Something You Should Know - How to Solve a Problem Before It Happens & When Less is Really More

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Ask anyone if they prefer fresh or frozen fish and almost everyone says – Fresh! But it turns out to be not so simple. A lot of fish you think is fresh may have been frozen at some point. This episode begins by unraveling this issue of fresh or frozen fish and which is better. https://www.thespruceeats.com/frozen-fish-better-than-fresh-fish-1300625 How do you solve a problem before it even becomes a problem? The perfect example is changing the oil in your car. You do that to prevent problems from happening later. And it turns out a lot of problems in life can be solved – or prevented - that way if we just change how we look at them. That’s according to Dan Heath author of the book Upstream: The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen (https://amzn.to/3atB1Os). Listen as he reveals this way of preventing problems that everyone can put into practice. Our tendency is to add. When the government sees a problem, they add a new law. When there is a problem at work, management adds a new rule. We add. But what if a better solution is to subtract? Take away a law or a rule or remove an obstacle. We tend not to think that way, but we should according to my guest Leidy Klotz. Leidy is a professor of engineering and architecture at the University of Virginia and author of the book Subtract: The Untapped Science of Less (https://amzn.to/3olHXG5). If you have a sweet tooth you would like to tame – the solution just might be a pickle! Listen as I explain. http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-some-pregnant-women-crave-pickles-and-ice-cream.htm PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!!! MINT MOBILE: Ditch overpriced wireless and get 3 months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://MintMobile.com/something⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ! FACTOR: Eat smart with Factor! Get 50% off at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://FactorMeals.com/something50off⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ROCKET MONEY: Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://RocketMoney.com/SOMETHING⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ QUINCE: Elevate your shopping with Quince! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns! INDEED: Get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/SOMETHING⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now! DELL: Introducing the new Dell AI PC . It’s not just an AI computer, it’s a computer built for AI to help do your busywork for you! Get a new Dell AI PC at⁠ https://Dell.com/ai-pc⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You hear that? Ugh, paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Yes! Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month.

Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply. Today on Something You Should Know, to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply. Today on Something You Should Know, what's better, fresh or frozen fish? It turns out to be a bit of a trick question. Then, how do you solve problems before they happen? It can be done if you change your thinking. For instance, there was one swing on a playground in Brooklyn that had been responsible for multiple lawsuits. All somebody needed to do was go out

and raise this swing six inches and all of the injuries would have been eliminated, but nobody thought to do that. Also, why the secret to cutting back on sweets may be pickles. And you often hear that more is better, but maybe the better solution is less. Subtract something.

Think about subtracting as a way to make things better. One of my favorite quotes, to gain knowledge, add things every day. To gain wisdom, subtract things every day. All this today on Something You Should Know. Whether it's a family member, friend or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74%

and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. Something you should know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life.

Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. Hi, welcome to Something You Should Know. So the other day we had some people over and we were cooking fish on the grill and the question came up, what's better fresh or frozen fish? The answer seems obvious but I did a little digging and it's actually kind of a trick question what's better fresh or frozen because a lot of fresh fish was frozen. The term fresh fish doesn't have anything to do with how old the fish is. Fresh fish just

means it's not frozen and if it was frozen, it may be several days old and may not taste as good as it would have when it was just caught. So to solve this problem, stores often buy frozen fish, ideally fish that was flash frozen right after it was caught, then they thaw it out and sell it. That way there is less waste because they can defrost only what they expect to sell. If you're buying fish to cook at home, frozen fish may be a better way to go. Particularly if it says on the package it was flash frozen. It will taste just as good if not better than fresh fish and it tends to be a lot cheaper. And that is something you should know. cheaper, and that is something you should know. Imagine if you could solve problems before they happen.

The fact is you do, and the perfect example I think is when you change the oil in your car. You take your car in for an oil change not because there's anything wrong with it. You know that if you don't take it in for an oil change, you're asking for trouble down the road. So you change the oil to prevent the problem before it happens. Yet so much of our life is putting out fires, not preventing them. But what if you could actually solve a lot more problems before they happen in the first place? Well, that's what Dan Heath has been looking into and he has authored several really interesting books.

His latest is called Upstream, The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen. Hey, Dan, welcome. Hi, Mike, thanks for having me on the show. You bet. So explain why you took a look at this and why you think this is important to talk about. My interest in this topic goes back to a parable that's pretty well known in public health

circles but not well outside it. It's originally attributed to a guy named Irving Zola. The parable goes like this. You and a friend are having a picnic by the side of a river. Just as you've laid out your picnic blanket getting ready to eat, you hear a noise from the direction of the river and you look back and there's a child thrashing around in the water, apparently drowning.

