The Problem in the Solution
When “Creative” Solutions Become Destructive
As a child, I remember being particularly struck by a radio-drama of O’ Henry’s classic tale, The Gift of the Magi. For those of you who may not know the story, here’s a brief synopsis.
A young, cash-poor, married couple each have only one prized possession. The wife treasures her beautiful, long hair, while the husband’s treasure is a gold pocket watch, inherited from his father. For their first Christmas as husband and wife, they each want to buy the perfect, surprise Christmas gift for the other. To cut a long story short. The wife cuts off and sells her hair to buy a fancy watch chain for her husband’s pocket watch. He, in turn, sells his watch to buy her a selection of fancy hair combs for her beautiful, long hair.
The moral of the story, in O’ Henry’s original, is that the young couple, each having sacrificed their personal treasure for the other, realise that their love for each other is, in fact, the perfect gift.
However, to my young mind back then — and my older mind right now — both husband and wife created problems out of perceived solutions. I still cannot get over the fact that they didn’t talk to each other, or even just think things through a little better.
I suppose I shouldn’t really be surprised at such lack of research, forethought, and communication while attempting to solve a problem. The world is all too full of such problematic solutions. These fit, very loosely, into three main categories:
- General Stupidity — Oh dear! We just didn’t think that through, did we?
- Base Human Nature — Oops! Anyone would think we’d never had dealings with people before. (base human nature and general stupidity often get together for some spectacularly problematic solutions — think addiction, robbery, and murder for a start)
- Statistics Misused — But the numbers said …! Statistics are probably the most-used, but least-understood problem-solving/problem-creating tool.
General Stupidity
Some of these solution-caused problems, as in O’ Henry’s story, result only in personal difficulty. Unfortunately, far too many are the cause of massively large-scale disasters. Many of these are in the realm of ecological destruction.
Consider the story of Tibbles the cat and Lyall’s Wren. In 1894, David Lyall took up the post of lighthouse keeper on Stephens Island, in Cook Straight. (near New Zealand) When he moved to this tiny isle, he brought with him, his cat, Tibbles.
Shortly after arrival, Tibbles started bringing small, dead birds to her owner — as cats do. David Lyall, being an avid, amateur naturalist, and not recognising the species, sent samples to England. The birds were identified as a “new”, as yet unclassified species.
However, by the time this exciting news got back to David Lyall on Stephens Island, Tibbles had already eradicated the entire species. (Tibbles was probably pregnant on arrival, and thus had the assistance of her offspring.) The species was posthumously named, Lyall’s Wren.
Sadly, this is by no means an isolated example of species extinction/endangerment, due to the introduction of domesticated, or wild alien species. While early theories on the extinction of the Dodo blamed people for eating them all, further historical and archaeological studies have disproven this.
However, that is not to say that people were not to blame for the dodo’s extinction. Early settlers on Mauritius introduced dogs, cats, pigs, rats, and crab-eating macaques (monkeys). Many of these escaped, and became feral. The flightless, ground-nesting dodos had never had to deal with significant predators before, and were quickly wiped out by these human-introduced predators, both feral and domesticated.
History is full of such stories of disastrous alien species introductions. For instance:
- Rabbits were introduced to Australia in 1788, as a food source. Escapees, unsurprisingly, bred like bunnies, and created an ecological problem that continues to plague the Land Down Under to this day.
- Escaped pythons (particularly Asian, but also African), introduced to North America as pets, have become a large enough problem in the Everglades, that an entire industry has sprung up to hunt them, along with associated “reality” TV shows.
- Snakehead Fish and Jumping Carp are two other well-known American, alien invaders that are busy destroying entire ecosystems.
- Here in South Africa, Black Wattle trees were introduced as a cash crop in the mid-1800s. However, they quite quickly became a dangerously invasive, alien species, that has devastated indigenous habitats. The battle to free indigenous habitats from black wattle destruction continues to this day. Introduced pine & blue-gum trees have caused similar, if less widespread problems for indigenous vegetation.
