3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on Unintended Consequences
3 Ideas in 2 Minutes on Unintended Consequences
The Cobra Effect, Motivated Misperception & Chesterton’s Fence
I. The Cobra Effect
Unfortunately, the mere intent to make the world a better place sometimes has the opposite effect. The Cobra Effect is a classic illustration of such unintended negative consequences:
During the British rule of India, when the population of venomous cobras rose to worrying levels in Delhi, authorities offered a reward for dead cobras. People tracked the snakes down, killed them and turned them in. It worked — until it didn’t.
Eventually, some inventive locals began to breed cobras so they could make a profit. This of course led the British government to end the program. Problem solved — only it wasn’t.
The cobras had suddenly become useless to the breeders. So they set them free, once again causing a cobra plague in Delhi. It’s even said it was worst than before the government intervention.
Horst Siebert, a German economist, related a version of the above anecdote coining the Cobra Effect. The road to hell can truly be paved with good intentions.
II. Motivated Misperception
Regrettably, when we realise our well-intended idea is not going according to plan, that doesn’t necessarily mean we change course. Here’s senior lecturer of intelligence analysis Charles Vandepeer on self-deception in warfare and beyond:
All warfare is based on deception — so the adage goes. This appears to apply to both deception by an adversary as well as deception by ourselves. Barton Whaley, a leader in the study of military deception, defines self-deception as “can see but won’t.” In this way, self-deception is motivated misperception: People maintain a preferred narrative even in the face of conflicting information. The motivation could be incentives to report positive news, the effort and discomfort of changing one’s mind, personal investment and ego attached to early statements, or simply hubris.
—Charles Vandepeer, Self-Deception and the ‘Conspiracy of Optimism’
III. Chesterton’s Fence
Luckily, Chesterton’s Fence provides a cautionary principle about change and reform. It was coined by English writer G. K. Chesterton in his 1929 book The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away.
Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
—G. K. Chesterton
In short, before abolishing a rule, we should first understand why it was put in place to begin with.
Make sure to also check out my long-form essay on Chesterton’s Fence: How to Enact Change. 🐘
Have a great week,
Chris
themindcollection.com