Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 12 2021, @01:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-harder-to-reverse-engineer-someone-else's-work-than-the-new-stuff-we-just-came-up-with dept.

Here's Why Our Brains Solve Problems by Adding Things, Not Removing:

Have you ever noticed how we usually try and solve problems by adding more, rather than taking away? More meetings, more forms, more buttons, more shelves, more systems, more code, and so on. Now scientists think they might know the reason why.

A study of 1,585 people across 8 different experiments showed that our brains tend to default to addition rather than subtraction when it comes to finding solutions – in many cases, it seems we just don't consider the strategy of taking something away at all.

The researchers found that this preference for adding was noticeable in three scenarios in particular: when people were under higher cognitive load, when there was less time to consider the other options, and when volunteers didn't get a specific reminder that subtracting was an option.

"It happens in engineering design, which is my main interest," says engineer Leidy Klotz, from the University of Virginia. "But it also happens in writing, cooking, and everything else – just think about your own work and you will see it."

"The first thing that comes to our minds is, what can we add to make it better? Our paper shows we do this to our detriment, even when the only right answer is to subtract. Even with financial incentive, we still don't think to take away."

[...] "The more often people rely on additive strategies, the more cognitively accessible they become," says psychologist Gabrielle Adams, from the University of Virginia.

"Over time, the habit of looking for additive ideas may get stronger and stronger, and in the long run, we end up missing out on many opportunities to improve the world by subtraction."

The research has been published in Nature.

Journal Reference:
Gabrielle S. Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew H. Hales, et al. People systematically overlook subtractive changes, Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 12 2021, @02:45PM (4 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Monday April 12 2021, @02:45PM (#1136412)

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @05:11PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @05:11PM (#1136519)

    Sterile cockpit gets you paid of subtracting things.

    A pilot will often turn off/tune out things to lower the distraction load to focus on what matters.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 12 2021, @05:46PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Monday April 12 2021, @05:46PM (#1136550)

      By that account the engineer designing all those over-engineered systems is similarly getting paid for subtraction since he's filtering out all the porn, drugs, games and/or marital issues that would otherwise distract him from his job.

      But let put the two claims to the test:
      1. If the pilot failed to fly the plane, would he get fired? American Airlines says yes.
      2. If the pilot failed to avoid distraction, would they get fired? Boeing says no.

      More over, pilots both fly and float. As such, I can only conclude the pilot is a witch. Burn the witch!

      --
      compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @07:29AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday April 13 2021, @07:29AM (#1136896) Homepage
    I remember my first yearly performance review when I moved to Nokia in Finland. Apparently, I'd written -3.5 KLOC that year. To my immediate and immediate-but-one managers, I was a hero. But to the people who only deal in metrics I was "a problem" (my boss' boss said that was the term being used - however, he promised to support me, and he did). I still got paid decently. And the 3 people whose code I kept deleting didn't...
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 13 2021, @04:47PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday April 13 2021, @04:47PM (#1137056)

      Aha but take the narrative away from the numbers and what you're left with is 3/4 developers getting fired after failing to deliver new code :D

      Jokes aside, it was a problem with most of management and it didn't pass smoothly so I'd call it as the exception that proves the rule.

      --
      compiling...