Hidden Brain - Innovation 2.0: Do Less

Episode Date: May 27, 2024

The human drive to invent new things has led to pathbreaking achievements in medicine, science and society. But our desire to create can keep us from seeing one of the most powerful paths to progress: subtraction. In a favorite conversation from 2022, engineer Leidy Klotz shares how streamlining and simplifying is sometimes the best path to innovation. Today's episode concludes our Innovation 2.0 series. If you've enjoyed these episodes, please tell a friend about them! They can find all of the stories in this series in this podcast feed, or at https://hiddenbrain.org/. Thanks for listening! 

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Think about the last time you were part of a brainstorming session. We just need to brainstorm five ideas. But to be safe, let's come up with 50. Let's make it 100. Maybe this was at work or at a planning meeting for a community organization. Just want to emphasize there's no bad ideas here. We're just brainstorming. Many people probably suggested ideas.

Perhaps there was some discussion about which proposal was best. At the end, maybe everyone voted on the best idea. If your meeting was like most meetings, there was probably one kind of idea that was in short supply. How to do less. I remember a brainstorming session some years ago

where colleagues filled an entire wall with Post-it notes. When I looked at the Post-it wall later on, I was struck that almost none of the notes suggested that the organization could streamline projects or stop doing things that weren't working. All the ideas were about expansion, new projects. Today we ask why we often ignore one of the most powerful paths to innovation. When less is more, this week on Hidden Brain. Humans are curious and inventive creatures. Give us a problem and we will come up with solutions.

Usually this is a marvelous skill. Our drive to invent new things, generate new ideas, is responsible for great breakthroughs in science, technology and medicine. There are times, however, when our desire to come up with new solutions gets in the way of coming up with the best solutions. At the University of Virginia, Lydie Klotz has long been fascinated by the process of invention

and an important component of invention that many of us overlook. Lydie Klotz, welcome to Hidden Brain. Thanks, Shankar. It's great to be here. Lydie, when you were an undergraduate trying to master the fundamentals of engineering, you initially adopted an approach to studying that will be familiar to many students.

What was that approach, and how did it work out for you in your college course on mechanics? Yeah, so for those of listeners that have enough sense not to major in engineering, mechanics is this branch of physics that deals with objects at rest and in motion. And it requires you to go from plugging numbers into equations to actually visualizing how the concepts work in the world. And my approach to mechanics was the approach that I'd been using in all my courses up to

that point, which was, okay, figure out how to solve the problems that I'd been using in all my courses up to that point, which was, okay, figure out how to solve the problems that I've been assigned for homework, learn that specific problem, and try to cram as many of those into my brain as possible, so that when the exam came about, I'd be more likely to have an exact replica of the problem that was on the exam already accessible in my brain. And how were you doing in terms of grades as the semester unfolded? I had a C average. And so I was coming, and it was serious.

I mean, I was coming into the third exam with the C average, and for the first time in my life, I was in danger of failing the course. And if that happened, I would either have to delay my degree progress and ask my parents to pay extra tuition to take the course the following year, or change my major to something that didn't require me to pass mechanics.

So at one point, as you were getting these bad grades, you came up with a radical and some might say risky approach for the final portion of the semester. What did you do, Lydie? I just really stripped away the extraneous things that I was trying to cram into my brain. And this first mechanics class really just boils down to applying Newton's second law of motion.

So all of these scenarios can be described by force equals mass times acceleration. And I could derive everything I needed from that equation. And so before that third exam, I stopped memorizing dozens of other equations and tangential ideas. I didn't need to know a bunch of forces and masses and accelerations. I just needed to remember that formula F equals MA. So you try this radical approach. You do the exam, and the day comes when the professor

is handing out the grades. Paint me a picture of what happens. I'll never forget it. I mean, this is Professor Viscome, just a classic, nice engineering professor, but he had this thing where when he handed the exams back, he would write the highest and lowest score on the chalkboard to give you a sense of kind of how the rest of the class did. And so this exam he had, he comes in and he writes on the board a 98 and a 47. And then he looked at me and smirked and everybody assumed that I had gotten the 47.

