There is probably a name for this already. If you know what it is, please let me know.
This is when you want A, which is caused by B (or both A and B have a common cause C), but you want NOT B, and you don’t recognize the causal link because you’re a magical thinker. After pursuing A to a point of acceptable satisfaction, you change strategies to try and tear down B, and end up destroying both A and B in the process.
For a canonical example, I’ll propose men who want to have promiscuous sex with coy, attractive virgins without social and religious censures against their behavior. They don’t recognize that the supply of virgins depends on social and religious pressures limiting the number of other men engaging in the same behavior, and similarly don’t recognize that female attractiveness depends on group selection produced by large high-trust male groups (i.e. low slavery/atomization rate and harsh punishment of polygyny). If they had high IQs and were taught the connection, their criticisms of religiosity would change. And our generation has been lucky enough to witness this profound shift in many men’s revealed preferences in real time, as white ethnonationalism produces concern for the white race’s crumbling genome. Another example is tech CEOs who value both profits and diversity.
An example of something that isn’t parasitic deconstruction is when American blacks tear down white institutions. It may be true that they don’t understand the causal link, but their revealed preference is for everyone to live in mud huts because this removes the advantages of their k-selected competitors while leaving the advantages of r-selected phenotypes intact. When presented with the stark choice of “share a world with plumbing” and “not share a world with no plumbing”, an r-selected phenotype will push the button that burns down Rome and makes him the first man in a village (i.e. maximizing relative prosperity, status, at the expense of absolute prosperity). For a more topical example, look at the sexual selections of highly educated women who want to have indoor plumbing but would rather die childless than reproduce with plumbers (a low-status profession), and typically do die childless.
The distinction between parasitic deconstruction and destruction of competitors is that parasitic deconstruction produces cycles of chasing A, then chasing not B and losing A, then chasing A again, and so on. As an aside, this is a good time to introduce a concept I learned from Zero HP Lovecraft today:
Goodhart’s law states that when a proxy of success is used as a target for optimization, the proxy ceases to correlate with success.
(Basically, anytime humans form a heuristic for value it gets exploited by imitators because the cost of imitation is always less than or equal to the thing itself. The target then moves to a different proxy, creating a Red Queen situation for SNOBs chasing network effects via Schelling points, i.e. fads.)