And so, of course, both of you instinctively jump in and you fish the child out and you bring them to the shore. And just as your adrenaline is starting to subside a little bit, you hear another shout and you look back, there's a different child drowning in the river. So back in you go and you fish that child out. And no sooner have you brought that child to shore that you look back, there's a different child drowning in the river. So back in you go and you fish that child out and no sooner have you brought that child to shore that you look back there are two more kids drowning in the river and it begins

a kind of revolving door of rescue where you're in and out and fishing kids out and just as you're starting to grow fatigued from all the rescue work, your friend swims towards shore and steps out, seeming to walk away and leave you alone, and you say, hey, where are you going? I need your help. All these kids are drowning. We can't just leave. And your friend says, well, I'm going upstream to tackle the guy who's throwing all these

kids in the river. In life, whether we're talking about our personal lives or in our businesses or even in society, I think that too often we find our attention focus downstream on the reaction, the reaction, the reaction, and we never make our way upstream to try to tackle the systems and the forces that are causing the problems in the first place. Because that's just how we kind of think. I mean, I don't know if we grow up and learn how to think that way, but you know, you solve

problems when they arise. You just don't think about doing what you said. And then also, if you're going to go upstream and fix the problem, well, some of these problems are so complex. Some of these systems are government or whatever. Where would you even start to solve that? It's incredibly complicated to solve problems upstream. I'll give you a simple example.

I had a conversation with a deputy police chief about a decade ago and he had this thought experiment where he said, imagine two police officers and one of those police officers goes downtown where there's a very chaotic intersection. It's a place where cars have collisions a lot of times. And the officer just kind of stations herself visibly in the intersection. And because she's there and drivers see her, they slow down, they get a little bit more cautious and accidents are prevented. And then he says, imagine a second officer that goes to a different part of downtown

where there is a prohibited right turn and she stations herself around the corner and when people make that illegal right turn, she jumps out and naps them and gives them a ticket. And he says, if you think about these two officers, which one is doing more to protect the public safety? And he says, indisputably, it's the first one. She's preventing crashes, she might be preventing injuries or deaths but if you ask a different question which of these officers gets rewarded which of them

gets praised which of them gets promoted it's the second officer because she comes back with this stack full of tickets that show what a good job she's done and meanwhile that first officer how does she prove she did anything? You know, you think about there was a guy commuting downtown that morning who crossed through this intersection, and in an alternate reality where the police officer hadn't been there, he would have been in a car crash, possibly fatal. His life was saved by virtue of the officer being there that morning. He'll never know it, nor will the officer ever know that she saved him in particular.

And so there's a kind of maddening ambiguity about upstream efforts that I think is interesting. It's like even as you and I could probably say, well, of course you want to go upstream and keep the kids from being thrown in the river. What I wanted to show in the book was basically two things. Number one, there are lots of obstacles to getting upstream. And number two, despite the presence of those obstacles, we've got to try because that's the only recipe for permanently improving systems in our lives, in our work, and in our communities.

Well, but maybe that's happening. Like you say, when you prevent things from happening, you never know they would have happened. So there may be a lot of this going on because we just never see it. No question. Yeah, in fact, everywhere you look, there's the evidence of people before us

that have had the foresight and the patience to do this for us. You think about the rate of car accidents and fatalities has declined from, oh boy, I better make sure I'm getting my denominator right. My memory is that, say, 50 years ago was about five deaths per hundred million miles traveled, and today it's down to one. There's been an 80% reduction in fatalities and you ask, how is that so? I mean, are we all just naturally better drivers today? And the answer is no. I don't think driving

ability has improved a lick. It's all about the systems that have been designed to try to forestall those problems. It's about, you know, safer roads. It's about better lighting. It's about better brake systems, it's about seat belts and airbags, it's about mothers against drunk driving, reducing the incidence of drunk driving on the roads. And we're talking about thousands of people over decades who are all committed to this idea of what if we put our hands together, what if we put our resources toward preventing bad things from happening? And like the police officer in that story, those people will never know who they helped. They won't know who those thousands of people are whose lives were saved because of their

work, but we can see in the data that it happened. And that's the power of upstream thinking. Can you bring this down to a more personal level? I mean, we can talk about how police deploy their officers and how that affects policies and all that, but what about on a more personal level? Yeah, it's a fair question. I think the advantage of upstream thinking is it works really on any level. You can think about it at the national level, like with the healthcare example, but you can think about it in your own life. And I'll give you the most trivial example possible

from my own life. So I, you know, as you know, I'm a writer and I tend to write in coffee shops. I don't know why that works for me, some busy, loud coffee shop, but it does. And so I'm used to shuttling my laptop around. Like I'll go to the coffee shop and write for a while, then I'll come back to my office.

