If what derives from the method is unexpected, there is “the unintended consequence.”
The effectiveness of the method derives from measuring the yield. Since changing the method derives a change in the yield (which is a temporal sequence that occupies space over time) then it can be logically inferred to have caused the difference. The causal identity is a condition of space over time.
If changing the method does not cause a difference over time then what has been attributed to causing the yield is false. It is fundamental attribution error. Continuing to use the method is then not dependent on its effectiveness, except that it may be the result of a hierarchical, decision making process that demonstrates a power structure, and conforming to it measures how effective the structure is, having a method yield.
(See other articles by griffithlighton on confirmed conformity and conforming confirmation.)
In the world of politics, for example, we know that shutting the government down is unpopular. Its unpopularity is measured by playing the game of who to blame.
The immediate cause of the latest shutdown was bundling the CR with an issue unrelated to the CR. Both parties are apt to link difficult issues with a CR because it forces the counterparty into conformity.
Since bundling means the counterparty is coerced, the legitimacy of what yields from the method (its attributive value) is questionable. What “actually” yields is a complex-ambiguation of the problem (the issue) to be solved. The method, then, becomes the problem to be solved “because” the method always yields more ambiguity, resulting in attribution error. Politicians routinely use attribution error to form specious arguments, replete with logical fallacies and outright, deliberate misrepresentations of what intentionally yields from the method derived to make it “just happen” by default, making the same mistake over and over again.
(See other articles by griffithlighton on attribution error and the organized psychopathy, published on the World Wide Web.)
The question now is whether a shutdown will occur again in three weeks. The trend shows a resolve to continue the method because it has coercive value and, just as important, it safely yields to the blame game by default. What derives from the blame game is of little consequence, really, since one party’s majority rule derives from the unpopularity of the other, which forms a method that reliably yields complete occupation of political space over time. What derives from this methodical pre-occupation is “We” make the same mistake over and over again, with the only difference being the attributive value, becoming evermore complex, ambiguous, and ambivalent, resulting in a psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance — yielding to the consequences without actually having the intention?