My classmates were playfully, you know, cheering me. And I'm sitting there thinking about like, okay, now that I've failed out of engineering, what will my major be? And when I got my test back, I realized why he had smirked. And it was because I had earned the 98. Lydie did better when he focused his mind on fewer things, on core concepts. And it was the start of a long journey to recognize the value in everyday life of removing, of reducing, of subtraction. Some years later, after Lydie graduated, got married, and started a family, he had another moment of insight. He was building a bridge using Legos with his son Ezra. He was three at the time and we were building a bridge out of his Duplo blocks, the bigger Legos,

and the support towers were different heights so we couldn't span them, they weren't level. And as I turned back toward the soon-to-be bridge, Ezra had already removed a block from the taller tower, so whereas my impulse had been to add to the short support, in that moment I realized that it wasn't the only way to create a level bridge. So this moment captured in a concrete way for you how many of us underestimate the power of subtraction. And I understand you showed other people a replica

of Ezra's bridge to see how many of them came up with the idea of taking away a block instead of adding a block. Yeah, students would come to talk to me about their assignments, and I'd give them this bridge and see what they did, and everybody added, like me. And then I also took it to Gabe Adams, who's a professor colleague of mine, and I thought that I had been talking to her

about these ideas, and plus she's, like, a genius. So I figured, okay, she's the one who's going to subtract here when I give her this. And so I give it to her and she added like me. But then when I said, hey, this is what Ezra did, she says, oh, oh, oh, so what you've been trying to say is that you're interested in why do we overlook subtraction as a way to improve things.

subtraction as a way to improve things. So, so Lydie, you became obsessed with the value of subtraction. Some might even say you became a zealot. You started collecting examples from the worlds of engineering and design and, and you stumbled on the work of the early 20th century architect Anna Kitelein. Tell me her story. Oh, she's a fascinating person. She was the first female licensed architect in the state of Pennsylvania. She'd played basketball in college, was one of the

first women to drive a car. She was also a serial inventor and she made one of the most ingenious advances of the 20th century. Before Anna Kline, building blocks were solid. So if your house is more than a century old, it probably rests on solid blocks. In her patent, and I think this was 1927, Kike line invented the K-brick, which started to subtract some of the mass from building blocks. What she essentially did was create a hollow block,

knowing that the load bearing could happen on the outside parts of the block. And by creating the hollow block, you remove half the material compared to what was in the typical building block, which of course makes it less expensive and easier to build with and less fuel to transport. And then these hollow blocks also provide more insulation because of the air voids that are in the blocks. So the resulting buildings are more comfortable, less nosy, less prone to fire, and the block itself is less expensive. And her subtractive insight, it's since gone through several evolutions, but it's led to

this building block that's now ubiquitous. It's used to build everything from the facades of schools and skyscrapers to the foundation walls for my two-story addition. Once we become familiar with a particular object, we tend to look for ways to add to it rather than to subtract from it. But the act of taking away can produce remarkable results. One of Leidy's favorite examples is an invention known as the Strider bike. One of Lydie's favorite examples is an invention known as the strider bike. These are the pedal-less mini bikes that basically allow kids as soon as one and a half years old to ride a bike. And the way they work, they're small bikes, but they're not propelled by chains and pedals, but by toddlers striding with their legs. That's why they're called strider bikes.

And what happens is the toddler propels the bike forward, kind of like a Flintstone cars. And what's even more impressive is once, once my, my son has since aged out of the Strider bike. And once he decided it was time for his big kid bike, we didn't have to bother with training wheels. He already knew how to balance and he just needed to learn how to push the pedals and of course to break. And children's bikes were marketed as their own distinct class of bicycle for almost a century,

and there were plenty of design changes over that time, right? Training wheels, fatter tires, more and more speeds, you know, those contraptions that connect a kid's bike to a grown-up's like a caboose. And it took a really long time for somebody to have the insight of, hey, will this be better if we subtract the pedals and the drivetrain? And when they did think of it, it made these two-wheeled bikes rideable for a whole new age group and saleable to their parents. So later you began to ask yourself, after seeing these examples, how you could apply the insights of subtraction to your own life. And at one point you came up with a novel approach to a home renovation project.