And so I'm constantly packing my laptop, unpacking it. I bring a power cord and I plug it in at the coffee shop, pack it back up, bring it back to my office, plug it in there. And after a while, I mean, after years of this behavior, it occurred to me, hey, what if I just bought two power cords and one of them could live forever in my backpack where I carry around my laptop, and one of them could be just strapped down on my desk so that, you know, when I come back, I can just plug it in and not have to mess

with unpacking the power cord. And I'm not telling that story to share my genius with you because I don't think there is much genius there. But it's almost a clue that in our lives, so often we adapt to problems or we come to take problems for granted that need not exist. That I had just come to accept a reality where I was forever going to have this nuisance of power cord shuffling and yet the actual amount of labor it took to fix that problem was I had to go online for five minutes and press, you know, bye.

And one of the interesting things to me about this work is why is that shift in our thinking so difficult and why do we choose to endure things that we might have prevented? Well human nature don't you think? Because I mean here's the simplest example I can think of. If you want to not get lung cancer, don't smoke. There isn't a smoker alive that knows that their risk of lung cancer is huge compared to a non-smoker, and yet they still smoke. So there's an example of clear upstream thinking, stop smoking, prevent cancer, and many people ignore, many people don't, but many people ignore the advice.

No, it's definitely true. And I think something like smoking is compounded by the addictive nature of the product. But I think you're pointing out that there's something universal at play here. And I think that something is tunneling, which is a word I stole from a couple of psychologists who wrote a book called Scarcity. So let me explain what this is. There was a researcher named Anita Tucker who followed around a bunch of nurses as they went through their day, so she shadowed them for hundreds of hours as part of our dissertation

at Harvard. And she found about what you'd expect, that these nurses were constantly dealing with unexpected problems, like they couldn't get the right medication at the right moment, or they ran out of towels and had to run around and find some somewhere. This one morning, Anita Tucker described a situation where there was a nurse who was checking out a new mother. She was ready to take her baby home and as part of that check out process they have to remove the security anklet from the baby's leg and unfortunately they couldn't find it.

It had fallen off somewhere so they do this frantic search and it turns up in the bassinet. And then Anita Tucker says three hours later, the exact same thing happens with a different mother. The ankle is missing again, they do another frantic search and this time they can't find it at all. So the nurse goes to the boss, they figure out an alternate checkout process and the mothers are dismissed. And so this is what it's like to be a nurse.

You're running around, you're trying to figure out novel solutions to problems, you're being resourceful, you know, you don't have to run for help every time something goes wrong, you can handle it. And it's kind of an admirable portrait when I say it that way. But if you look at this from another perspective, what you realize, it's something that's a bit shocking, which is the system I'm describing here is one that will never improve. It's one that will never get better because what these nurses have learned to do is work

around problems. But they're never going upstream to solve them at the systems level. And back to this word tunneling, that's essentially what tunneling is. And to be clear, like the point of this story is not to throw stones at nurses, quite the opposite. My point here is that I think all of us are tunneling in our own professions in the same way, that when we're juggling too many things, too many issues, too many problems,

we kind of abandon the idea that we might strategically prioritize them. And we just kind of get in the tunnel, if you can picture that in your mind, just being in a tunnel, there's only one direction, there's forward. You hit an obstacle, you try to get it behind you as quickly as you can so you can keep making progress. And the great trap of being in the tunnel is that it's self-perpetuating. What those nurses did is they solved their problems in the moment.

You know, they got the mother dismissed, they got a fresh set of towels, but they also doomed themselves to solving exactly the same kind of problems the next week and the next month. And so I think this is what we have to overcome, this kind of universal force of tunneling, if we're going to get serious about solving problems. A problem though, I see, is that, and using your example of that guy throwing kids in the river so we go upstream and tackle him and get him to stop, well, there are a lot of cases where that guy is hard to find, that the cause of the problem is hard to find upstream, and if you can't find it you can't fix it. Yeah I know I know exactly what you mean that that often what we find is when we start trying to get to the root cause of a problem it gets really confusing it gets very complex I mean there there's a comfort in rescue because it's very tangible you see the

kid thrashing in the river you can pull them out you feel good you get glory from your friends because you rescued a kid, and then when you start talking about, well, what caused this to begin with, all of a sudden you've got a debate, you've got a discussion, and it can get very confusing. And that's why one of the themes that stuck out of my research was so often to solve problems rather than just react to them required a different set of people to come together. One of my favorite stories in the book is about the city of Rockford, which is the second biggest city in Illinois behind Chicago. It became the first city in the US to solve the problem of veteran homelessness.

