In praise of indirection, or how problems aren’t always solved by problem solving

Problem solving is a universal paradigm, and a very dangerous one. We believe that the world is full of problems and that we can solve them if we really try. But this is not true. Many problems are solved indirectly, thanks to a solution that was not imagined by those who faced them. That’s why it’s important to allow free innovation, i.e. solutions without problems, no matter how absurd they may seem.

At the end of the 19th century, New York City had a problem. The one hundred and fifty thousand horses that carried people and goods through the streets of Manhattan, for example, produced 45,000 tons (!) of manure and thousands of gallons of urine each month, which, in addition to the odors, posed obvious hygienic and logistical problems for disposal. Municipal leaders from the world’s major cities, all facing the same problem, met in New York but failed to find a satisfactory solution. The only conceivable solution – severely restricting the number of horses – was virtually impossible, given the disastrous economic and social consequences it would have. Whichever way you looked at it, the problem seemed intractable.

But less than 20 years later, it was gone. The reason? The automobile. By 1915, cars outnumbered horses in New York, and the dystopian visions of mountains of manure and rivers of urine that had traumatized city officials were forgotten. The car was not a recent innovation: the first one dated back more than a century, but until then it had remained very marginal. At the very end of the 19th century, production exploded. In less than twenty years, it had almost completely replaced the horse, which had been used since the beginning of time.

There are at least two lessons to be learned from this episode. The first is that direct problem solving is not the best approach to solving a problem. Just as it wasn’t city officials who solved the sanitation problem they faced, neither those in charge of a problem nor those who “tackle” it (governments, activists, philanthropists) can necessarily solve it. This is obviously counterintuitive. As Cartesians, we believe that when faced with a problem, we should study it, identify possible solutions, and choose the best one. We assume that we are capable of grasping the problem in all its complexity, and we also assume that there is always a solution if we really work at it. Solving them is simply a matter of willpower. But most of the problems we face, whether we are running a city, a country, or an organization, are complex in nature. They do not lend themselves to a categorical, simple “solution. It’s not enough to break them down into sub-problems and solve them piece by piece.

This myth of “the solution” shows how arrogant we are. We think our intelligence can overcome anything. Our governments’ “major programs” and “wars on” are tragedies. Examples are the war on cancer and the war on drugs. This arrogance is thinking there’s a simple solution to every problem. This arrogance is thinking there’s a simple solution to a complex problem. Those in charge may not be able to resolve it because it’s not at their level or involves indirect action.

In praise of indirect resolution

If problem-solving is unintentional, we should encourage it. We need to encourage pointless innovation. We need to encourage projects with no real use. The car wasn’t invented to solve NYC’s hygiene and pollution problems. That wasn’t what they meant. It was a result. These inventors had no intention. They weren’t looking to solve a problem. They were just tinkerers or people who wanted to have fun or dig into a technical problem out of passion. They didn’t have a specific use in mind. Many innovations are like this. They have a big impact, but not in the way people expect.

When you have a problem, you can try to solve it. Complex problems are hard to solve. Drug consumption is at an all-time high despite decades of the “war on drugs.” There are other models than starting with a problem and trying to find a solution. We also need to invent things without worrying about how they’ll be used. Inventing useless things makes moral teachers angry, but that’s nothing new. They’ve been shouting for as long as people have been inventing. Don’t worry about it. Let’s keep inventing. It’s the best way to solve complex problems.

🔎 The source of this article is here ici.

🇫🇷 A version in French of this article is available here.