And Another Thing

31 January 2009

The case for simplicity is essentially a moral one

What is simplicity? And is it desirable, on principle? A good question. My recent essay on the origins of the universe, arguing that the simple explanation, its creation by an omni-potent God, is more plausible than its sudden emergence as a result of infinitely complex (and disputed) events, angered some readers. They took the view that only the simple-minded see virtue in simplicity, and that a love of complexity is the mark of intellectual maturity.

So, returning to the subject, let us look at complexity, and what promotes it. There seem to be three main factors. The first is constructive knowledge. Human beings are clever creatures and delight in their ability to create, and to put their creations to the test. This is particularly true of those who design machines. A quarter-century ago I inherited in my Somerset house the latest model of boiler, a French make, designed to save fuel. It may have done this. Hard to tell, because it was always going wrong and had to be expensively repaired. Eventually, in exasperation, I called in an expert who examined it carefully and reported: ‘This is a most ingenious mechanism. The trouble is, it is over-engineered, and that always means trouble.’ So I replaced it with a simple, reliable thing, which may use more fuel but has never gone wrong.

The term over-engineered struck me as a useful concept. It occurs when the designer of a machine is given complete freedom to exercise his skills without reference to the consumer who uses it. He produces something delightfully complex which he would like but which the buyer cannot master. One reason, I believe, why Western car makers failed to compete successfully with Japanese imports is that they entrusted the design to their engineers. The result was complexity, and buyer resistance. The Japanese, by contrast, reversed the design process and began with the buyer, and what he or she wanted. Then they worked backwards and gave the designer a strict mandate. The result was simplicity, and large sales. There is a sound commercial principle behind this approach, but also a more fundamental intellectual one. The point was made brutally by the scientist E.F. Schumacher: ‘Any intelligent fool can invent further complications but it takes a genius to retain, or recapture, simplicity.’

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Paul Johnson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Andrew Martin

January 29th, 2009 10:15am Report this comment

You might want to stick to commentating rather than enginering ... but the concept of "over-engineered" systems is a well-known one.

A famous computer scientist, Oxford's Professor C A R Hoare, had a dictum "Inside every big program there's a small program trying to get out". Anyone who's tried to make sense of a modern computer will yearn for the simplicity of those of yesteryear. What's more, in computer security, complexity is widely seen as the enemy: systems with many complex details provide ample places for attackers and fraudsters to lurk. The simpler the software, the more likely it does what was intended, no more and no less.

Philoktetes

January 29th, 2009 5:20pm Report this comment

Andrew Martin, you ought to stick to software engineering rather than commentating.

Regarding evolutionary origins, I was just studying the godless version of origins. It is vastly complex without very little actual evidence but with lots of conjecture. The belief that life can arise out of non-life without a personal creator has bent physics and astronomy into pretzel shapes of unbelievable complexity, which requires loads of faith. Mr. P. Johnson is right: simplicity is morally right.

Rob Slack

January 30th, 2009 12:12pm Report this comment

Having read your piece, I conclude the virtue of complexity is it convinces us of the virtue of simplicity.

David Preiser

February 4th, 2009 4:59am Report this comment

Isn't the concept of an omnipotent God more of a simple explanation than things like the Casimir Effect? Emotional complexity doesn't count, I'm afraid.

Post comment