When asked how to improve things, we always want to add

We say simpler is better, yet we almost always opt for complexity.

The world is a complicated place, as anyone knows if they have experienced updates to smartphones, computer systems, television streaming services or menus at a restaurant. Part of the reason is how we're wired: We make things more complicated.

The human tendency to complicate (or at least add) things is backed by research.

A group of researchers at the University of Virginia published a study in Nature and found that when asked to improve something, people regularly added features, rather than eliminating them. In other words, our default to "fix" things is to add features, not reduce them. (By the way, the University of Virginia is the only one of its type. We have 10 campuses in the University of California system, an example of our desire to add features.)

Researchers examined this tendency in various ways.

For example, when a university president asked for suggestions for improvement, virtually all recommendations were to add things, not eliminate them. When people were given colored squares and asked to make a pattern, most everyone opted to go big. When asked to improve a travel itinerary, people added stops. When asked to make a Lego structure more stable, folks added bricks, rather than removing some. Presumably, if they asked for help to improve a restaurant order, recommendations would be to order more food.

Researchers found this tendency widespread across multiple fields. They found it even in areas where simplicity is urged: including my field, writing, where it’s almost universally recommended to keep things simple and clear. Don’t write 1,200 words to describe something you can handle in 600 words. Don’t write a 15-word sentence that can be written in eight words. Keep it simple.

Since the researchers are human, they of course added something to their research, missing the irony. They experimented to see if adding a reminder that simplification is an option changed things. When participants were reminded of that possibility, they were more likely to consider simplifying. So we’re not dumb, just forgetful.

There are practical implications for all of us. Maybe the best way to improve the interior design of our home is to eliminate, rather than add, items. The best way to improve our diet is to eliminate, not add, foodstuffs. The best way to improve an organization is to reduce layers, not increase them.

This isn’t easy. We want new things. We want more channels. We want additional options. Even though we all say more isn’t better, we make things “better” by adding to them.

Perhaps we should be mindful and look to reduce options. As Leonardo da Vinci once said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

I can’t confirm he actually said that, but I searched Google for “simplicity quotes,” found that and added it, because I felt the need to add one more thing to make this column better.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

The Charlie Sheen, Michael Vick of fruits: Ranking the top 10

We're heading into the most fruitful fruit season of the year: Late spring and summer. But what fruits are best?

Good question, because it leads into this week's column: the top 10 fruits. This is an important subject, intended to help you make your selection as the produce section fills up with options.

In addition to taste, the rankings take three other issues into consideration:

• How easy is it to get the fruit? Fruits available year-round have an advantage.
• How portable is the fruit? Those that you can take with you have an edge.
• How hard is it to eat? If it requires napkins, it ranks below something you can eat with ease.

Away we go:

10. Oranges. The Charlie Sheen of fruit: When they're good, they're very, very good. When they're bad they're a mess. Also, the amount of work they require is usually not commensurate with the payoff.

9. Pears. The underachieving cousin of the apple, pears are 80% water and create a mess. On the plus side, they're generally in season and for a bag lunch, they're behind only apples and bananas.

8. Blueberries. A "superfood," although I'm not sure what that means. Blueberries lack a strong flavor, but they're a great addition to other foods. If salt and pepper were fruits, they'd be blueberries.

7. Peaches. Peaches are like high NBA draft picks–unpredictable, but potentially incredible. A perfectly ripe peach is amazing, but maybe 10% of peaches are perfectly ripe.

6. Cherries. The Michael Vick of fruit: Elite at their best, but with a short shelf life and significant problems. The biggest issues are stems and pits. If the scientists who created seedless grapes could work on cherries, they could create a near-perfect fruit.

5. Strawberries. Arguably the best fruit to pick and eat, they have a unique sweet flavor. Unfortunately, the strawberry season is short and it's also not easy to take strawberries along for a picnic or work lunch. No. 1 berry.

4. Pluots. The hybrid of plums and apricots is like mobile phones – a recent addition that changed everything. I'll take them over either of their parents (plums, apricots) because pluots got the best of both sides of the family.

3. Apples. The blue-collar fruit, apples just show up every day, ready to provide. There are multiple variations, all pretty good. If you ask people to rank their favorite fruits, no one would list apples first, but virtually everyone would have them in the top three. By the way, apples got a bad deal with the Garden of Eden knock. The Bible says Eve picked a fruit, not an apple.

2. Grapes. They're No. 1 when in season and seedless grapes are a modern miracle. (The three greatest achievements of science in the past 150 years are the discovery of penicillin, the advent of space travel and the creation of seedless grape.) Grapes are ranked second only because they are not in season year-round, a handicap that is almost offset by the fact that grapes become raisins, another interesting fruit.

1. Bananas. The GOAT of fruit. Available 365 days a year at your grocery store and they always taste good. They're portable and easy to peel – and even the peel (which is discarded) is great because of the slipping-on-a-banana-peel gag. Everyone likes bananas, the Michael Jordan of fruit.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

New words in online dictionary an assault on the language

We surrendered.

