Hanlon's Razor, paraphrased, dictates always to underestimate your enemy and be lethargic. Of course it can be abused.
How on Earth this crap came to be regarded as a piece of "wisdom" is beyond me.
The strategically sound approach is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to always assume the actual outcome was the intent, and respond accordingly.
>How on Earth this crap came to be regarded as a piece of "wisdom" is beyond me.
It's fairly true on small-scale interpersonal relations. Still true _sometimes_ on large scale, but that shouldn't make it excusable or remove accountability from the culprits.
An even more strategic position would be to assume the outcome was the intent even in spite of evidence to the contrary (which could be faked). And to assume that the worst potential outcome, rather than the actual outcome, was the intent. Those changes are both more strategically sound, so long as we define most strategically sound as 'most resistant to attack'.
For most people, I would argue, the most strategically sound wisdom is that which is most likely to be correct. For this, Hanlon fits the bill. While absolute paranoia is safer, benefit of the doubt is morally better and more rewarding.
If you believe your enemy's actions can be adequately explained by stupidity, I wonder on what basis you've declared them your enemy in the first place.
Hanlon's Razor, paraphrased, dictates always to underestimate your enemy and be lethargic. Of course it can be abused.
How on Earth this crap came to be regarded as a piece of "wisdom" is beyond me.
The strategically sound approach is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to always assume the actual outcome was the intent, and respond accordingly.