And what's fascinating about it, I talked to the former mayor, a guy named Larry Morrissey, and he said he'd been working on homelessness for nine years. You know, Rockford's one of these places that was an industrial hub and then all the factories closed and all the problems that come along with that. And he said they'd basically gotten nowhere on homelessness in nine years. I mean, they just tread water at best. He said they discovered something in the 10th year where in a period of 10 months they went from nowhere to that first city achievement that I talked about.

I was asking him how they did this and he described the following changes. Number one, they stopped treating it as a problem where everybody got to stay in their silos because there's so many people that have a stake in homelessness, ranging from the homeless people themselves to social services to the VA to the police to homeless shelters to the fire department. Everybody did their little piece of the puzzle, but they never really collaborated. The first thing they did was they brought everybody around the same table. And then the second thing was they didn't just bring them around the table to pontificate,

to brainstorm about the origins of homelessness and how to solve it at a societal level. What they did was they oriented people around specific homeless individuals. So their meetings involved what they called a by name list. They keep a real time census of every homeless person in the community. And when they meet, they talk about Mike, they talk about Steve and they say, okay, who's seen Steve left?

Well, Steve last rather. Well, I saw him under the bridge last week, he's still got his tent under there. He's coming to the shelter a few times a week to get lunch. Okay, who's going to reach out to them and see if he's ready to be housed? Well, someone raises their hand and says, we'll do that this week. And that's what the meetings are like. They're very concrete.

They're very human. And the result of that is you come to understand all the moving parts in the system so much better because you see them through the lens of these real individual cases. And that taught me something powerful, that what feels like macro change often starts with micro understanding, that you can't help thousands of people or millions until you can help one. And I think that's part of the antidote here, is learning how to change the way we collaborate

and learning how to get closer to the systems that yield the problems. Dan Heath is my guest. He is a writer and researcher and he's author of the book Upstream, The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen. Summer is Tim's ice latte season. It's also hike season, pool season, picnic season, and yeah, I'm down season. So drink it up with Tim's ice lattes, now whipped for a smooth

taste. Order yours on the Tim's app today at participating restaurants in Canada for a limited time. It's the summer big red sale at Canadian Tire. Save up to 50%. What are you doing? These are the biggest deals of the season. I'm shouting it from the rooftop. We have a radio ad. You don't need to be up there.

The Summer Big Red Sale is on from June 5th to June 12th. Conditions apply. Details online. So, Dan, I think one of the problems in trying to identify those upstream problems is that we live in an era of specialization. You know, in the factory, one person does one job is not necessarily aware of what everyone else does or how they do it. They just know that to do their one job.

So they don't see the big picture enough to know how to tackle the big picture as a whole. Exactly right. And what we're fighting there is, I mean, most organizations are designed with great care and intention to divide people up and to force them to specialize within silos. And it's not that there's some evil intent there. That's the source of great efficiencies. You have the one guy on the assembly line whose job it is to screw in the widgets and by God with a lot of practice, he gets very efficient at screwing in the widgets.

But that very same structure is also the deterrent to solving bigger problems than exist at any one level of that kind of fragmented infrastructure. Just to be more tangible about this, there's a story about Expedia, which is the online travel site where you can book hotels or airfare or whatever. They had a problem back in 2012 where of every hundred customers who booked a reservation on the site, 58 of them ended up calling the call center for support, which is just kind of mind-boggling, right? Because the whole point of an online travel site is that you can do it yourself, and yet

almost 60% of the people who did it themselves ended up needing help. So this guy named Ryan O'Neill starts digging into this to figure out what in the world is going on. And he figures out the number one reason that people are calling is to get a copy of their itinerary. That's it, to get a copy of their itinerary. 20 million calls were placed in 2012. That's like every single person in Florida calling Expedia in one year to request a copy

of their itinerary. And so if you ask, how do you solve that problem? It doesn't take a genius, right? Well, they added a branch to the IVR, Press 2, if you're calling for a copy of your itinerary. They allowed people to self-serve online. They changed the way that they sent out the confirmation so that they wouldn't end up in spam, which is part of the problem. The solutions were easy.