You threw down an unusual challenge to your students, a design contest. You called it addition by subtraction. Can you describe the challenge to me? Sure. So we moved to the University of Virginia and we downsized our home when we moved here. And the home had also been a student rental. And so we knew that we were going to have to do a renovation. Subtraction was top of mind. And I'm an engineer slash architect, I guess, by profession.

And so I was like, can we put subtraction into play here? And so the name of our contest was addition by subtraction. And I have the great fortune of working with really smart students for whom I ran a design contest. And we emphasized that our goal was to subtract. And we even said that we were willing to pay more if the renovation could make a statement through subtraction. And I offered a thousand dollars in cash and free cookies and a couple of dozen architecture, engineering, and environmental design type majors signed up. But the, and the students came up with clever designs. There was one student who found unused vertical space in, in our house and used

that to add a lofted area to Ezra's bedroom. There was a junior who changed the grading of our backyard and that provided outside access to the basement, which then turned that into a viable living space. And there was this graduate student team that kind of intricately reconfigured the entire floor plan. And all of those things would have made our house more livable. And yet no one had actually subtracted, right? Nobody had taken away square footage. Lydie, at the end of this whole process of invention, what was the end result of your home renovation project?

My wife was worried you would ask. So, because now we have a five-room, two-story, 900-square-foot addition that extends from the rear of what had been a little Cape Cod. Leidy's design contest ultimately failed as a generator of ideas that would lead to subtraction. He discovered that while subtraction might be a powerful driver of invention, many powerful obstacles stand in its way. Understanding those obstacles and how to overcome them became his new obsession. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanatham. Lydie Klotz is an engineer at the University of Virginia.

He studies our automatic tendency to add things when it comes to solving problems. After a home renovation project explicitly aimed at subtraction ended up greatly expanding the size of his Cape Cod home, Lydie started to ask why human beings find it so hard to subtract. So Lydie, at the end of this home renovation project, you were humbled by the process,

but it also gave you some important insights into why it is so hard to subtract, to remove, to take away. When it comes to home renovations in particular, one barrier to subtraction was economics? Yeah, for us, I mean, this is the biggest investment our family has and the kind of rule of thumb for homes values, how Zillow calculates it, how the realtors calculate it when they're appraising it, is that the value increases with the total square footage.

So you know, 2000 square foot, that's one price. If you have 2,500 square feet, that's another price. And entrance in the design competition and Monica and I could just never figure out a way past this financial reality. I mean, spending money without adding square footage would have been a really risky investment. Um, and spending money to get rid of existing square footage was preposterous.

Another thing was this was just, it's not that subtracting is always the right option. It has been beneficial to have more square footage in our home. Our family was growing, and we did need some more square footage. So this may have been a case where subtracting wasn't the better option, even though we started out with that as our intention. And I'm also thinking that presumably they were people, you know, architects and builders and contractors, and they all get paid more for

doing more, not for doing less. Exactly. If we had hired a contractor to subtract space, you know, they're getting paid based on the percentage of how much it costs them to do the renovation. And so a less expensive renovation that subtracts space, they get less overhead on that. I'm also thinking that expanding during a home renovation is also what's sort of culturally expected, right? I mean, how many people do a renovation and end up with a smaller home? Well, I mean, it's right there of culturally expected, right? I mean, how many people do a renovation

and end up with a smaller home? Well, I mean, it's right there in the word, right? I mean, the synonym for home renovation is a home addition. You never hear of a home subtraction. Yeah. So as you started to think about the economic and cultural obstacles to practicing subtraction, you came to understand that such obstacles

reach very far back into human history. How so, Lydie? Certainly, in human history, let's start there. That's this concept of monumental architecture. And again, my background's engineering. I like big structures. I was surprised to learn about how key a role people think, or the scientists scientists think monumental architecture played in the development of civilization. What do you mean by monumental architecture? It's literally defined by the fact that it adds well beyond what is necessary. So the principal defining feature of monumental architecture is that the

scale and you know elaboration and detail exceed the requirements of any practical functions. So the ziggurats in Mesopotamia, the pyramids of Egypt and China, these massive but marginally useful structures kind of grew at the same time as the cities around them. And even today, you could argue that in a modern world, you know, people are rewarded in terms of resources