- On a completely different note. Consider the atom bomb. It was created and used —as supposedly — “the weapon to end all war”. Well, we can all see how that’s turned out, can’t we?
- In 2003, Barbara Streisand attempted to suppress publication of photographs of her house. This only resulted in further publicity, which completely subverted her aims. Any attempt to limit publicity, which results in further publicity, is now officially known as The Streisand Effect.
- Addiction has been very accurately described as “That which saves us, eventually destroys us” — literally destruction within an apparent solution. Not only is addiction a massive problem for individuals, but sociologists & psychologists have described our society — especially economically — itself as addictive.
I could list examples all day, but I won’t. I’m sure you get the picture. These are all apparent solutions to problems — food, financial, companionship, fear, etc. — that have created larger problems than they were introduced to solve. All because of a lack of “common sense”.
Here’s a link with a few more examples:
These are all examples of people, not thinking things through before applying apparent solutions to a problem.
Base Human Nature
The previous section looked at problems caused by the impatience and lack of foresight that is all too common in human nature. This section deals with the greedy, selfish, sly, law-breaking, egotistical, convenience-above-all, “you’re not the boss of me”, side of human nature.
It was actually something in this category, taken from my everyday experience, that prompted the idea for this post.
I live in the relatively small, rural town of Eshowe, in northern Kwazulu-Natal (Zululand), in South Africa. Years ago, local traffic authorities, decided (based on slim, questionable data) that speed was the prime cause of road traffic accidents.
Of course, here, as elsewhere, stricter speed limit enforcement was the first step, which in itself is the cause of further problems. However, it is the second step that really caused greater problems than it was meant to solve.
The second “solution” to the speeding problem, was of course, speed humps — sometimes known as traffic-calming. (a championship-level misnomer) Now, I know that speed humps are found all over the world, and that they can be helpful when correctly deployed. That is not the case here in Eshowe.
Firstly, pretty much every speed hump in town differs in height, slope, build, etc., without any apparent link to actual speed limits. This means that speed humps in a 60km/h zone, may well have to be negotiated at 25km/h (or less), to avoid damaging one’s vehicle. But rest assured, the very next hump, in the same speed zone, will be different from the one you’ve just negotiated.
Secondly, Eshowe’s speed hump theory, is as follows:
“The more speed humps, the better!”
You cannot travel more than a very few hundred metres (sometimes less) on any road in Eshowe, without encountering “traffic calming”. Of course, the distances between the humps are as inconsistent as their build. Thus, you may drive 500 metres between two humps, and then encounter three or four in the following 500 metres.
This constant, low-gear, slowing and pulling away, of course, takes its toll on fuel consumption, and the badly made humps take their toll on tyres and suspension. However, as bad as that is, it is not the primary problem, caused by this solution.
Base human nature has found its expression in Eshowe-drivers’ response to these speed humps. This displays in two ways:
Firstly, people seem to think, that since they are driving slowly anyway, that they should take the opportunity to talk and text on their mobile phones. In fact, based on the number of drivers using cellular devices, you could quite easily conclude that cellular use, while driving, is mandatory.
Secondly, there’s the biggest problem caused by this solution. Drivers don’t stop for stop signs any more — pretty much ever. (literally well over 95% of drivers, well over 95% of the time) To protect their vehicles, drivers slow, almost to a standstill, when negotiating speed humps. However, they then, almost completely ignore stop signs. In fact, they often accelerate through stop sign controlled intersections. (while talking on their mobile, of course) When one gets around on a motorcycle, as do my wife and I, this is particularly scary. (this is the problematic solution that inspired this post)
Speed humps — the apparent solution to the traffic accident problem in Eshowe, has thus caused more problems than it has solved.
Of course, this example does not stand alone. Wherever there is a solution, a law, a guideline, or externally imposed limitation of any kind, people will do their utmost to circumvent it for their own convenience, or ego.
Here’s another quick, true story. When Hanoi, Vietnam was still under French rule, the government, in an effort to control the rat population, placed a bounty on rats. Bounty was paid on presentation of the tails of the rats killed. However, very soon, officials noticed increasingly large numbers of tailless rats in Hanoi. Rat bounty hunters were capturing rats, chopping off their tails for bounty, and then setting the rats free to continue breeding. After all, if you’re being paid for rat tails, you must protect your future income.
