Gabrielle S. Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew H. Hales, Leidy E. Klotz
2021 · Nature
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions
Why is progress always assumed to be about adding more stuff? Sometimes, taking something away would be best, but humans tend to overlook it. Article: People systematically overlook subtractive changes - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y
No I don't think so. That explanation only works for simple systems, if at all. But all the many players and their very diverse needs and ideas are very complex. I think i's more likely that it's something described in studies about human problem solving, which leads us to preferring overly complex solutions because we prefer adding something. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 (you may need Sci-Hub - paywalled) > Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving > A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more…
efficient. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y > People systematically overlook subtractive changes https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typical... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... I think we also have forces in play that add to this bias. Or they are the result of it, for some of them. For example, when there is an easy and cheap or even free solution there is no incentive for marketing and selling it. It's hard to tell a customer that they don't actually need you, especially if it isn't a one-off, or that they should go somewhere cheaper and more simple. It is much easier to get paid for adding than for doing nothing or for subtracting, both as an employee and as a business. It certainly looks that way when I look around. We have frequent complaints about a lack of skilled labor - but that's also because everything keeps getting more and more complex. For example, once it was enough to once every half year update a piece of paper on each bus or tram or train station with the schedule. Now it's some highly complex networked computer solution and display to display when the next bus is going to arrive. Sure there is added value - but there also is a gigantic amount of new complexity for every small "convenience". When it comes to something like waiting for the next tram, specially in an urban environment with 10 minute schedule, the benefit of knowing if it's 2 or 7 minutes that you'll have to wait is negligible compared to the effort of providing and maintaining that service. (we have this situation in my town). Of course there is added value for much of it, maybe all. But I see the complexity and size of systems I knew in a much more simple form when I grew up exploding. The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before. Never mind everything we do, from planning to maintenance, is ever more complex too.
There was an article related to this idea that received some popular attention last year [1][2] and one of the authors wrote a book on it. [3] [1] People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Adams, Converse, Hales & Klotz. Nature, 592, 258–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26727878 [3] https://www.leidyklotz.com/
More from the same topics.
Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan +4
Abstract If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability.
Steven M. Paul, Daniel S. Mytelka, Christopher T. Dunwiddie +4