Paradox Of Dimensions Of Simplicity

First some definitions, and then nothing.

Simplicity doesn't mean easy; it means having only one facet. Relatively speaking, a person is simple while a team is not. (Persons are rarely simple, and that's why the relativity is needed here.)

Complexity is the opposite. Something complex is not necessarily hard, but it is necessarily many-faceted. A five-part proof is complex, while a one-part proof is simple.

The advice "do the simplest thing that could possibly work" is a pseudo-simple utterance with a complex of interpretations, and therein lies the paradox. To attack complexity with great simplicity is to leave most of the complexity intact. That's a simple "do" with a complex outcome.

To attack complexity with great complexity of approach holds the hope of a simpler outcome, but in the process the "doing" has become tainted with complexity, resurrecting the same risks that we sought to eliminate.

As a concept, simplicity is simple. One part. But as a word of four syllables, it's already outgrown its promise. To utter it is to deny it. And in the implementation, it's revealed as the great hoax of the universe. There's no such thing as simple reality. Only simple fantasy. And now back to mine...

-- WaldenMathews

Discussion:

Teams can be simpler to control than individuals because of the group think that sets in. In groups people tend to speak out less and show less individual initiative.

You mean easier to control. And I have seen other group behaviors, too.

I've started using the term 'clean' when talking about technical things I'd like to keep simple. E.g. Instead of SimpleDesign, CleanDesign. Clients don't want to hear that their project is simple, but they don't mind if it's clean.

That's a nice distinction. It seems to imply an absence of complexity for its own sake or complexity due to a laziness of aesthetic. How does it approximate the original sentiment if we say "do the cleanest thing that could possibly work"?

Reminds me of Knuth's comments on "illiterate programming". Saying that you have a complex design isn't shameful. But who would want to admit to implementing a dirty design ?

A guess -- one whose business beauty is not?

Equivocation is not beauty. There is beauty in accepting and understanding the truth of a thing. Individuals can behave differently. It's not fate, but the nature of people in groups is generalizable and all generalizations are wrong of course.

How about a beautiful signature, then?

Beauty and ego are rarely compatible. And when they are it's often not worth the consequences. --AnonymousDonor

I'm glad you said "rarely" and not "never", as that leaves a small space for the beauty of your ego to slip through. I, for one, would love to glimpse it. But if not, then thanks anyway for the most pleasant exchange. [BTW: The above were the contributions of at least three authors, more like WikiInternalDialogue than a true dialogue.]

Editorial material:

Reverting change back to the original wording. It's not in "some groups." People behave differently in groups as seen in bazillions of studies, please don't be politically correct by saying "some groups."

--AnonymousDonor

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. When my immediate family goes at it in group, there is an absence of group-think, and I suppose there are millions of other examples. But your wording is yours, and it stays. -- WaldenMathews