If one variable changes, the adaptations to the old value will no have the old effect—and they’re far more likely to be harmful than beneficial.
Imagine that people became more truthful overnight. All of the societal factors that relied on people being deceptive will be thrown out of balance. Benefits predicated upon a certain level of deception will not longer occur, and rules designed to induce people to be truthful in certain situations (like court proceedings) may end up causing more harm than good.
Imagine if people actually took the oath “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” seriously all of a sudden. Chaos, paralysis, and malfunctioning would be the immediate effects.
On second thought, no, it’s not always true. Both the improvement after the equilibrium is reached again, and change involving the confusion just after the change, are dependent on the extent of the change (and there need not be a sudden change, the whole process can be performed by shifting the state of adaptation). While state after-change is worse than state after-calming-down, both can be better than the initial state, or both worse than initial state, as well as on the different sides of the initial state.
Yes, that’s always true.
If one variable changes, the adaptations to the old value will no have the old effect—and they’re far more likely to be harmful than beneficial.
Imagine that people became more truthful overnight. All of the societal factors that relied on people being deceptive will be thrown out of balance. Benefits predicated upon a certain level of deception will not longer occur, and rules designed to induce people to be truthful in certain situations (like court proceedings) may end up causing more harm than good.
Imagine if people actually took the oath “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” seriously all of a sudden. Chaos, paralysis, and malfunctioning would be the immediate effects.
On second thought, no, it’s not always true. Both the improvement after the equilibrium is reached again, and change involving the confusion just after the change, are dependent on the extent of the change (and there need not be a sudden change, the whole process can be performed by shifting the state of adaptation). While state after-change is worse than state after-calming-down, both can be better than the initial state, or both worse than initial state, as well as on the different sides of the initial state.
It’s highly unlikely that a shift away from equilibrium will be directly beneficial—but you’re right, it is possible.
I retract my earlier statement and qualify it.