Good intention vs good results

Not only do things sometimes turn out bad despite good intentions. But things often turn out the ‘bader’ the ‘gooder’ we intend. Why is that?

It may be our quantitative approach to remedies that causes the trouble? There is an omnipresent and automized “positive” feedback loop reinforcing more of the same to a point of being outright destructive.

In our own lives or just observing social phenomena, this mooore approach is rampant. Here just a few examples:

– too much money creates pockets of inflation and lowers purchasing power,

– too much training prevents recovery and lowers performance,

– too much deficit creates commitments that eliminate freedom of choice

– too many traffic signs prevent attentive interaction and lower traffic safety

– too many drugs are toxic and sabotage health,

– too much war drowns out benevolence and undermines legitimacy,

– too much state suffocates initiative and retards resourcefulness,

– too much information disperses attention and confuses decision making,

– too much surveillance affects decent people and violates their trust,

– too much eating clutters the metabolism and drains energy,

– too much control fixates attention on accountability and wipes out purpose,

– too much innovation disperses resources and destroys competetiveness,

– too much authority displaces locus of control and subverts right & wrong

– too big (…) encourages further – propped up – strength and unmakes viability,

– too much care dampens volitional impulses and impedes learning,

– too much advice interrupts personal observation and erodes confidence,

– too many examples are tiresome and destroy interest 😉

If applied too much a remedy achieves the opposite of the intended result. A disheartening phenomenon.

A good heart, wanting to help, combined with a naive mooore approach, may be an important hidden aspect of the proverb: the road to hell is plastered with good intentions.