You fall down the stairs and break your left leg.

(Deutsche Version ->)

• Cause: Clumsiness!
• Effect: A broken left leg.

But there were shoes on the stairs.

• Cause: You tripped over shoes that someone left there.
• Effect: A broken left leg.

The carpet was loose.

• Cause: That same person didn’t fix the loose carpet, causing you to stumble even more.
• Effect: A broken left leg.

The lightbulb was out.

• Cause: This person didn’t replace the lightbulb, so you couldn’t see the shoes or the loose carpet.
• Effect: A broken left leg.

Your shoelaces were untied.

• Cause: The same person didn’t remind you to tie your shoelaces—yet another hazard in the dark!
• Effect: A broken left leg.

Oh, and of course, you were drunk.

So,

what was the true cause of your fall? Was it clumsiness, shoes on the stairs, a loose carpet, a broken lightbulb, untied shoelaces, or your drunkenness?

None of them.

They were all effects of irresponsibility.

Each element fed into a larger problem. Sometimes, when looking at causes, it’s not just about one factor but the cumulative effects of negligence and small overlooked decisions.

By the way, it’s completely irrelevant that it was your left leg and not your right that you broke.

Turn it ‘round

We often hear about studies that link certain behaviours to outcomes, like how people who read a lot seem to live longer. So, everyone rushes to pick up a book, thinking it’s the secret to longevity.

But what if it’s the other way around? Maybe people who are predisposed to live longer naturally enjoy reading more.

It’s a reminder that we sometimes need to rethink our assumptions and consider what’s really influencing what.

That’s all,

RvdL

This article is part of the go-PARALLAX series on decision-making, problem-solving, and sparking innovation.

(<- Previous Article)