and status when they add as opposed to when they subtract. We have markers and plaques for the people who build skyscrapers, not for the people who take them down. Exactly. I mean, that's a huge challenge on university campuses, for example. It's so much easier to get a donation for somebody to create a building that has their family's name on it than to, you know, a donation for removing something or for even for something that doesn't

come with this big physical reminder of the person's generosity. It makes sense that donors want to put their money behind something tangible. Politicians similarly want to be able to cut a ribbon to tout a new amenity that they're delivering for their constituents. It's hard to cut a ribbon on an empty field. These are the sorts of cultural and political forces that subtly push us to favor addition over subtraction. Across all of these examples,

I mean, the problem is that subtracting is more work. It's more mental work. It's more kind of steps as we're talking about it. And there's less to show for it. And so after you do all this extra work, you have less evidence because the thing that you've done is by definition disappeared. So I understand that your employer, the University of

Virginia, once asked for suggestions on how the university could be improved, and you ended up analyzing the recommendations that came in. What did you find, Lydie? Yeah, we had a new latest strategic planning effort with a new president, and it began as these tend to by soliciting ideas from students, faculty, staff, community, alumni members, donors. And all of them were basically offering their ideas for how to improve the university. We got our hands on the data and as expected, the adding was ramp rampant. I mean people wanted more study abroad grants, more mental health

services, teller to international students, more housing options. There was a request for a new ice arena and I didn't know we had a ice hockey team here but I assume that's progress too. But the thing is surely there was untapped potential because out of 750 ideas for changing the university, fewer than 10% suggested taking something away. Yeah. I want to turn my attention to what happens within organizations when

we're having brainstorming sessions around a table, for example. I feel like there's often a lot of pressure to add and almost no incentive to subtract. So everyone sitting around the table wants their idea implemented. Polite people don't want to shoot down ideas from their colleagues. And so the net result is a pileup of new programs, new projects, a ton of additions. Certainly.

There's politeness. And then there's also just, it's kind of a good decision making shortcut to not come in and say, oh, here's something we definitely should subtract from this organization until you understand how the organization works. Right. I mean, so it's pretty bold for somebody to say, hey, let's get rid of the ice hockey team before you understand how, you know, what they're contributing to the university, the history of the ice hockey team and so on and so forth.

To add something, you can just say, well, this would make anything better, so let's add it to our system that I don't really understand. I understand that you've also looked at how adding could even have biological roots. Tell me about the work of Stephanie Preston. Yeah, Stephanie's one of my favorite researchers. She's a psychologist at the University of Michigan,

and she knows more than anybody about what she calls acquisitiveness, which is how and why we get and keep things. So, for example, one of my favorite studies of hers, participants are shown more than a hundred different objects in random order and one at a time. And then as each object appears on the screen, participants are asked whether they would like to acquire it virtually.

It's all imaginary. They know they won't actually get these things. And they can acquire as many or as few as they want. And the objects vary in their usefulness. So there are things like bananas and coffee mugs and extension cords, things you might pick up. Others seem less useful, but people do still pick up, like empty two-liter bottles, used sticky notes, outdated newspapers.

And once they have made a choice about each of these 100 objects, participants are then shown everything that they've added. So if you've acquired 70 things, you're shown all 70 things together on the screen, and then you're encouraged to subtract. Then they're challenged to whittle down their collection so that it can fit into a shopping cart

on the computer screen. And finally, they're asked to make it even smaller so that it can fit into one virtual paper grocery bag. So the goal is very clear. Everything needs to fit into one grocery bag or else you don't complete the task. And you're getting real-time feedback displayed on the screen of whether you've subtracted enough stuff.

And a lot of participants fail to get it down to a single bag. And many don't even make it past the shopping cart. I understand there's also been research into what happens inside the brain when we engage in addition or engage in subtraction. What does that research show, Lydie? One way that the neuroscientists have studied this is hooking people up to their brain imaging machines while they're acquiring things. And so food acquisition, as well as other types

of acquisition, activate this same reward system in the brain. So this pathway connects basically the thinking and the feeling parts of our brain. And this is what makes it pleasurable to eat. Um, and it can also be stimulated as we know, by drugs like cocaine, uh, website designs that keep us clicking and scrolling. Um, and then for hoarders, even the used sticky notes can kind of stimulate this reward pathway.