The more interesting thing to me is, how does a problem like that boil up to that point? Why wasn't there a kind of red flag triggered when you got your 7 millionth call for an itinerary? The answer is back to that idea of fragmentation, where at Expedia, like virtually every other business, you have these distinct groups of people with different goals. The marketing team's goal is to attract people to Expedia, and then you've got a product team whose job it is to design such a smooth, easy interface that they get to the point of booking a transaction.

And then you've got the IT team whose job it is to keep everything humming and keep uptime as high as possible. And then you've got the call center, and their job is to resolve people's issues quickly and keep people happy. And on an individual basis, all those goals make perfect sense. They sound logical. But then when you ask a very basic question like, whose job in this ecosystem is it to make sure that customers don't need to call us for help. The answer is nobody

It's nobody's job. And in fact, it's even worse than that Like there's no one in this whole system who would even be rewarded if that happened It just seems as I said before that even when you decide to tackle a problem upstream Doesn't mean you'll always find the problem upstream and you may find something else. You may say this is the solution and in fact it's not. Well, this is another layer of the upstream challenge is thinking in systems and realizing that when we intervene in systems, they're likely to have unintended consequences. There was an example in New York City where a Google engineer, a young guy, was walking

through Central Park and a branch from an oak tree fell down and hit him on the head and caused brain injuries and paralysis. It was just a horrible tragedy and it seems like one of those freak things that just happen. And then later, the controller of New York City, a guy named Scott Stringer, he started analyzing the claims that had been paid out by the city to settle lawsuits. So this engineer I talked about had settled a claim for $11 million from his injuries. What Stringer discovered was there were actually a bunch of settlements from falling branches. And so Stringer was thinking, well, what in the world?

And he began to dig around, come to find out that the city's pruning budget had been cut in previous years in an effort to save money. And so here you've got an interesting side effect, right, from within the silo of the parks department, what's the presenting problem? The problem is we've got to cut our budget. They think, okay, we've got too much money in the pruning budget, we can cut back there. From their perspective, within that part of the system, it all looked good. They did save the money. But then what they weren't seeing was that the side effect of that was they're not pruning these

old dead branches. The dead branches are falling. They're hurting people. And as one of Scott Stringer's colleagues said, whatever money we thought we were saving on the maintenance side, we were just paying right out on the lawsuit side. So Stringer's office starts mapping out the nature of these claims that they're paying. They created a program called ClaimStat where they mapped and indexed the tens of thousands of annual claims made against the city and they start finding these just remarkable patterns.

They found there was one swing on a playground in Brooklyn that had been responsible for multiple lawsuits. All somebody needed to do was go out and raise this swing six inches and all of the injuries would have been eliminated, but nobody thought to do that. Nobody could see it. And so that's part of the challenge is when we get involved in these complex systems, we can't just focus on the part. We can't just obsess on the fact that, okay, Parks needs to save money, we'll cut money

from within Parks. We've got to ask ourselves, what is the effect of cutting this thing within the Parks budget and are we paying attention to the side consequences? Well, what I really like about this is it makes you think differently. It makes you look at problems differently. It makes you look upstream instead of just focusing on the symptom of the problem right here and now, which can open up all kinds of possibilities.

Dan Heath has been my guest. The book is called Upstream, The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen. And there is a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. Thank you, Dan. Thanks so much, Mike. hands-free control with universal gestures. This isn't just television, it's a whole new vision. Because it isn't just about what's on, it's about who's watching. Learn more about Samsung Vision AI televisions at Samsung.com. It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients.

Vodka, soda, natural flavors. Soda... Natural flavors. So... what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. When there's a problem, often the solution is to add something. You need to decorate a room? You add some furniture. You need a garden? You plant some plants. If you're sick, you want the doctor to give you more medicine. Our minds tend to want to add

things to make things better or to fix a problem, which in many cases is just fine. But in some cases, less might be better. For example, we come up with a lot of new rules at work when in fact it might be better to get rid of some of the old ones. Probably the best example I can think of, when subtracting is best is editing. When you're editing a term paper or a video or a podcast, the process of editing,

which is subtracting things, makes it better. Adding something is often the default solution when in fact subtracting can be an excellent but often overlooked way to go. This is according to Leidy Klotz. He's a scientist who studies and writes about design and problem solving. He's a professor of engineering and architecture at the University of Virginia and author of the book, Subtract, the Untapped Science of Less. Hi Leidy, welcome to Something You Should Know. Hi Mike, it's great to be here. Thanks for having me. So when I hear words like less and subtract, I think, oh, here comes in one of those minimalist guys who's going to tell me to get rid of all my furniture and accept the chair in the corner and, you know, throw away all my forks, except the four I need.

