Murphy's law

Murphy's law is an adage or epigram that is typically stated as: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

In the social sciences, unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended by a particular action. The unintended results, not recognized by the actor, may be positive or negative. The concept has long existed, but was named and popularised in the 20th century by the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton.[1] The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiom warning that an intervention in a complex system invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.[2][3][4][5] Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. Many scientific and sociological fields of study embrace the idea, including economics, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology.

Unintended consequences can be grouped into roughly three types:

* a positive unexpected benefit, usually referred to as serendipity or a windfall.
* a negative unexpected drawback, occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy - e.g. while irrigation schemes do provide people with water for agriculture, they often increase waterborne disease which can a have a devastating negative health effect, such as schistosomiasis.
* a perverse effect, that may be contrary to what was originally intended (i.e. when an intended solution to a problem only makes the problem worse). This situation can arise when a policy has a perverse incentive and causes actions contrary to what is desired.

Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 Causes
* 3 Examples
o 3.1 Unexpected benefits
o 3.2 Unexpected drawbacks
o 3.3 Perverse results
* 4 See also
* 5 Footnotes
* 6 References

[edit] History

The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results).[6] However, it was the sociologist Robert K. Merton who popularized this concept in the twentieth century.[7][8][9][10]

In his 1936 paper, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action". He emphasized that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives".[10] Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."[11]
[edit] Causes

Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception, failure to account for human nature or other cognitive or emotional biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the chaotic nature of the universe – and especially its quality of having small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g., the butterfly effect) – applies.

Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:[12]

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated.)

The relevance paradox where decision makers think they know their areas of ignorance about an issue, and go and obtain the necessary information to fill that ignorance, but neglect certain other areas of ignorance, because, due to not having the information, its relevance is not obvious, is also cited as a cause.