We found a white flag, waved it and let the barbarians through the gates. We admitted defeat – we embraced defeat. Or at least those who are supposed to protect us from the barbarians surrendered.

Last month, Dictionary.com – presumably the leading online dictionary, based on its name – added new words. Some were important words. Some reflected a change in the language.

But then there was this: One of the new words is "supposably."

Yes. Supposably. The word that people mistakenly say when they mean supposedly.

We joked about it for years. We used it to illustrate someone saying a word wrong. We even smirked when someone used it.

(Wait. As I read that sentence, I realize that "we" are kind of jerks. Language bullies. Sorry. "We" will work on that. Supposably.)

When the website announced the new words in March, it came after a year of pandemic and racial unrest. The new words reflected that.

COVID-19 was added as a word, as was the phrase hybrid learning. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) was added, as were the phrases universal basic income and critical race theory.

Our language is always changing and those additions are reasonable. New words are fine.

But to add a word that's wrong is just . . . wrong.

Supposably is not a real word. No one who says "supposably" really means it. They mean supposedly.

Yet Dictionary.com now says they're fine.

It reminded me of an experience early in my journalism career, when a co-worker wrote an article in which he described an ugly building as an isor.

He meant eyesore. He just hadn't ever seen the word in print, so he spelled it isor.

The editors didn't react by adding isor to the list of words we could use. They edited. They changed the spelling to the correct word.

What's next? Are we going to start drinking expresso? Worrying about nucular war? Going to the libarry? Calling something a mute point?

I say no. I say we need to keep the barbarians at the gate!

English isn't easy. And I'm not proposing that we require everyone to speak perfectly. I'm not even saying you should be ridiculed if you say supposably instead of supposedly.

I have my own issues with speaking and writing. I get affect and effect wrong virtually every time I use them. I sometimes mix up it's and its. Compliment and complement. I have no idea when to use lay and when to use lie, so I avoid them both.

But here's the thing: In those situations, the responsibility is on me to (finally) learn how to use words correctly, or at least look them up in a dictionary.

Because I count on dictionaries to be reliable. They tell me how to correctly spell a word.

It's not the job of a dictionary to tell us anything is OK. It's the dictionary's job to indicate what is correct.

I'm not a language prude, but I stand with the truth: A dictionary embracing an improper word will affect all of us and the effect will be negative.

See? I got it right after I used a reputable dictionary.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Two types of sports news I don't want to read

I love watching sports and reading about sports. I think a lot about sports. Heck, for most of my newspaper career, I was a sports writer.

Sports and journalism. But there are two sports journalism trends that I dislike.

They're apparently important, but I don't care about them. And what better way to spout my dislike than here? In a column that's not on a sports page!

The first is the business side of sports, which is to sports journalism what vegetables are to meals: Important, but not enjoyable.

Sports business matters. It's important. I should care, in the same way I should want to eat asparagus and broccoli and spinach. Sometimes I like hearing about the business side of sports (in the same way that I occasionally enjoy spinach). But most of the time? I'd rather have the meat and bread and skip to the dessert.

I don't want to read or hear much about sports TV ratings. Or salary caps. Don't expect me to read about negotiations between players unions and ownership groups. I don't care about what cities are awarded future Super Bowls or Final Fours or World Cups. I'm not interested when college leagues merge or break apart.

I don't care.

TV ratings don't matter to me, as long as the games I want to watch are available. Union negotiations don't matter to me until there's a lockout. Super Bowl sites and college leagues merging don't matter to me at all, because I watch games from my couch and can't keep track of what schools are in which leagues.

Sports business is important, but it's boring. Tell me about the games.

Another type of sports reporting is also boring, but it's much more problematic: gambling.

Turn on a sports event now and it's almost impossible to avoid advertising from the big sports gambling sites. They have daily fantasy leagues. They sponsor games. They have contracts with leagues. You can't avoid them.

Turn on sports-talk radio and it's more of the same. Point spreads. Over-under numbers. Who covered. Sports-talk radio is a bastion for long-form commercials for gambling businesses that pretend to be talk shows.

I don't care about the point spreads. I don't even care about the inevitable two or three times a year that something weird happens at the end of a game and a big Nevada casino suffers a big loss or win. Sometimes a team scores on the wrong basket at the buzzer in basketball. Sometimes an NFL team gives up a safety late in a game, so it doesn't cover the spread. Stuff like that.

Do I care that a casino lost $200,000 or $2 million or $20 million? No. That's their business. It doesn't matter to me.

Do I care if an NBA team covered the spread? No. I care who won the game.

Look, I'm not trying to tell people not to cover sports business or gambling stories. Go ahead and cover it (although realize that the full embrace of gambling is probably making it easier for some people to experience financial ruin).

But as much as I like sports, don't expect me to read articles on labor negotiations or TV ratings or point spreads or casino losses.

Tell me about the games and the athletes and the fun. Tell me about sports.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.