And but but that's not not what your message necessarily is. So what is it? It's to think about subtracting as a way to make things better. And, you know, if we think about any situation that we encounter, this happens all the time, whether it's, you know, you mentioned the minimalist ideas that often has to do with the physical things in our house.

We ask, how do we make our living space better? It's like, well, I could add this blanket or whatever. Whenever we are at, whenever we ask that question, we have multiple options. One is to add things. One is to kind of rearrange things. And one that we overlook is that we can actually take things away. One of my favorite quotes, to gain knowledge, add things every day, to gain wisdom, subtract things every day. And this is like, that quote still gets thrown around

the internet and it's evidence that we've been overlooking subtracting for a long time and that we still overlook it because that kind of quote rings true and counterintuitive still. So subtracting rather than adding, is that just not human nature? When we have a problem, we look to add something and that's what we do?

Yeah, that's what our research found. I mean, so I've been interested in this for a really long time as a designer, engineer, architect, professor. I kind of noticed these instances where taking something away actually creates something better, whether it's editing words. If you write 200 words and you're challenged to narrow it down to 100, that'll be a better 100 words.

Or it's these streamlined, elegant, modern designs be a better 100 words, or it's, you know, these streamlined, elegant, modern designs that looks better. And so the question was, do we actually overlook that? And the answer is yes. So let's talk about some real life examples of what you mean by subtracting and how that makes it better. The best example is, I mean, I was playing Legos with my three-year-old son and this was before we had done the research. What we were doing was building

a bridge basically and the problem we had was that the Lego bridge wasn't level so there was one column on the bridge that was shorter than the other column and so I went to solve this problem to improve the situation. I turned around behind me to grab a block to add to the shorter column. By the time I had turned back around, my son had removed a block from the longer column. And so, you know, what's cool about that example is that we didn't know it at the time, but the thought process that I went through was pretty close to what we think, you know, is the normal process that most people would go through in trying to improve the

situation, which is to think, what can I add to it? And then if my son hadn't been there, I would have just added the block and created the level bridge and moved on without even asking whether subtracting was a better option. Well, but subtracting, was it a better option or it was just an option? Yeah, in that case it was just an option. I mean, you could make an argument that my son's solution was easier and required less resources. But, you know, this is why we needed to do research, right? We needed to figure out do people overlook this even when it's to their detriment, even when it's the better option. So that Lego example and your son,

that's a great example, but that's a physical example of building things. Let's move into the world of say ideas and how this plays out with ideas and an example might help. One of our studies was a study of real life. Our university's strategic improvement plan asked for, hey, what are ways that we can improve the university?

And we looked at that data and only 8% of the suggestions were to take something away. So it was overwhelmingly additive suggestions, which, again, this suggests that options are being left on the table, right? The people aren't fully exploring the range of solutions that could make this university a better place. But it seems that in many cases, it's so subjective. I mean, adding might work, subtracting might work,

as in the case of your Lego example with your son. He subtracted, you were going to add. But one wasn't necessarily better than the other. They were just different ways of approaching the same problem. Yeah, I mean, I'm so glad you brought that up. And if somebody likes adding, by all means add, I mean, this is not us trying to say subtracting is always better. It's that, you know, we systematically don't think of it and then we're missing out on

options. But I do think that it, well, I know that it's helpful to remember to consider subtracting. When people were reminded that, hey, you can add or subtract here, just a simple reminder that increased rates of taking away, which you'd say, well, big deal, because shouldn't a reminder increase rates of anything? But the rate that that reminder didn't increase rates of adding. So when we're reminded to add, we can add or subtract, we subtract more. So that's again, evidence that we're systematically

overlooking it, but also, you know, something we can put into practice immediately, which is, hey, these are important decisions I have to make in my life. You know, cleaning your desk, you probably don't need a reminder, but when it's doing your weekly to-do list, maybe you need to remind yourself to also consider

some stop doings, right, or some stop things that you want to take off of your weekly to-do list. Yeah, that's a little bit of the science, but it also has very real implications for how we live our lives. Well, as you've been talking, it got me to thinking, because using, again, the Lego example with your son, he chose to take away one little Lego block

