Hacker News Reader

Comment by runarberg | Hacker News Reader

Never underestimate the incompetence of the average human. Doubly so if they are rich and powerful. In fact if a master plan has several fatal flaws on closer inspection, then that’s just evidence that the perpetrator just didn’t think it all through before executing.

If you watch an amateur chess game you’ll find that most players actually have some master plan, but don’t have the skills to see the flaws, or even if the plan is perfect, they don’t have the skills to play it through either.

My sniff test for any conspiracy theory actually involves incompetence. The more competent the plan and execution need to be, the less likely it is to be a conspiracy.

View on HN

I don't see how you can simultaneously believe that this is some 4D chess move from Musk to allow him to cleverly liquidate his Tesla holdings without tanking the stock - and also believe he is too incompetent to make sure he could actually back out of the Twitter deal which he never intended to complete in the first place.

The fact that his supposed plan here has some flaws is not _further_ evidence that it was planned from the beginning, that's absurd.

It seems much more likely that buying Twitter was just an impulsive decision for him that he is now regretting and looking for a way out of.

I agree with you that many supposed conspiracies require too much competence in order to pull off, and can usually be dismissed as impossible to achieve in practice. But it doesn't follow that, as a consequence, any action that would be incompetent as part of a conspiracy should be considered evidence that a conspiracy exists.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played chess against a more skilled player. But when I play, I usually think I have a sure way of taking my opponents rook for a knight, only to realize too late that I’m stuck in a trap.

You only need to be competent enough to realize how markets can be manipulated to initiate a conspiracy, however successfully executing one requires a whole new master level of skill set. Off course the people with such skill set exist (as evidenced by the numerous market manipulation schemes successfully executed in today’s business world) and if Musk was smart he would hire such an expert to scheme it for him.

What we might be witnessing here is a business person that is smart enough to realize that market can be manipulated, and see a position to where they can execute such a manipulation, but not competent enough to execute a non-trivial plan without flaws. And worse not smart enough to hire a person with the correct skill set to do it for him.

> The more competent the plan and execution need to be, the less likely it is to be a conspiracy.

That’s a great point. Thank you :)

What is a theory you have dismissed because it seems too competent?

The fake moon landing conspiracy is a good example. Then number of people involved would be pretty big, and the science is complicated. The logistics behind such a big secret operation requires such skill that it is hard to believe anyone would be able to pull it off. If the moon landing was truly fake surely they would have messed up somewhere.

On the other hand many things went wrong in the actual moon landing. There were liftoffs that failed, experiments that went nowhere, targets that were missed, and even people that died. The actual moon landing was a hard task they succeeded at while making a ton of mistakes in the process, just like humans do in the real world when we are at our best.

Okay, I agree that the fake moon landing conspiracy would have involved an excessive amount of competence to believe.

That seems pretty different from, "If your entire plan is to back out of a contract, add a clause to the contract that lets you back out of it."

Indeed it is different. My point was simply that incompetence is not evidence against conspiracy. My sniff test was simply emphasizing this point. Further, a sniff test is—by definition—not supposed to be your only marker in evaluating a theory, it is merely supposed to be a marker determining if evaluating further evidence is even worth your time.

The conspiracy theory that Musk is using this twitter scheme to manipulate the markets in his favor does not fail any sniff tests that I’m aware of.

The "massive rocket" is also an issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-tpiAiiHo

For me, flat Earth. The sheer skill necessary to bribe or convince so many governments to gaslight their population, the incredible optics and geodesics work necessary to fake a curved horizon in a plane window and have consistent flight durations, and the maintenance of shadow power across millenia, paints the picture of a group of people way beyond what human competence can achieve.

Of course, there are simpler examples, like John Titor, or Pierre de Fermat’s last theorem proof that he would have done all in his head.

Not GP, but chemtrails and flat earth are obvious ones.

It's a pretty universal reason to dismiss or at least cast serious doubt on conspiracy theories. A close cousin of Ockham's Razor and Hanlon's Law

The amount of competence required to prepare a controlled demolition of a 110 storey trade center which is occupied 24/7 and full of cameras without anyone noticing and associating this prep work with the much publicised plane crashes that happened afterwards would be staggering, even before considering the insanity of such a scheme.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, the best evidence against the considerably more plausible "lab-leak" COVID theory is that manufacturing an alternative chain of evidence that convinces most unconnected foreign experts of an alternative theory (which still points at Wuhan and Chinese market regulations) when they have plenty of reason to find fault with it requires a lot of competence, as well as totally the opposite approach to China's usual way of suppressing stories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com