So that's, um, and so when you do find that a specific reward system like this one is playing a role, it confirms just how deep-rooted some of our tendency to add might be. So you've also conducted a whole bunch of experiments that reveal what you call subtraction neglect, a tendency to ignore the power of subtraction, and one of them was inspired by a long-running debate you've had with your wife when it comes to travel. Can you give me a concrete example of this debate

in action, Lydie? Well, so yeah, we go to the Outer Banks sometimes, and that's the islands off of North Carolina. And so your day can look something like going to look at Kitty Hawk and see where the Wright brothers did their thing. And there's, their thing and go see some sand dunes and you can go out to eat and you could drive down and look at all the lighthouses or you could kind of just let the day come to you and maybe do some looking for shells on the beach and see what happens for lunch

and have a less scheduled day there. And so I'm more on the prefer the latter kind of vacation. My wife, Monica, likes to pack in as many activities as possible. And I understand that you've actually run studies, perhaps based on this marital dispute you've been having when it comes to how people think about travel. Tell me about those experiments, Lydie.

Well, it's not a dispute. I mean, she's right, right? So it's not. But this is worse than even anything Monica would schedule. So we created this itinerary for a day spent in Washington, D.C. So now we're back in the experimental world again. And over the course of 14 hours, this itinerary had participants visiting major tourist sites like the White House, the National Cathedral, the old post office, and then have them paying their respects at the various memorials like the Lincoln and

the Veterans Memorial, and then a museum visit, shopping, and lunch at a five-star bistro. So just travel time between all these SOPs would exceed two hours, assuming optimal DC traffic, which never happens. Participants saw this original itinerary in kind of a drag-and-drop interface on the computer screen. And they could change their itinerary by rearranging,

adding, and subtracting activities. And even with this jam-packed itinerary, only one in four participants removed activities from the packed original. Wow. And what did the rest do? Well, some rearranged, but most added. They added to this it and area? How is that even possible? It isn't. I mean, there's not time, but it was possible to kind of collect something, you know, drag and drop another task. And it was enticing when they saw the other tasks sitting in there on the side. I think they were thinking, oh, look, that would be a fun thing to do.

And it's kind of the same as the strategic planning. You think, OK, adding more good stuff is always good, and in this case, it was just gonna make the overall schedule even more impossible and more crowded and less pleasant. There's another study you conducted that was inspired by a difficulty you encountered in your own writing.

Tell me about the challenge that you have faced in your own writing and the study you conducted in your own writing. Tell me about the challenge that you have faced in your own writing and the study you conducted, Lydie. Anybody who spends time playing with words on paper on a screen has heard the advice, right? Strunk in white, they're the most assigned textbook on college and high school syllabi and their classic advice is, omit needless words,

that editing is the way to make your writing more clear and yet that's very obviously a form of subtracting right you're you're taking something that you've created and now you're taking things away from it so we gave people a summary of an article and said how would you make this better and only 17% ended up subtracting words from the original. So by and large, they added to make the summaries better. And I understand the same thing applies when you look at how people think about recipes, for example, how they're cooking,

the same idea addition rather than subtraction? Oh yeah, we found this in so many contexts. I mean, people improving a five ingredient recipe, two out of 90 participants subtracted. When they transformed loops of musical notes, they were more likely to add notes than to take them away. So this was, we found this across many different contexts. ["The Hustle of the Heart"]

When we come back, techniques to battle the obstacles that stand in the way of subtraction. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Engineer Lydie Klotz is convinced that our world would be a better place if we engaged more often in subtraction instead of always choosing to add. The problem is there are many psychological obstacles to subtraction.

