The Strength of Subtraction

In a recent study led by Gabrielle Adams at the University of Virginia, researchers evaluated individuals' problem-solving abilities. Participants were presented with a variety of problems, and their solutions were analyzed to determine whether they leaned toward adding or subtracting features.

One of the simplest tasks involved creating a perfectly symmetrical grid by either adding or removing blue tiles. The ideal solution required removing the blue tiles from the four corners. Surprisingly, only 49% of participants identified this solution.

As it turns out, the task was not overly complex; rather, individuals instinctively gravitated towards adding tiles instead of considering removal. When given additional time to think through similar practice grids, the correct solution rate increased to 63%. This suggests that while people are capable of recognizing subtractive solutions, they often default to additive strategies when they begin to think about a problem.

Furthermore, the tendency to overlook subtractive solutions appears to be exacerbated under cognitive load. When faced with multiple tasks or pressure, individuals are more likely to resort to instinctual, albeit suboptimal, shortcuts.

This concept extends beyond mere visual puzzles. In another experiment, participants were shown a layout of a mini golf course and asked for suggestions on improvements. Only 28% proposed subtractive changes, such as removing the sand trap. However, when prompted to consider both adding and subtracting features, the number of subtractive ideas increased to 43%.

In a final analysis, the researchers reviewed a list of 1,201 suggestions submitted to a new university president. They found that a mere 11% were subtractive (e.g., "eliminate legacy admissions"), while a staggering 89% focused on what could be added (e.g., "increase study abroad grants").

The findings across various experiments consistently indicate a strong preference for additive over subtractive strategies.

This inclination towards adding rather than removing may explain why many institutions struggle with cumbersome rules and regulations. Instead of eliminating outdated rules, there's a tendency to add new ones, further complicating the system. Our instinct to address issues through addition rather than subtraction might also contribute to the clutter in our thoughts and busy schedules.

In addressing significant global challenges like environmental sustainability and political corruption, it’s possible that strategies focused on subtraction—doing less rather than more—could be more effective. If decision-makers remain fixated on additive approaches, however, subtractive strategies may struggle to gain traction.

As noted by Adams and her colleagues, the reason we frequently need reminders that “less is more” is that we often overlook this essential principle.

Takeaway Strategies

• Start Subtracting: Reflect on the clutter in your life and identify areas for reduction. Consider unsubscribing from unused services, canceling unnecessary meetings, or donating items you no longer need.
• Reassess Problems: Have you overlooked a potentially beneficial subtractive strategy in your work? It’s likely that you’ve defaulted to an additive approach when a simpler subtractive solution would have sufficed. Recognizing instances from your own life can enhance your awareness of how mental shortcuts may hinder rather than help.
• Avoid Overexertion: Sometimes, trying too hard can worsen a situation. Subtracting attention or energy from a problem can be the most effective solution. Many of us spend excessive time ruminating on past choices or future actions, wasting energy on matters beyond our control. Allow yourself some grace and take a break from constant planning.

“Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little.”

~ Epicurus