While we all think of “razors” as a tool for shaving, I learned that it also has a different definition. The term refers to a heuristic or shortcut (aka “rule of thumb” ) used by scientists to guide them in creating theoretical models. “The term “razor” refers to the “shaving away” of unnecessary assumptions when distinguishing between two theories.” ( Razor)
Reading two of them, I thought they could guide our thinking during mediation. The first is Occam’s razor, generally attributed to an English theologian, logician, and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (or Occam), who lived around 1285-1348. (Id.) The principle states,”… the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct.” Or, to state it differently, “the more assumptions you have to make the more unlikely an explanation.” (Occam) For example, if two trees have fallen, one can either assume that the violent wind storm of the previous evening caused them to topple over, or that a meteorite fell out of the sky, hit the trees, and caused them to topple over. The first explanation- the windstorm- is more straightforward and requires fewer assumptions than a meteor shower. So, under this principle, one would go with the first explanation as it is the simplest and, thus, in all probability, the correct one. (Id.)
The second razor is Hanlon’s, named after Robert J. Hanlon, who submitted his shortcut for a book of jokes and aphorisms published in 1980. (Hanlon) The principle is simple:” Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (Id.) That is, do not assume unlikely explanations. (Id.) More often than not, the action or inaction of someone was NOT caused by malicious intent; chances are it was caused by mistake, fallibility, simple human error, and the like.
Both of these razors make a lot of sense during mediation. Parties will develop complex stories and explanations for why something happened, overlooking the simplest and most straightforward explanation. It is sometimes unfathomable to a party that there is a simple explanation for what happened, for an act or omission.
The second one also makes a lot of sense during a mediation. How many times have I heard one party ascribe evil motives or malicious intent to the actions of the other party? When gently questioned, the other side provides an explanation that is more of a mistake or oversight than anything else. When I try to convey this simple explanation to the first party, that party is even more convinced of the other party’s evil intent, dismissing the simple answer out of hand (due to the bias of reactive devaluation in which a party discounts information solely because of its source!)
These razors apply to everyday situations, so think about them the next time you are about to come up with a complex reason why something happened or ascribe an evil motive to the actions of others.
… Just something to think about.
-------------------------------------
Do you like what you read?
If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:
and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".
Copyright 2021 Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com, 2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