There are times however when opportunities for subtraction open up and Lydie says smart people and smart communities seize on such opportunities. Lydie, tell people and smart communities seize on such opportunities. Lydie, tell me the story of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway. Yeah, like so many other city crossing highways in the United States, the Embarcadero Freeway was built after World War II,

and it was made possible by federal support for highways to move the military and serve the growing number of automobiles. It stretched for more than a mile along the eastern waterfront, and it blocked precious views and access to the bay. And so planners started to think, well, is this costing more than it's adding? And finally, the planning commission said, and this is in the mid-'80s, we should get rid of the Embarcadero

freeway. And what was the public reaction to this? Not good. But this one actually got put to a vote and it wasn't even close. For every voter in favor of removing it, there were two who wanted to keep it. And whether it was for fear of traffic, fear of lost business, fear of change, voters rejected it. And the people had spoken. I mean, so the Planning Commission basically moved on and focused on other projects.

So following the 1986 vote, it seemed that the possibility of tearing down the freeway and opening up the waterfront was dead. And then something happened on October 17th, 1989. I'm Ted Koppel. There has been a rather strong earthquake in Northern California so strong in fact that it has among other things knocked out all the power at Candlestick Park where the third game of the World Series was being played but in the overall scheme of things that may be the very least of

things that has happened today. So this was the Loma Prieta earthquake and of course the earthquake was a terrible thing it caused a lot of damage but it may have had one unexpected benefit. It changed how people thought about the Embarcadero freeway. How so? Well a number of ways. So it the earthquake killed more than 60 people and injured thousands. A lot of the deaths actually happened on a similar double-decker highway.

The Cypress Street viaduct in Oakland. And so people seeing this double-decker elevated concrete structure just over a mile in length, it looked ominously like the Embarcadero. And then it also gave people a view of what life would be like if you didn't have the Embarcadero, because the Embarcadero didn't collapse during the earthquake, but it was rendered unusable for a while. And so people saw that they found other ways to get around the city, and that it didn't kind of totally ruin life in San Francisco

to not have the Embarcadero. And then what finally came of all of this, Lydie? It was still, it wasn't, like, this was by no means a unanimous choice. I mean, there's a famous Pulitzer Prize winning San Francisco Chronicle columnist and his name's Herb Kane and he's such an influential columnist. And even after the earthquake, as people brought this discussion back up,

he has this great quote, "'Once again, there's serious talk about tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway, an even worse idea than building it. And so there was still resistance, but eventually the freeway came down, and when it was removed, they got the waterfront back. They saw an increase in housing, increase in jobs. It didn't cause traffic nightmare.

Trips were rerouted. And if you've ever visited there, it's one of the most visited places in the world, and it's obvious why it shouldn't be covered with the freeways. So it took about 10 years, but by 2000, kind of the 10-year anniversary of the demolition, The Chronicle was then reporting that it was hard to find anyone who thinks ripping down the freeway was a bad idea. So we've had a crisis of our own the last couple of years that have forced a lot of us to think about what we do, where we work, how we work. How might the COVID-19 pandemic serve as a potential driver of subtraction, Lydie?

Yeah, I mean, I think at horrific cost, it's given us this singular chance for change and forced us to subtract in ways that we never would have managed on our own. And certainly I don't advocate subtracting family visits and friendly hugs, but we've also had to get rid of things like buffets and commutes and evictions and even carbon emissions. So I think that the crises interrupts this normal

flow of things and shows us what a world with some of these subtractions might look like. You know, isn't it interesting that so often we actually need the external push before we can, before we see the value in subtraction? You know, we've talked about earthquakes, we've talked about a pandemic. I mean, you can think of a forest fire the same way. It's obviously not a good thing when you have a forest fire, but you know the removal of old growth might be helpful for new growth to happen in a forest. When I'm thinking about you know the marketplace for example, you know businesses go

out of business, you know stores go out of business because they kind of attract customers or they're selling stuff that people no longer want. And of course it's painful if you happen to be the store owner whose business is going bankrupt. But the net effect of this is that you know it gives another business a chance to sort of spring up. But in each of these cases it's interesting that we almost need the external force in order to for us to see the value of subtraction. It's almost it's so emotionally difficult for us to do the subtraction ourselves that we almost, it's so emotionally difficult for us to do the subtraction

ourselves, that we need almost an external executioner to come in and do the hard stuff for us. Yeah, emotionally and cognitively difficult. And even if you look at evolution as a metaphor, the way that it works is through adaptation and then selection. So adaptation is an ad, and then the selection is a subtractionion and they're working hand in hand. And I think another fundamental disadvantage that's coming into play here is that we don't get as many reminders of subtraction, right?

