The danger of binary, zero-sum thinking.

Before I post my thoughts, first let me say that any specific subjects referenced herein are merely examples. These examples should not be construed or misinterpreted as me having a definite position or having necessarily reached a conclusion with respect to any of the specific subjects in question.

With that said...

I have noticed something of late that troubles me. I have observed it in the media, here on ATS, and beyond. And that is the tendency to respond to a perceived threat or, on the case of ATS, conspiracy, with zero-sum logic. Explaining what i mean by this is where the aforementioned examples come in. Here are just a few off the top of my head.

People oppose Western hegemony, and perceive a global conspiracy to expand Western power into regions like the Middle East. In so doing, they perceive Western interests gathering against certain nation states such as, say, Iran. So, in response to this, people begin to perceive Iran’s government in a wholly sympathetic light, and even to identify with Iran.

There is political controversy surrounding claims of anthropogenic global warming. There are those who would exploit the affirmative side of this controversy in order to acquire greater power, influence, and wealth. So, in response to this, people conclude that anthropogenic global warming must be a lie. Conversely, there are those who would exploit the doubtful side of this controversy as well. So, in response to this, people conclude that anthropogenic global warming must be real and an imminent threat.

People oppose corruption on Wallstreet. There are those who have both historically and recently exploited lax regulation or just plain criminal blind spots to move vast sums of wealth into their own pockets, often at the expense of the greater economy and those less fortunate. So, in response to this, people brand every wealthy person as part of the problem, irrespective of philanthropic endeavors, or how much of their net worth is actually accessible to them personally. Conversely, there are some who exploit the welfare system and other aid programs in order to avoid work. So, in response to this, people conclude that the poor are all lazy.

People believe in the existence of extraterrestrial visitation and the inevitability of disclosure. They perceive an active effort to conceal this reality from the public. As such, any and all information contrary to this paradigm is perceived as part and parcel of that cover-up, and those who disseminate it as part of the ploy. They “know” visitation occurs, so any other explanation simply cannot be true. Conversely, others reject the possibility of visitation outright, and as such, even other equally occult explanations that don’t relate to visitation, also get thrown out alone with that explanation. Since aliens don’t exist or can’t be visiting Earth, the military also can’t be hiding anything, even if it’s simply terrestrial in origin but advanced beyond the consensus reality’s acceptable expectations.

People believe 9-11 had to be an inside job due to perceived discrepancies in the official story, and the events of that day. They are distrustful of the government. Because they mistrust the government and its version of what happened, they conclude that every part of that scenario - sometimes even including the very existence of planes - must be false. There is no room for a compromise scenario, such as terrorists who already intended to attack us being allowed to do so, for instance. Those who adhere to the official story are sheep, or paid shills. Conversely, there are those who steadfastly believe the official story. For these individuals, any variation from that version of events is impossible to accept, however small. Those who believe 9-11 was an inside job are deluded and paranoid.

All of these examples have something in common: Neither group reaches their conclusions based solely upon evidence, but rather, largely upon their enmity and mistrust toward the other group. (“If America is bad, and they’re opposing Iran, then Iran must be innocent." Doesn’t sound too logical when put that way necessarily, does it?) Without realizing it, people in either extreme may be allowing cognitive dissonance and groupthink to forge an ideal means of manipulating opinions, and even actions.

Suppose the truth is something other than the possibilities outlined in the examples above. Again, these are only examples, and I make no assertions as to whether that’s the case, or what those truths might entail. But suppose that were the case, nevertheless. Could not this form of binary “throwing the baby out with the bath water” be an amazingly effective means of swaying opinion and provoking actions such that the more obscure, less polarizing truths were obfuscated by the extremes?

The most insidious thing about this concept is that, at least as far as I have observed, people don’t even realize they’re doing it. It’s almost an automatic response. “I remember that X is bad, so if they’re against Y, then Y must be the victim.” People seem to do it without even thinking about it.

Sure, maybe they’re right. But what if they’re wrong? Isn’t it worth maintaining vigilance against our own potential internal saboteurs, bias and dissonance? Just my two cents. Peace.

You're quite correct about the dangers of groupthink, extremism, and black or white thinking.

My belief is that it is too late to do anything constructive about it. People need to be able to communicate ideas, not just talk about them. People also need to be able to listen to them, not shut down in a panicked self-censorship of the outside world. Sometimes, diplomacy is required to obtain another person's ideas.

We also need to be able to think, to test the validity of ideas through logic, research, and experimentation. To believe that the other opinion could be perfectly valid unless we have some proof to the contrary.

