the old ones will fall away. Dunbar himself gave the following definition: “This is the number of people with whom you would not be ashamed to ask for a drink if you met one of them in a bar.”
Writer Rick Lax tried to refute Dunbar's thesis, but in the end he discovered this: “By trying to prove Dunbar wrong, I proved him right. I've proven that even if you know about Dunbar's number, and even if you specifically set aside time to expand your social capital, the number of friendships is still not infinite. To be more precise, less than 200.”
Dunbar's number is especially interesting in terms of marketing, branding and social media. If you keep in mind that each person you communicate with only takes into account about 150 other people in an emotional sense, it greatly simplifies communication. Instead of being upset that your brand isn't connecting with customers, consider this: Every emotional connection they make with you costs them a relationship with a friend or relative. So when people do connect with your brand, it's a breakthrough.
One might think that Dunbar's number contradicts the idea of social networks. On the contrary, this is why the number of contacts in the Path social network is limited to 150. On the other hand, social networks rely on weak ties: “friends of friends” or the “six handshakes theory”. Morten Hansen writes in his book Collaboration that it is not so much the number of contacts a person maintains that is important, but rather their diversity, the number different types people, experiences, technologies, points of view that people gain access to through their social networks. Weak ties help “build bridges to worlds we don’t walk on,” while strong ties are usually made with people in worlds we already know.
Hanlon's razor
This is a thesis that goes like this: “Never attribute to malice that which can be fully explained by stupidity.”
If you've heard of Occam's razor, then you know that a razor is a philosophical tool that cuts out unlikely explanations, leaving us with more convincing versions.
Although Hanlon's razor uses the word "stupidity", I prefer to talk about "ignorance" because... lack of information often explains what we consider stupidity. Main idea is that when it seems that someone is treating you with malice, you should dig deeper and see if ignorance is the cause.
Has it ever happened to you that you received a letter from a colleague that seemed to attack your idea? The first thing you want to do is explain this as bad intentions, but if you look closely, the reason can only be a misunderstanding. So the next time you have doubts about a tweet or letter, remember Hanlon's razor.
Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory
You can rely on this theory when communicating about work - with colleagues, with employees, even with friends and spouses. The theory, formulated by psychologist Frederick Herzberg, posits that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction should be measured differently, rather than on the same scale.
Job dissatisfaction stems from “hygiene” factors - physical environment at work, stability, salary. Job satisfaction, however, is explained by “motivating” factors such as the content of the job, the opportunity to feel one’s achievements, and to take responsibility.
From Herzberg's research, we can conclude that eliminating the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction does not necessarily ensure satisfaction. Therefore, even having a high position, big salary and a comfortable work environment, we can feel bad if we don't have real responsibility and don't feel like we're achieving something.
And vice versa, if you love the work itself, if your merits are recognized, this does not eliminate the issues of low pay or an uncomfortable working environment.
This theory makes you think about a lot: why certain companies are considered good employers, how best to motivate an individual or an entire team. I think this theory can also play a big role in those moments when we have to listen to friends, colleagues or subordinates complain about their work. I will never say again, “But you get paid so much!” in response to these complaints.
Useful article? Subscribe to our channel in Zen and follow the best updates and discussions on Ideonomics
","nextFontIcon":" ")" data-theiapostslider-onchangeslide=""""/>
According to Joseph Bigler, the quote was first used by Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania, as an epigraph to a collection of various jokes related to Murphy's Law, published in 1980 under the title Murphy's Law Book Two, or More Reasons Why things are going badly." The epigraph was invented by analogy with Occam's Razor.
A similar phrase appears in Robert Heinlein's 1941 short story "The Logic of Empire": "You are trying to explain away by malice that which is the result of ordinary stupidity." This phrase was highlighted as a separate citation in 1995 (five years before Bigler attributed the authorship to Robert J. Hanlon). Essentially, Hanlon's Razor is a corruption of Heinlein's Razor. The definition of “Heinlein's Razor” has since been “Never attribute malice to something that is completely explained by stupidity; but do not rule out malicious intent.”
A similar phrase is often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "Never attribute malice to that which is entirely due to incompetence."
Another statement similar in meaning is made by Goethe in the novel “The Sorrows of Young Werther” (1774): “... misunderstandings and negligence create more confusion in this world than cunning and malice. In any case, the last two are certainly much less common.”