Because when something is added, there it is, right in front of you as evidence that this, adding this thing was a way to make change. If something was subtracted, in the rare cases thing is added, there it is right in front of you as evidence that this adding this thing was a way to make change. If something was subtracted in the rare cases that we do it and follow through with it, it's by definition gone. So as we walk around in the world, we don't have these external reminders that hey here's this subtraction, it's also a good way to make things better. The things we subtract are often invisible. We don't notice them or we It's also a good way to make things better.

The things we subtract are often invisible. We don't notice them, or we quickly become used to their absence. And so we fail to appreciate how these innovations, like Anna Kytland's building blocks, are affecting our lives. But sometimes, inventors can find clever workarounds to this obstacle. Inventors can find clever workarounds to this obstacle. Back in the 1970s, an aerospace engineer named Marion Rudy came up with the idea of using air to provide cushioning in running shoes. It was a classic moment where less added up to more.

But there was a problem. You couldn't actually see this innovation in action. It was inside the shoes. Marion Rudy kept bringing the idea to shoe companies, and they kept turning him down. He finally got to Nike, which at the time was kind of this boutique outfit that just served elite runners. And as the story goes in Nike lore, Phil Knight took him out for a run, liked what he felt, and then Air went into the Nike shoes. But for, even after the Air was in the shoes, nobody could see it. And so, but the Nike really started to take off,

they had this kind of seminal shoe, the Air Max One, and those shoes were one of the first models that actually displayed the air. So they have the little window on the side so you could see, hey, in fact, there's air in here. And that made the subtraction noticeable and it was something that made Nike shoes different from any other kind of shoe

and kind of helped launch them on the path that took them to where they are today. Of course, you know, there's a guy named Michael Jordan who helped. So we've looked at how external crises can sometimes be a driver of subtraction and how increasing the noticeability of subtraction, the value of subtraction can help us embrace subtraction. You've also thought about other systems in some ways

that can incentivize people to focus on subtraction. Tell me about your stop doing list, Lydie. A stop doing list is essentially the same as a to do list, except for you're thinking of things that you're not going to do anymore. And how I use it is whenever I do my to do's, which I try to do on a weekly basis, I also force myself to come up with equivalent number of stop doings,

which kind of makes sense, right? If you're gonna add new stuff to your day and assuming you're already at capacity, you need to also figure out what you're going to take away. Are there any specific things on your stop doing list that you have? I'm curious in terms of your stop doing list, what are the things that you put on? One that's been really helpful for me is it's basically a stop editing. And this is I read a lot of my students writing and it can be really tempting to just go through

and make all of the changes that I would want to make. But of course, that's not really helpful to them. And so I like I'll set a limit. I'll say, okay, give this student the 10 most important comments for this piece of writing. And it works really well. I mean, it saves me time one, but it also kind of rewards students who do more, right? So if the student gives you a really polished piece of writing, I still force myself to come

up with 10 ways to make it better. Whereas if somebody doesn't put as much time in and gives you this really rough first draft, I don't spend all my time getting that to the same place that the other piece of writing is. Another example is just meetings. Meetings are the classic thing where I am providing some marginal value by attending a meeting or by calling a meeting, but not considering what could be done in that time. So I think oftentimes my stop doings are directed at meetings that I'm attending, but also the ones that I'm calling and asking other people to attend for me. Can you talk a moment about the role of subtraction in public policy? and asking other people to attend for me. Can you talk a moment about the role of subtraction in public policy?

When we think about legislators, for example, we think about legislators as people who make laws, whereas you might argue that a crucial part of what legislators ought to be doing is pruning back laws that might no longer be useful. Yeah, I did some digging into how much laws have grown over time and by some measures, they've grown even faster than our economy.

So it's just like all these things have this adding trend and laws are no exception. And it's the same as the building of civilization. When you don't have roads, it makes sense to add them. But once you've kind of been adding roads for a while, there are more opportunities to take them away to reveal pristine water. And so the laws, you know, we've kind of accumulated,

accumulated, accumulated, and we're left with a bunch that are redundant. And so some places have actually required legislators to, when they come with a new law, also come with two that are on the books that they want to get rid of. And that kind of rule can be really helpful. I mean, it's saying, look, you're a competent legislator if you do this. Lydie has been struck by the fact that subtraction can play a surprisingly powerful role in medicine.