Statistics Misused
The well-known joke says — “99% of statistics are made-up to prove a point — including this one”.
One of my favourite books, which I reread semi-annually, is How To Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff. The gist of the book is as follows:
- It is possible to prove anything with statistics
- Statistics are misused far more often than they are used
- Statistics are misused both accidentally and purposefully
We all know — or should — how statistics are misused in advertising. For instance:
9 out of 10 dentists recommend …
What is that actually saying? At best, ten dentists were polled, and were willing — maybe for a price — to recommend the toothpaste, toothbrush, etc in question. One dentist told the pollsters to get lost.
Firstly, a sample size of ten is way too small to be statistically meaningful.
Secondly, the sample group may have been bigger, with more dentists refusing to recommend, and the pollsters merely cherry-picking the responses they wanted.
Finally, the poll may not have happened at all, and the statistics were just made up.
(This is based on actual research into this type of advertising.)
However, even with the best of intentions, statistics are more often than not, misused when seeking solutions to problems.
Goodhart’s Law, for instance, states “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” (The Lucas Critique says pretty much the same thing, slightly differently)
In other words — One cannot measure the success of a project, based on the same criteria as showed the need for the project.
e.g. I cannot measure my wealth, based on the same evidence that indicated my poverty.
While this may seem fairly obvious, statistics are misused in this way all the time.
Campbell’s Law takes things a step further. It says that the more often statistical markers are used, the less accurate they become. (my precis)
For instance, high school test scores can be a useful indicator of the need for better education. But, as soon as better test scores become the aim of the exercise, they can no longer be used as a means of assessment.
These are just three examples, among many, of how misuse of statistics can, and does create problems out of solutions. Even though these, and other statistical “laws” have been around for decades, and are well known among researchers, problem-solvers, and statisticians, one doesn’t need to look far to see how often they are ignored and misused in education, city planning, agriculture, economics, etc.
Personal, Creative Application
As interesting as all of this is (to me, at least), you may be wondering how it is relevant to you and me.
- Well, how often have you leapt in to solve a problem, only to find that you’ve actually made things worse in the long run? All because you didn’t take time to think things through properly before starting. I know I’ve been guilty of that often enough, and no doubt will be again.
- How often have you caused problems for yourself, and/or others because “I did it my way” (I know you sang that), instead of how it should have been done? Once again, I admit to this failing.
- How many times have you caused further problems, or just not found the solution you’d expected, because you ignored, or “cooked” the statistics/evidence so that it agreed with your preconceptions. Once again, I admit to having done this. None of us really wants our pet theories/beliefs/etc. to be disproven.
How much easier would your, and my life be if we really took time to properly research solutions, rather than just jumping in and hoping for the best?
- Ask your partner what would make them feel loved, rather than just assuming that you know.
- Consult an expert or two before you go ahead and buy that new computer, car, or motorbike.
- Spend time on genuine market research before jumping into that new business venture.
How much trouble would we save ourselves, if we set aside our egos and self-delusions, and did things “properly”?
- What if we slowed down for the speed humps, and stopped at the stop signs? (using that metaphorically in this instance)
- What if we stopped assuming that common sense rules, like don’t use your mobile while driving, only applied to other people?
Finally, take an honest, unbiased, educated look at all available data before applying a solution, or starting a new venture, of any kind.
At first glance, the subject of this post may not seem to be very creative. However, I assure you that it is. As I’ve often said before, the opposite of creation is destruction.
Exacerbating problems — whether personal, social, creative, artistic, business, or relational — by applying faulty solutions, is destructive.
Creative problem solving, can only occur if we apply the best solutions possible, in the best ways possible. To solve problems creatively, we must think clearly, slow down, do proper research, and set aside our egos, self-delusions, and preconceptions.
Thanks for reading. I hope that you find this helpful.
Please applaud, share, and comment. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
