Binary thinking and other dualisms

[blatherskite]

Some time back, I wrote about what I called binary thinking by scientists, and noted the problems it raises. Apart from the "we're right/you're wrong" feuds this can lead to, which retard scientific progress about as often as they drive progress, the most serious problem is probably how this misleads us into ignoring important subtleties that lurk between the alternatives being debated. For example, the success of the Mendelian model of dominant versus recessive genes blinded researchers for many years to the possibly more important concepts of non-Mendelian genetics, quantitative trait loci, and the complex interactions among multiple simultaneously acting genes ("multifactorial traits").

Recently, reading a book by an anthropologist, I was reminded that this is more of a pervasive human phenomenon than something that just afflicts scientists. (Possibly scientists are just more atherosclerotic about this because of their more disciplined approach to inquiry.) It seems something that is quintessentially human, and it raises the issue of what subtleties we're missing -- and what conflicts we're inadvertently creating -- by insisting that everything fall into binary categories. Herewith, a few examples:

• The abovementioned scientific feuds are highly counterproductive; I spend a surprising amount of time reminding my scientist authors that if two theories are supported by large bodies of evidence, it's unlikely that one is right and the other is wrong; more often, both theories explain different aspects of the system that's being observed. I remind them of the power of the thesis–antithesis–synthesis way of thinking about a problem.


• Much of the strife in the non-scientist world involves a related dualism, namely the assumption that our group is good (right) and the other group is evil (wrong). A more nuanced view would note that people within groups probably differ as much as people in different groups, and that not all of this diversity is wrong -- and certainly not evil. (We'll avoid the thorny thickets of cultural relativism, which would require a PhD thesis, not a blog post.) We'd get along much better with each other if we accepted rather than emphasized differences and looked for common ground.


• Politics and group cohesion often lead to the notion that "you're either with us or you're against us", when, in fact, "us" tends to be a rather nebulous concept. This kind of thinking blinds us to the possibility of seeking consensus, common ground, and coexistence. Arbitrators, psychologists, and others who endeavour to help people understand each other find it difficult to lead their clients to common ground because of intense resistance to the notion that such ground exists.


• My favourite dualism is the male/female binary, and I confess to having a low taste in "gendered" humor that arises from that dualism. (Also, "vive la différence. *G*) But like all such binaries, it ignores important subtleties that are more common than most of us realize. The most obvious is the homosexual/heterosexual dualism, which both ignores the possibility of "both" (i.e., bisexual identity) and "neither" (i.e., asexual, pansexual) and avoids the complexities of cisgendered individuals, transgendered individuals, and intersex individuals.


• For geeks, there's the longstanding Macintosh versus Windows dualism, which ignores the growing popularity of Linux and the fact that a great many Mac users (myself included) run Windows on their Mac, thereby reaping the best features of both operating systems.


• This binary logic (literally) extends to the binary logic (zeros and ones) of the computer that I'm using to write this essay. There are many interesting alternatives, including the option of escaping the yes/no binary by considering possibilities such as "maybe" that would be permitted by a trinary or ternary computer or the even more bewildering "all of those options simultaneously" permitted by a quantum computer.

The world around us endlessly fascinates me because I've increasingly learned to look beyond such dualisms. In so doing, my understanding and my horizons expand, greatly increasing the pleasure I take from contemplating this world. I encourage you to do the same. It takes a conscious effort, but the payback is worth it.

I conclude this essay, perhaps inevitably, tongue in cheek: I hope that if you're in the group of readers who simply don't get it, you think about what I've said until you become part of the group who get it. As the saying goes, "there are two types of people in the world: those who classify the world into two groups, and those who don't". You can define yourself in either group, but I think you'll enjoy life more in the latter group.