The Theory

When asked to improve something, almost everyone adds. Add a feature. Add a step. Add a clarification. But sometimes the best improvement is subtraction: remove the unnecessary feature, eliminate the redundant step, strip away the distracting detail. Adams and colleagues at the University of Virginia discovered that this additive bias is remarkably strong — even when subtracting is objectively better, people fail to consider it. Compression is the related art of saying the same thing in fewer words, fitting the same function into less code, distilling a complex idea into its essence. Miller's famous "7 plus or minus 2" showed that our working memory is tiny — so compression is not just elegant, it is cognitively necessary.

What the Research Found

Adams's 2021 Nature study demonstrated that people systematically overlook subtractive solutions across multiple domains — from improving Lego structures to editing essays to fixing organizational processes. The additive bias persisted even when participants were explicitly told that removing was an option. Miller showed that chunking (compressing information into meaningful units) is how we overcome working memory limits. Ericsson documented that expert knowledge is progressively distilled and compressed — experts do not know more facts, they have more compact and efficient mental representations.

How We Use It

Question C2 option (d) — "I look for what to remove: what is the essence of this case, stripped of everything unnecessary?" — maps to subtractive direction (dimension value 3.6). C3(b) — improving by eliminating unnecessary steps — is direct subtraction. C3(c) — compressing to get the same result in less space/time/words — maps to compressive direction (dimension value 3.7). C5(b) — judging explanation quality by efficiency — and C5(c) — by compactness — both reward the subtractive direction. If your instinct is to simplify rather than elaborate, your direction is subtractive.

Related Articles

D3 Expanding and Narrowing: The Two Directions of Creative Thought D3 Zooming In and Out: Moving Between Abstract Principles and Concrete Examples D2 Taking Things Apart to Understand Them: The Reverse Engineer's Mind

References (3)

  1. Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H. & Klotz, L. E. (2021). People systematically overlook subtractive changes. DOI
  2. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. DOI
  3. Ericsson, A. & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise.