Book Review-Subtract:The Untapped Science of Less By Leidy Klotz
A review of a good but not great book from my standpoint. I think he missed a few things.
I first was made aware of this book from reading one of David Epstein’s Ranging Widely newsletter on Substack (
). The idea of subtracting piqued my interest and the idea seemed like a good one, so I bought the book, it really doesn’t take much to entice me to buy books, and Epstein is one of the main dealers feeding my To-Be-Read stash.
I will say right up front that Klotz is preaching to the choir. I realize just how much our System 1 responses tends to add and complicate our list of actions rather than subtract and simplify. I also realize that this is a knee jerk reaction that is ingrained in us through culture and habit, so the lessons of Klotz’s eight chapters have been easily integrated into my thought process. He writes well and he does yeoman’s work of supplying research results as well as anecdotes to support each of his chapters. The author closely adheres to the formula for this type of writing, and he pauses often to reiterate his points. Some of his anecdotes seem to meander a bit but they do eventually get to the main points, which is critical. He makes examples of three main cases, and they nicely underlay his expositions in the other chapters. The additional supporting anecdotes and experimental results all fit in seamlessly.
My problem with the book is what he does not do in his arguments.
· He does not delve into the differences in decision making and results using the act of subtraction between those cases involving the haves and the have-nots.
· He completely missed out on those cultures that are philosophically minimalist or to delve deeper into how these cultural differences play a role in their decision making and more importantly, on how the cultural differences drives the kinds of solutions that results.
· He tried, valiantly, to discuss the importance of systems, and most saliently, the impact of nonlinear system dynamics on the unexpected open-loop results stemming from extrapolating linear assumptions on nonlinear situations.
The first problem stems from the kind of experiments that were available to the author in his work. One must make do with what is available to them when conducting experiments, but it made me wonder whether the results and the conclusions would be different if analogous experiments were conducted in situations set in economically deprived societies, whether the economic necessity of the environment has an impact on the kinds of solutions by subtraction when compared to that of the kinds of solutions by subtraction that was offered up by the societies that “have”.
The second problem is a bigger miss. Philosophically, Asian societies embraced the minimalist approach to their philosophy, of life and everything else. The Buddhists and Taoists base their beliefs on eschewing of ethos of more and elevating the ethos of less to a virtue. This cultural approach to life certainly adds a different twist to how each person views each decision, which is what the author is trying to promote.
Two of his forays into the Asian philosophical milieu was to me faux pas of the highest order and demonstrated to me that he was not paying attention. First, he used Marie Kondo as an example, espousing her idea of getting rid of material possessions if it “does not bring joy”. This idea came from the cultural and Buddhist roots of Japanese philosophy. Shibui means effortless aesthetic of simple, subtle, and unobtrusive beauty. It is demonstrated in the art of cultivating the bonsai tree and in the Zen Garden. The spirit of always doing the least to benefit the all and subtracting rather than adding to a tree or to a scene is imbued in the practice, a perfect demonstration of subtraction. Marie Kondo is not an example of the minimalist mindset; she is the result of centuries of minimalist practice. His second faux pas was to refer to the Taoist sage Lao Tzu as Mr. Tzu. Lao Tzu is not a given name; it is a reference to the old man who had left a set recorded works upon which Taoism was based for posterity. Lao means old, Tzu is a moniker for people. This faux pas demonstrates just how far the author is from the Asian cultural traditions, which is a shame because there are fertile grounds to be plowed to bolster his arguments as being a natural part of the philosophy for a very salient group of people.
The third problem, and it is not the author’s fault because the concept is very difficult to explain without specific language, is that the author is trying to explain complex dynamical systems by just using words and not using mathematics and system theory tools. While he does refer to Dana Meadow’s work, she was also constrained by trying to explain to a non-mathematical broader audience the large topic of nonlinear system behavior and its cross-coupling nature; it is very extremely difficult to explain to those who are not already familiar with the idea of nonlinear systems. This is where the simplicity and precision of mathematical language can better represent the system idea more accurately and clearly. In a way it is a nice example and illustration for the author to use: subtracting the words and convoluting thoughts and language and leaving the skeleton of the ideas in simple mathematical language.
Despite my strong reservations about what I see as problems with the author’s approach, I found great value in the book. His presentation of the basic steps towards thinking about subtracting rather than adding is a great reminder to work to overcome our bias towards adding, and that reminder will serve any reader well in opening their thought process and consider subtraction first.