Simplicity is good... wait no it's bad EXEMPLAR
Topic: Simplicity
by Sabi, 2020 Cohort
Heuristics, ‘life hacks’ and shortcuts. Contemporary society is rampant with examples of the desire for a simpler world. The ubiquity of simplicity is demonstrated by the very idea behind this primer- to pitch a topic in a simple format. Concurrently, there are numerous critiques of simplicity such as its pervasiveness in social media impacting attention spans, and the oversimplification of complex
Simplicity is often presented in a dualistic relationship alongside complexity. At its core, simplicity is a relative concept defined as where something is easy to understand or explain, in contrast to something being complicated1. In considering simplicity across a range of settings and disciplines, it is important to understand that its value depends not on only the situation, but what is being explained, by who and to whom.
In some cases, simplicity can imply beauty, clarity and perfection, and in others it can suggest a lack of nuance. For example, in educational circles it is frequently quipped that the true test of understanding is the ability to explain a concept simply. However, in education, often many concepts or resources can be discounted due to a lack of complexity. A prime display of this is Wikipedia. Although the trend is reducing, there is a general disdain towards using Wikipedia to cite information in academic circles due to its perceived lack of complexity. This contextual conundrum highlights the contentious nature of the value of simplicity across various situations.
Considering the appropriateness of a simplistic approach to a situation it is useful to differentiate between necessary and accidental complexity as proposed by Fred Brooks in his 1986 book No Silver Bullet2. Whilst necessary, complexity is the amount of complexity required, accidental complexity is anything that does not directly contribute to the situation. By minimising accidental complexity that is not vital to the context, simplification is enabled. A key concept within this framework is that simplicity and complexity should not be considered mutually exclusive, and instead the optimal amount of both should be encouraged.
This lends itself to the idea that there is an innate need for complexity in some situations. This competes with the logic of the problem-solving principle of Occam’s Razor1 (all other things being equal, the simplest theory is most likely true). Therefore, regarding any issue, it is important to be mindful of whether the level of simplicity is ideal. It is important to beware of the value of simplicity for reasons such as its ability to increase complexity. For instance, telecommunications developments have made communication significantly more streamlined, but have created a range of additional complex issues including the choice of platform, social fatigue and most surprisingly, loneliness. Perhaps this is just the nature of innovation, as to how it can lead to unforeseen issues.
Actively questioning the reasonableness of the simplicity present in an idea or situation could increase the ability to consider the merits of how something is presented- a topical case being the past simplistic approach towards historical figures, leading to the now raucous debate about certain
Disclaimer#
This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au