... it is easier to admit that the world is ruled by a villainy thought out many moves ahead, than to admit the obvious: the world is ruled by a mess - stupidity, complete incompetence and the amazing irresponsibility of Decision Makers that does not fit into the ordinary mind.
Kirill Yuryevich Eskov. The CIA as a mythology.
Expressed this idea even more briefly and succinctly Russian writer Victor Pelevin, to whom the phrase is attributed: “The world is ruled not by a secret lodge, but by obvious crap.”
See also
Notes
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what "Hanlon's razor" is in other dictionaries:
Hanlon's Razor is a statement that says, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." See also Razor... ... Wikipedia
The article is part of a series on Scholasticism... Wikipedia
Razor shaving device. Razor (film) Dressed to Kill feature film 1980 Occam's razor is a methodological principle (“One should not multiply existing things unnecessarily”). Occam's Razor (House M.D.) ... ... Wikipedia
- “Occam’s razor (blade)” is a methodological principle, named after the English Franciscan monk, nominalist philosopher William Ockham (Ockham, Ockam, Occam; ca. 1285 1349). In a simplified form, it reads: “One should not multiply existing things without ... Wikipedia
Murphy's law is a universal philosophical principle that if there is a possibility that some kind of trouble can happen, then it will definitely happen. A foreign analogue of the Russian “law of meanness” and... ... Wikipedia
Pareto's law, or the Pareto principle, or the 20/80 principle is a rule of thumb named after the economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, most general view formulated as “20% of effort gives 80% of the result, and the remaining 80%... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Conspiracy theory (meanings). Conspiracy theory (from the English conspiracy theory, also known as conspiracy theory) is a set of hypotheses showing vital (socially... ... Wikipedia
- (English: Sturgeon's Law) aphoristic statement “Nothing can always go right” (option: “Everything sometimes goes wrong”) (English: “Nothing is always absolutely so”), expressed by science fiction writer Theodore... ... Wikipedia
This article should be Wikified. Please format it according to the rules for formatting articles... Wikipedia
According to which, when searching for the causes of unpleasant events, one should first of all assume, and only secondarily, someone’s conscious malicious actions. Usually expressed by the phrase: “Never attribute to malice that which can be fully explained” ( Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity).
According to Joseph Biegler, the formulation was first used by Robert J. Hanlon of , as a collection of various related ones, published under the title "The Second Book of Murphy's Laws, or Even More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong." The epigraph was invented by analogy with "".
A similar phrase appears in the story “The Logic of Empire” (): “You are trying to explain by malicious intent that which is the result of ordinary stupidity.” This phrase was highlighted as a separate citation in 1995 (five years before Bigler attributed the authorship to Robert J. Hanlon). Essentially, Hanlon's Razor is a corruption of Heinlein's Razor. The definition of “Heinlein's Razor” has since been “Never attribute to malice that which is fully explained by stupidity; but do not rule out malicious intent.”
A similar phrase is often attributed to:
Never attribute to malicious intent something that can be fully explained.
There is another statement similar in meaning in the novel “” (): “... misunderstandings and negligence create more confusion in this world than cunning and malice. In any case, the last two are certainly much less common.”
... it is easier to admit that the world is ruled by a villainy thought out many moves ahead, than to admit the obvious: the world is ruled by a mess - stupidity, complete incompetence and the amazing irresponsibility of Decision Makers that does not fit into the ordinary mind.
According to which, when searching for the causes of unpleasant events, human errors should be assumed first of all, and only secondarily, someone’s conscious malicious actions. Usually expressed by the phrase: “Never attribute to malice that which can be fully explained by stupidity" (eng. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity).
Origin and similar phrases[ | ]
According to Joseph Bigler, the wording was first used by Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania, as an epigraph to a collection of various jokes related to Murphy's Law, published in 1980 under the title Murphy's Law Book Two, or More Reasons Why things are going badly." The epigraph was invented by analogy with Occam's Razor.
A similar phrase appears in Robert Heinlein's 1941 short story "The Logic of Empire": "You are trying to explain away by malice that which is the result of ordinary stupidity." This phrase was quoted in 1995 (five years before Biegler attributed the authorship to Robert J. Hanlon). Essentially, Hanlon's Razor is a corruption of Heinlein's Razor. The definition of “Heinlein's Razor” has since been “Never attribute to malice that which is fully explained by stupidity; but do not rule out malicious intent.”
