The binary trap
One of the toughest obstacles to a good understanding of the world and the people in it is our propensity for to binary thinking. What if we all tried to do a bit less of that?
The 20th-century writer and activist Upton Sinclair is known for remarking that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” If only that were the problem. Technology investor Paul Graham offered a more apposite variant in a recent tweet, “It is even more difficult to get a man to understand something when his identity depends on his not understanding it.” His observation captures that it is not so much the material consequences, but the threat to our deepest being that actively interferes with our willingness to process certain information. When confronted with ideas that challenge our beliefs, we often don’t just disagree. We refuse to engage. At the root is our tendency to sort the world into distinct categories – good and bad, friend and foe, right and wrong. This binary thinking feels safe and clear, but it shields us from the nuances that can help us better navigate the true complexities of the world.
An unconstructive feel-good factor
Perhaps the instance that comes to mind the most easily is “us-and-them” thinking. People are “either with us, or against us”. The situation in Syria, the first few weeks after dictator Bashar Assad was forced to flee the country, forms a great illustration of how the binary logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, while tactically a defensible position to take, can make for a poor long-term strategy. Temporary alliances, ‘friendships’ built on a shared opposition to a common foe, rapidly crumble when the simplistic framing ceases to apply.
Less dramatic, but no less illustrative, is the current commotion in the American Republican movement around the H-1B visa, which permits foreign workers with specific, profound skills to legally stay in the country. The diverse factions in the de facto coalition around president-elect Trump appeared broadly aligned with most elements of his MAGA ideology, but are now discovering there are very different ways in which a tougher immigration policy can be understood. The sloganesque American jobs for American people policy, favoured by those who see all immigration as a threat to domestic employment, is not quite compatible with the pragmatic encouragement of more migration of the smartest foreign-born individuals, insisted on by those who recognize that the country’s technological and economic leadership relies heavily on attracting global talent. Both camps ostensibly want to ‘make America great again’. But here too, simplistic “you’re either with us, or against us” binary thinking forms the obstacle preventing them from finding common ground.
A third controversy shows binary thinking can trap both sides in a conflict. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and confidant extraordinaire of Donald Trump, published an opinion piece in the German broadsheet Die Welt am Sonntag, in which he forcefully expresses his support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party in the forthcoming German elections. To his vocal opponents the very fact of his endorsing this party suffices to utterly reject his argumentation, whatever it is. His op-ed, however, focuses strongly on the numerous, deep problems of the German economy, and the policies of the AfD to address them, concluding, “Denjenigen, die die AfD als extremistisch verurteilen, sage ich: Lassen Sie sich von dem ihr angehefteten Label nicht beirren. […] ” (“To those who condemn the AfD as extremist, I say: Don't be fooled by the label attached to it. Look at its policies, economic plans and efforts to preserve culture. Germany needs a party that is not afraid to question the status quo, that is not stuck in the politics of the past.”) Both sides are guilty of the same cognitive bias. They cherry-pick those aspects of the situation that fit their position: “Never the AfD, regardless of their policies”, or “Yes to these policies, regardless whatever else the party proposing them stands for”.
Not just too simplistic
This last example also lays bare why binary thinking so quickly subverts our reasoning. It is not just a question of oversimplification and a failure to see detail. It is the immediate normative judgment of a group or individual, a viewpoint, an expression of support or opposition, a policy – of almost anything. By branding something as unequivocally, unconditionally and wholly ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we refuse to recognize that truths are rarely absolute, characteristics come in complex mixes, and relationships are often intricate. We fail to engage with opportunities to learn from challenges to our beliefs, or to contemplate even the possibility of a compromise.
The price we pay for the (pretty much illusory) reassurance that things are simple, and that we are right, is high, in terms of what we sacrifice for it. And yet, is not that hard to take a more balanced position. We tend to ask ourselves, “What would I do if I were in their shoes?”, and have a quick and easy answer at the ready that soothes us with the conviction that our position is the only right one: we know very well what we would do (and ideally everyone should do as we do). Instead, we could ask ourselves, “In what circumstances might I act or think in the way they do?” This is more likely to point out that someone who is our ‘friend’ simply because we have the same enemy may be no more than a fragile, temporary ally, or that a coherent group based on what its members oppose does not necessarily mean there is agreement on what they support. It will help us see nuance rather than stark black-and-white categories, and acknowledge the possibility of compromise and trade-offs. Above all, it will help us understand.
An interesting example hit my ears a few days ago, during a radio interview with Sajid Javid, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and erstwhile Conservative Party leadership candidate. He was asked about his reaction to his close friend and ally, Tim Montgomerie, who last month quit the Conservative Party to join Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party – wasn’t that a “tricky moment in the friendship?”. Javid is not remotely a supporter of Reform UK, declaring it “not right for the country, Reform UK is a threat to all political parties”. But he was emphatic: “[Montgomerie’s] political choices don’t affect our friendship”, showing a remarkable ability to acknowledge different facets to a person, some we favour, others we disagree with, and to not let one dominate the other. Having someone simultaneously as a political ‘foe’ and as a personal ‘friend’ shows the way – all the more so if it is a politician who is setting the example.
Should you feel like making a powerful new year's resolution, perhaps consider this: looking beyond binary thinking doesn't just help us understand others better – it helps us make better decisions ourselves.
This is gold. I wish everyone could read it.