Why is everything so complicated? Apparently due to a systematic tendency (bias) of our mind to solve problems: when we want to improve an object, an idea or a situation, in fact, we fail to see that the correct solution consists in removing something, but we focus only on what can be added. A search on Nature by Gabrielle Adams and colleagues at the University of Virginia (People systematically overlook subtractive changes), through a battery of small experiments like this one: participants are presented with an asymmetrical structure made of Lego bricks and are asked to stabilize it in order to support the weight of a brick. Those who pass this rudimentary load test receive a cash prize, which is however reduced by 10 percent for each new piece added to the structure. The most rational and profitable solution would be to remove the superfluous piece that determines the asymmetry of the structure without adding anything, thus pocketing the entire premium. Despite this, the clear majority of participants choose to add more bricks – some just one, some even more. All the experiments showed similar results, thus discovering the existence of a new addition bias. In this perspective, we also appreciate the importance of recent international initiatives such as Too Much Medicine or Choosing Wisely which warn us of the health risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment: doing more does not mean doing better. Yet for our mind, subtracting elements from complexity is less natural than adding them. But is it really true that if you know the mental traps you avoid them? The Virginia researchers have tried to give an answer to this too, wondering where this propensity to complicate our lives comes from. The reality is that we are well able to give the right value to a simplification, we just don’t think about it when we should do it! In a variant of the same experiment, in fact, the possibility of removing some element was explicitly mentioned (for example by showing the reminder of less than more), and here many of the participants identified the right strategy – remove one piece rather than add others. The bias therefore lies not so much in the way we judge a solution, as in a defect of imagination when we have to find it. A little as if the solution by subtraction were hidden in a shadow cone; but, by consciously pointing the torch of our attention at it, we are quite capable of comparing it with solutions based on addition and recognizing its benefits. So the bad news is that simplifying is not intuitive; the good thing is that we now know that we can cope with this cognitive distortion by calling attention to the possibility of subtracting the superfluous rather than adding something new. In short, we should learn to use the eraser more and the pencil less. This article could have been better too, if only you had paid more attention to cutting something.
June 24, 2021 (change June 24, 2021 | 10:11)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED