Unintended Consequences Explained: The Cobra Effect and Merton's Typology

Who created and checked this page

Correction history

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 28 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Qualified five overstated or apocryphal claims: flagged the colonial-India cobra-bounty story as a widely repeated but poorly documented parable rather than verified history; softened 'Goodhart's Law is the most robustly supported empirical generalization in applied social science' to 'one of the more robustly supported'; framed the Prohibition speakeasy count and Al Capone revenue as contemporary estimates rather than precise figures; and clarified the Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2019) rent-control finding, noting that the citywide supply reduction offset much of rent control's benefit to recipients while distinguishing the two affected groups. The biofuel-mandate food-price passage (which already noted the Don Mitchell 2008 World Bank estimate was disputed by USDA economists) and the genuine H.L. Mencken quotation were left intact.

   Before

   The article told the cobra-bounty story as fact, called Goodhart's Law the most robust universal generalization, gave precise Prohibition speakeasy and Capone figures, and framed the Diamond rent-control study as proving benefits negated.

   After

   Qualified the cobra parable, the Goodhart superlative, and the Prohibition estimates, and clarified the Diamond study's actual finding, while keeping the already-balanced biofuel passage and the genuine Mencken quote.

   Why: The cobra story is apocryphal and several claims were more absolute than the evidence supports. Corrections qualify them and keep the genuine research (Diamond et al. 2019; Mitchell 2008) rather than adding new sources.

   View the full record →

Full contribution timeline

1. Correction 28 July 2026

   Emir Baycan: Qualified five overstated or apocryphal claims: flagged the colonial-India cobra-bounty story as a widely repeated but poorly documented parable rather than verified history; softened 'Goodhart's Law is the most robustly supported empirical generalization in applied social science' to 'one of the more robustly supported'; framed the Prohibition speakeasy count and Al Capone revenue as contemporary estimates rather than precise figures; and clarified the Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2019) rent-control finding, noting that the citywide supply reduction offset much of rent control's benefit to recipients while distinguishing the two affected groups. The biofuel-mandate food-price passage (which already noted the Don Mitchell 2008 World Bank estimate was disputed by USDA economists) and the genuine H.L. Mencken quotation were left intact.

   Proof record →