A similar phrase is often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte:
Never attribute to malice something that can be fully explained by incompetence.
Another statement similar in meaning is made by Goethe in the novel “The Sorrows of Young Werther” (1774): “... misunderstandings and negligence create more confusion in this world than cunning and malice. In any case, the last two are certainly much less common.”
... it is easier to admit that the world is ruled by a villainy thought out many moves ahead, than to admit the obvious: the world is ruled by a mess - stupidity, complete incompetence and the amazing irresponsibility of Decision Makers that does not fit into the ordinary mind.
This idea was expressed even more briefly and succinctly by the Russian writer Viktor Pelevin, to whom the phrase is attributed:
Stanislav Lem in the science fiction novel “On-Site Inspection” uses the following formulation: “Assuming that the cause of the error is not malice, but your poor mind...”
Most of us like to delve into the essence of what is happening to us, and I am no exception. Why are we here, why do our loved ones suddenly act to our detriment, what goal do strangers pursue by talking about our real and imagined shortcomings. There is always a reason for “why”, “why”, “for what”, and we get involved in the search for answers to our own questions, inflating minor problems to impressive proportions.
We are looking for answers, armed with logic and our own guesses; experience guides us. And then we draw conclusions and get . And we “see” the evil intent of the mother-in-law, who gave her beloved granddaughter several new dresses: “Yeah, he’s trying to undermine his mother’s authority.” She just, without thinking, noted the stains on the old clothes, persuading the girl to try on new clothes. Strangers gossip about us, sometimes you can notice how their words influence others, relationships change - but is there a desire to do harm? It might be worth using Hanlon's razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”. They gossip - good luck! Stupid little trick. Who doesn't have it? One has only to see this as human weakness, and all the intensity of irritation subsides - they do not wish harm. Sometimes there is even a desire to play along with them. Conspiracy theories are abandoned, leaving room for banal stupidity.
I learned about Hanlon's razor about six years ago. I used it from time to time, sometimes I remembered about it, having pretty much boiled at the beginning. But the more often you use it to clear visible facts from the husks of your own doubts and conjectures, the easier it becomes to live. Last week, my son and I encountered a rude attitude from a radiologist towards a child. At the first moment, it seemed to me that she was deliberately throwing him off balance: it was Saturday, there was no one in the corridor, she clearly didn’t want to work, and then we arrived. Her rudeness hurt me, all my “thorns” in communication immediately came out, I wanted to hook her in response - how is it that they are trying to put pressure on my child in a rude manner. I took the picture, reacted to her conclusions about the “abnormality” of my son, and we started an argument. And only at the end of it, remembering the razor, I saw the smug stupidity in her words: she alone knows how to raise children, because she has two of them. Somehow it became easier to breathe, the indignation at her unprofessionalism remained, of course (and finally cooled down in). But this is no longer an “elephant” of fear for the psychological well-being of the child, which threatens to crush with its globality, but rather a small unpleasant fly that can be brushed aside. Random person, any parent is able to protect their baby from it - if they are not in the grip of fear and are able to maintain balance.
IN in this case, Hanlon method helped me restore my inner strength.
The razor cuts off the excess. Fears feed on assumptions and conjectures. We live a little ahead of ourselves, trying to anticipate and eliminate unpleasant life circumstances in advance. We often create very real conflicts.
And if you carelessly write about your doubts, then very quickly An elephant will grow from a large fly. In a couple of hours, the girl will suspect that her husband is having a long and serious affair on the side, and in the evening he wants to announce a divorce. Poor guy, not only is he under pressure at work and a dissatisfied client is weighing on his soul, but he also has a resentful wife at home. A fun evening full of mutual claims and accusations awaits the couple. Here is the downside to using a razor - the wife did not wish harm to her husband, and he did not take into account his own rudeness.
Relationships between people are simpler than they seem, but we carefully complicate them. Doubts, guesses, our assumptions are all fluff on them. We need to look at the facts and hear what people tell us without trying to superimpose their words onto our preconceptions about them. It would be nice to be able to distinguish your cockroaches from strangers. Then mutual understanding is achieved easily, without unnecessary obstacles, the elephants are deflated, and the flies fly away - there is nothing left for them to eat here. Shoo, shoo, small fry! :)