Principle 2

So often, individuals, organisations, and governments depend on one approach—one ideology, one method, or one solution—to solve an ongoing or intractable problem.  For example, to diminish the costs of public services, many governments, whether conservative or progressive, are more inclined to transfer these services to the private sector rather than vice versa.  Yet, this approach may not be suitable in all circumstances.  For example

• in Australia, the US, and many other nations, the costs to administer private health is appreciably more than twice the cost to administer public health,
• in the UK, privatisation of water increased the fees that consumers paid significantly—rising 40% above inflation,
• because of their dependence on the private sector, successive Australian governments have watched helplessly as regional air services wane, unprepared to purchase a stake to prevent this decline.

Similarly, governments and other sectors often depend on one approach to solve problems in other sectors as well:

• for example, to diminish mental illness in children, many advocates have proposed age limits to social media,
• however, many other measures could be considered, such as algorithms that limit exposure to offensive posts,
• likewise, many governments primarily depend on one approach to limit carbon emissions,
• for instance, some governments have invested heavily in carbon capture and storage—a technology that could limit the emissions in specific industries, such as the production and steel and concrete, but is not as likely to limit the emissions in oil and gas production at scale.

More interestingly, researchers have uncovered several reasons that people, organisations, and governments tend to depend unduly on one approach, method, or solution.  First, people like to ascribe many of their problems and challenges to one cause or source.  That is, humans inflate the degree to which one cause—an incompetent political party, a specific ideology, or a pervasive virus, for example—can explain a variety of concerns.  In one study,

• people greatly overestimated the degree to which Al Qaeda, the most notorious terrorist organisation at the time, was responsible for many of the problems they were experiencing,
• indeed, after they ascribed these problems to Al Qaeda, the participants actually felt buoyed,
• they felt they only needed to manage one rival—this clandestine terrorist organisation—to solve all their concerns.

Because of this tendency to ascribe multiple problems to one cause, people overlook the multifaceted nature of problems.  Consequently, they overestimate the likely benefits of their purported solutions, manifesting as narcissism rather than humility.  However, another tendency exacerbates this tendency to overlook the multifaceted nature of problems.  Specifically, people overestimate the likelihood that one success, in a confined setting, will scale or extend to other settings. To illustrate

• Suppose some education program—such as a mindfulness intervention—diminishes the incidence of substance abuse in one high school.
• The likelihood this program will be successful in other high schools will tend to dissipate over time.
• That is, many features of the high school—such as the pride of teachers who had committed to this program or the sense of hope that was brewing in the researchers—will tend to subside as the program continues.

In short, individuals, organisations, and governments should seldom, if ever, depend on one approach, solution, ideology, or method to solve a problem. They should continue to invest their time, efforts, or funds on multiple approaches in parallel.