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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @09:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @09:07AM (#1136916)

    I know, I haven't read the full study, but I'm going to assert that the researchers didn't measure what they claim. Take a look at the example from their Q&A [virginia.edu] (emphasis mine):

    Check out this Lego setup. We are going to pay you $1 if you can renovate the structure so that it will hold a real masonry brick above the little Lego person’s head without collapsing

    I don't know about you, but to me, "renovate" means you can change the building's internal structure, but you cannot change its overall shape of facade (it's restoration, not alteration). Here's their conclusion:

    If you don’t jump to that additive conclusion, though, you may recognize that you could instead remove the existing support. The platform drops down and sits flush on the base below, still with enough clearance for Lego Guy. The subtractive solution is more efficient, but you only notice it if you don’t jump to an additive conclusion.

    The subtractive solution in effect removes an entire floor from the building. That's not renovation, that's a redesign.