to fix the problem. And as you were pointing out, on a to-do list, maybe you need to take some things off your to-do list. But it occurred to me, and I want to get you to comment on this, when we talk about Lego bricks and taking things off your to-do list, these are small moves. These are taking little pieces of something and subtracting them. And maybe we need a more fundamental subtraction. Maybe you don't need a to-do list. Maybe you need to subtract the whole to-do list and get a calendar or something. For example, science used to believe that everything revolved around the Earth

and that was the premise and then everything was added on top of that. But if you at some point weren't willing to let go of that concept, you keep trying to add on top of it, you're adding on to a foundation that is going to crumble. So even more important that you learn to take away and say, well, let's question that before we move on. Right. And it's very analogous to how we do it in the physical world, right? And so the physical example that I like is balance bikes. And these are the bikes that kids two and younger can ride a balance bike. And this bike is small for that age group,

but it also has the pedals removed, which is the subtractive innovation. And then the kids can stride on top of the bike. And then the surprising thing is that they can actually balance. So it's a great invention, but the same thing that was happening with the solar system on a smaller scale, to be able to come up with this invention, you had to let go of the idea that the drive train is a fundamental part of the bike. Well, I like that example because it illustrates your point so well that if you're going to create a bicycle for little kids,

well, it's a bicycle. So one of the first things you're going to put on your bicycle for little kids are pedals. But if you can get your mind to think, well, wait, maybe we don't need pedals. Let's subtract the pedals. And it turns out you really got something. So where else can we use this concept of subtracting?

One great example is spending money to save time. It's analogous to the to-do list and the stop-doing list, but basically what you're doing is, is taking something off of your calendar and you're actually paying for the subtraction, but research shows that that can actually make us happier, right, spending money to save time. So that's a subtraction that can make our lives immediately better.

And then the cleaning one, you mentioned the desk and I know like, okay, cleaning up your desk. I think that the cleaning illustrates that the more you take away, the more noticeable it becomes, whether it's a really tightly edited podcast or a super clean desk or really streamlined modern design. There are these examples of subtraction where it is noticeable that somebody put in the effort to take away. What about though, maybe I'm nitpicking here but... No, no

the nitpicking is good I think yeah. So somebody could say well kids you know I heard this podcast and Lighty said you know we should subtract so we're not going on vacation this year we're subtracting vacations and everyone's upset about that but we're doing we're subtracting vacations. And everyone's upset about that, but we're following your advice. Yeah, I'm not saying subtract. I'm saying think, add, and subtract, right? One of the reasons that we don't think about subtracting

is because we position these things as opposites, right? It's either add or subtract. And really what we should think of them as is complementary approaches to making change, right? So you're thinking about, okay, how do we improve our family life? One way is to add a vacation. One way is to subtract a vacation. Now you've thought about both of them and their complementary approaches to change. That's great. You brought both of them to mind and you can go about making the best decision for you. I think the root of that question,

like Lydie said we should subtract, or this like, just because we don't think of subtracting, we should always subtract. I think that often comes from a place of positioning these things as opposite each other instead of complementary. And if they're complementary, then we go a long way towards overcoming the fundamental problem here,

which is that we don't even think of subtracting. Yeah, well, I think that's the big takeaway from this, or at least from this conversation, is like you said, when you remind people that you can either add or subtract, you get more subtraction, you don't get more addition, that people just don't think about it. But when you think about it, well, sometimes it's like a light bulb going off.

Yeah. And if it's not a light bulb going off, then you don't have to follow through with it. I mean, but I think, you know, how can we capture all these, this really low hanging fruit, these cases where it's just so obviously so much so obviously better when you think of it. But do you think this this desire for addition is human nature or is it a cultural thing? We just learn that any behavior has multiple reasons for it, but this definitely goes beyond cultural based on our research and based on how it's working in our brains. We did in some of our experiments, for example, tested people in Japan and Germany, and our goal wasn't to do a cross-cultural comparison, so they weren't, you know, this isn't conclusive that it's exactly the same across cultures, but there was more

variation within those cultures than there was between the cultures. So what we found in those other cultures was quite consistent. And there's a lot of just really good biological reasons why we might do this. I mean, so there's the the competence issue, right, where we want to display competence. That's a biological instinct. There's also just acquiring things, namely food has been really good for passing down genes, right, that that help that an instinct to acquire in that case helps you make it through the... If you do that during good times, it makes you more likely to pick it through the lean times and pass genes down across generations. So there's that biological reasons. I also think there's some just real cultural reasons, but the cultural reasons extend beyond, they cross all the cultures that are around now, or nearly all of the cultures that are around now,

in that as we're developing civilization, it made a lot of sense to add in most cases, right? If there's no highway, it makes sense to add a road to connect the places. But now that there's so many highways that some are bisecting cities, now that subtracting highways becomes a more viable option, or at least it's on the table now.