Doctors and nurses often have so much going on that simplifying rules and reducing complexity can actually improve patient outcomes. Yeah, my sister's a medical doctor and she was actually taught by this guy, Peter Pranovoost. And what Pranovoost was interested in was improving the practice of inserting central line catheters. So these are those thin plastic tubes that are used to draw blood or administer fluids and medication. Catheters are ubiquitous in American hospitals, and they're also one of the most common sources of infection. And it's not a sexy topic, certainly, but these infections were actually causing about 30,000 deaths each year in the United States, roughly as many as car accidents. And it's a complicated process. There are dozens of steps requiring thought and judgment and skill, and it's different based on the person. If you've got a 10 year old who's dehydrated,

it's a different process than inserting one on a concussed offensive lineman, for example. To prevent the infections, Pronovost and his team considered all of this complexity, but then they proposed a very simple recipe. They, they gave a checklist and it's that medical professionals would wash their hands with soap, clean the patient's skin with antiseptic, put sterile drapes over the entire patient,

wear a sterile mask, hat, gown, and gloves, and put a sterile dressing over the catheter site. And those very simple steps have brought striking results. It's almost entirely eradicated catheter infections and it saved thousands of lives. We've talked at some length about how addition is psychologically pleasurable and subtraction is often psychologically painful. One of your really interesting insights is that we should all try to reframe losses, subtractions, as additions. And there's an author you like who preaches this message.

Here's a clip of her. The important thing about tiding is not choosing things to discard, but choosing things to keep. So, how do you choose what to keep? If the item sparks joy, keep it. If it does not, get rid of it. I take it you're a fan of the tidying guru, Marie Kondo. Yeah, a reluctant fan. I mean, as a professor, I felt like,

oh, I can't be a Kondo acolyte. But talking about our research, people would keep bringing her up. So I said, I gotta figure out what she's writing about. And, you know, of course her tone and observations advice are very spiritual, but through trial and error in this, her specific context, tidying,

she's derived some tips that are pretty scientifically sound. For example, her core message, right, is sparking joy. Default home organization advice is like, get rid of the stuff you don't want that doesn't fit. And she flipped it around. She said, keep what sparks joy and get rid of everything else. And so she's kind of steering us around loss aversion there, knowingly or not, because she's focusing us on this,

you know, this future vision of the tidy space. And sure, it's a little painful to get rid of these individual things, but you're just thinking of them as one component that's going to improve the overall situation. I understand you've also looked at artists, writers, musicians, painters, who've also thought deeply about subtraction.

What have you found, Lydie? I mean, it's hard to find an expert who doesn't have some counterintuitive, seemingly counterintuitive advice on how to subtract, right? So Picasso defining art is the elimination of the unnecessary. And then you've got the little prince's author saying, perfection's achieved, not when there's nothing more to add, but when there's nothing left to take away. We talked about strunk in white, omit needless words.

This goes way back. I mean, you've got William of Ockham of Ockham's razor fame. And his quote is that, it's in vain to do with more what can be done with less. And then a quote that gets attributed to Lao Tzu, to attain knowledge, add things every day, to attain wisdom, subtract things every day. And that's two and a half millennia back. And I think I learned a ton from these new and old profits of subtraction but the main

takeaway is that they're the exceptions proving the rule right their advice endures because we are still neglecting subtraction. Lydie Klotz is a professor of engineering at the University of Virginia. He's the author of Subtract, The Untapped Power of Less. Lydie, thank you for joining me today on Hidden Brain. Thanks so much for having me. HIDDEN BRAIN is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Annie Murphy-Paul, Christian Wong, Laura Quirell, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick and Nick

Woodbury. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brains executive editor. If you missed any of the episodes in our Innovation 2.0 series, you can find them in this feed or at hiddenbrain.org. If you enjoyed today's conversation about how to innovate through subtraction, please be sure to share it with a few friends. I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon. you