Why Does the Human Brain Overlook Subtractive Changes?
Have you ever wondered why our brain misses the opportunity to develop through subtraction, reduction and simplification?
A new study explains why people rarely look to the strategy of “sticking out” as a solution to a situation, object or idea that needs improvement in any context. Instead, we almost always choose to add some element, whether it helps or not.
Why do we like to exaggerate when less can be more effective or we can pinpoint with less?
In a new article on the cover of Nature, University of Virginia researchers shed some light on the subject. Moreover, the team’s findings reveal a fundamental reason why people are battling oppressive programs, institutions are preventing bureaucracy from proliferating, and humanity is depleting the planet’s resources, which is of particular interest to researchers.
“This is happening in engineering design, which is my main area of interest,” says Leidy Klotz, Associate Professor of Engineering Systems and Environment at Copenhaver. “But it also happens in writing activities, cooking and everything else – just think about your own work and you’ll see. The first thing that comes to our mind is “What can we add?” to make it better. is happening. Even if our work is to our detriment, we are considering adding it even if the only right way is to remove it. Even with the financial incentive, we still don’t plan on letting it go.” she adds.
In his work, investigating the overlaps between engineering and behavioral science, Klotz worked with three colleagues from the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy on interdisciplinary research that demonstrates the nature of our “additive” behavior. Gabrielle Adams, assistant professor in the Batten School of Public Policy and Psychology, and associate professor Benjamin Converse and fellow Batten PhD graduate Andrew Hales collaborated with Klotz in a series of observational studies and experiments to examine this phenomenon.
The researchers suggest two far-reaching possibilities for why people systematically choose to add rather than subtract. First, people both generate ideas for possibilities and discard subtractive solutions disproportionately, or second, they overlook subtractive ideas altogether. Researchers are focusing on the second possibility.
“Additional ideas come to mind quickly and easily, but subtractive ideas require more cognitive effort,” Converse says. He adds that because people often move quickly and work with the first ideas that come to mind, they accept additive solutions without even thinking about subtraction.
Researchers think there may be a self-reinforcing effect.
“The more people rely on additive strategies, the more cognitively accessible they become,” Adams says. Over time, he adds, the habit of seeking out additional ideas can become stronger and, in the long run, we may miss out on many opportunities to improve the world through “sticking”.
Klotz has a book called “Subtract: The Untapped Science of Less”, which comes out a week after the Nature article, that takes a broader view of the subject.
In his book, Klotz discusses design geniuses, Nobel Prize winners, rock stars, and heroes who “subtract” to eradicate racism, advance knowledge, and improve the planet. It details a wide range of topics, from unnecessary highway projects (one of the examples) to economic-political strategies that shed light on urbanization and environmental problems, to conveying jokes in our daily life in a simple way.
Although the timing is coincidental, both the research paper and the book are products of the interdisciplinary and collaborative research environment at the University of Virginia.
Turning to research, as Klotz emphasizes, it is clear that research with these incredibly interesting findings has tremendous implications across a wide range of interdisciplinary contexts. In particular, it seems essential to implement the “sticker” strategy to improve the way we design technology in engineering that benefits humanity.