And so through the history of civilization, adding has been often the better way to make things better. The same with knowledge, right? The less knowledge you have, the more likely the additions are helpful. The more knowledge you have, the more likely the additions are helpful. The more knowledge you have, the more kind of opportunities there are to reflect on the information that you already have.

And then the other cultural thing is we just walk around in this world where adding is all around us, right? So, and even if somebody subtracts something, you may notice it the first day, but after a year or two years, there's not this reminder that subtracting is to thank. And we get our cues from the world that we live in. So it creates this reinforcing cycle where you're less likely to think of

subtracting, you're less likely to encounter subtraction, which makes you even less likely to think of it. And that reinforces itself. So I think it's a, back to your question, I think yes, there's a cultural element to it. Yes, there's a biological element to it. And these forces reinforce each other. Well, and we have floating in our heads, those two sayings that more is better, but also less is more.

So more is better when you think of things like money, food, those kind of things. I mean like you were saying that more is better but everybody has that some understanding of that phrase less is more, that that too much is not always good and those things do kind of compete in our heads of you know is it less or is it more? More is better is almost I mean, that doesn't even need to be said, right? That's just kind of life. And I think the less is more in those phrases that become so catchy. They're they're they've endured for a really long time. And the reason we need them, I think, is because they're

effectively reminders, right? They work like the reminders worked in our, I think, is because they're effectively reminders, right? They work like the reminders worked in our experiment to say, hey, look, sometimes this might work. Well, it certainly makes you think. And I guess what it makes you think is that there are often other options where we are often adding things to fix a problem. Maybe we have options of subtracting something that could fix the problem just as well if not even better. I've been talking with

Lydie Klotz who studies and writes about design and problem-solving. He is a professor of engineering and architecture at the University of Virginia and the name of his book is Subtract the Untapped Science of Less and you'll find a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. Thanks, Lighty. Appreciate you being here. All right.

Thanks, Mike. I know a lot of people are trying to cut back on sugar and sweets. And if you're one of them, you might want to stock up on pickles. Pickles can do wonders at curbing cravings, especially if you've got a craving for something sweet. Pickles are crunchy, sour, pungent, and spicy all

at once, and they overwhelm the senses. In an experiment, hungry participants were practically drooling over some delicious desserts that they would soon be eating. But first first they had to eat a pickle. In most cases the urge to eat the sweets was gone in as little as 10 seconds. Those who insisted on dessert say they ate less of it than they would have if they hadn't eaten the pickle. And that is something you should know. You know out here in podcast land it's doggy dog. There's millions of podcasts to choose from and often what people need is a recommendation. So please recommend

this podcast to someone you know. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to something you should know. I'm Amy Nicholson, the film critic for the LA Times. And I'm Paul Scheer, an actor, writer, and director. You might know me from The League, Veep, or my non-eligible for Academy Award role in Twisters. We love movies, and we come at them from different perspectives. Yeah, like Amy thinks that, you know, Joe Pesci was miscast in Goodfellas, and I don't.

He's too old. Let's not forget that Paul thinks that Dude 2 is overrated. It is. Anyway, despite this, we come together to host Unspooled, a podcast where we talk about good movies, critical hits. Fan favorites, must-sees, and in case you missed them. We're talking Parasite the Home Alone.

From Grease to the Dark Knight. We've done deep dives on popcorn flicks. We've talked about why Independence Day deserves a second look. And we've talked about horror movies, some that you've never even heard of like Conjure and Hess. So if you love movies like we do, come along on our cinematic adventure. Listen to Unspooled wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to hit the follow button.

From the podcasts that brought you to each of the last lesbian bars in the country and back in time through the sapphic history that shaped them comes a brand new season of cruising beyond the bars. This is your host, Sara Gabrielli, and I've spent the past year interviewing history-making lesbians and queer folks about all kinds of queer spaces, from bookstores to farms to line dancing and much more. For 11 years, every night women slept illegally on the common. We would move down to the West Indies to form a lesbian nation.

Meg Christen coined the phrase women's music, but she would have liked to say it was lesbian music. And that's kind of the origins of the Convihuguer collective. You can listen to Cruising on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes air every other Tuesday, starting February 4.