All of this is hard. People don't like to do hard things. The people who command the attention of the various media are not good examples for us. Thinking isn't taught in schools. Philosophers are ignored.

What you are asking for, reason and moderation, is a wonderful thing, but there is no force in society encouraging it. When OWS, or the European economic crisis, or Jihad, or China reach their peak, there will soon be no need for clear thinking at all.

in reading both of these (the first 2) i already realize your both right people dont like to do things that are hard. take for example a heroin addict, they don't want to stop because the withdrawl symptom are to hard to cope with.

i read so many posts on ATS and other sires that are complete polar opposites on both sides and anybody trying to discuss anything in the middle are completely shut out.

so i'm with both of you on this. definitely something for some serious thought and discussion all around but...we all know thats gonna be nearly impossible of a gap to bridge. it's not that it can't be done, no one wants to do. it's too hard

May I ask both of you a question?

Can ATS be saved from this "me against you" mentality and become a place where discussions can be had without too much trouble? And if it can, how do we do it?

The only thing I've thought of is using the U2U system to talk with selected individuals, but I haven't put that idea into practice yet.

Oh, by the way, does the hostility seem to be getting worse, or am I just getting older and crankier.

False dichotomies. Great post.

I've encountered this kind of mentality quite a lot on here, youtube and in real life. It is very apparent when discussing the religion vs atheism debate. I think there is room for some middle ground and find it quite possible that the truth lies somewhere in between.

It's what we are brought up with unfortunately. Especially with the false left-right paradigm seen in politics.

reply to post by AceWombat04


I see the phenomena all of the time, but I hesitate to judge it. It seems more of a mechanism to 'guess' answers to questions of which we otherwise would not be able to supply due to lack of evidence.

In regards to the question that Charles posed, of can ATS be saved. I find this an interesting question and in some sense seems like a microcosm of the the challenges the world itself faces.

In short, I do not think that ATS can be saved in the sense that you refer to it, but I do think a replacement will arise. (web 3.0 or something). Right now, we need to read through hundreds of posts to extract a few core ideas. I expect machines (witness IBM's Watson) to change the name of the game soon as they will be able to extract core ideas form natural language posts and can present these to the user rather than the exact words of the poster.

Dear GalacticJoe (and all of you in this thread),

Thank you very much for providing the oasis of a reasonable thread discussing important issues. I know that sounds pompous, and I'm sorry, but that's what popped out of my fingertips.

I was really hoping you would disagree with me. I gave you two chances and you missed them both. I hope you are wrong, but I don't see any error in your thinking.

Chance 1: Is ATS really a microcosm of the world? You know what you've seen here. Please, someone, tell me that the real world isn't like this.

Chance 2: Can ATS be saved? You told me probably not. I was hoping that in this fairly controlled environment we could form a group of people that would be a model to the world, provide a clue on how to work toward peace and development. OK, I know, pompous and mystic. But I firmly believe that if we did something significant here, maybe a government watcher would take notice, or, perhaps a site staffer, or even an ATSer just looking for a thesis topic.

So, is it a race now between web 3.0 and war 3.0? I don't like the way the world sounds right now. How much time do we have?

Now for my really depressing question. IF we assume TSHTF in our lifetimes, do we fight to prevent it from happening? If so, how?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by AceWombat04


I think the reason this kind of binary thinking is so pervasive is because it's comforting and safe. In a complex world with no simple answers the ideas of good and evil, wrong and right give us something to hold on to, like a security blanket.

We live in a complex, often unjust world where certainty is often a self imposed illusion and most situations we find our selves in personally and globally are neither black or white but grey. Our intentions can be as pure as snow yet our outcomes can be damaging in ways we never imagine.

Much like religion gives us a relief from the stark reality of our mortality, binary arguments give us a predictable and finite outcome, in a world that offers very little in the way of assurance.

One other point I think falls into this line of thinking is this idea that any information from the MSM is a fabrication, and anything that comes from some alternative press is taken as truth. We like to put blinders on and believe what reinforces our preconceptions.

reply to post by charles1952


Let me give my humble opinions. I say humble because time and again I have been proven wrong. For instance, back in 2008, I thought TSHF scenario was in play and we only had a matter of weeks or months. In 2007, I thought oil prices would continue to rise forever. The deflation of 2008, changed those views. There is always something unaccounted for in the future that smashes my model and proves it useless.

I really do believe that that ATS has some attributes in common with civilization as a whole. Let me take the human body as an example. The toe cell need not read everything the retina cell thinks about the world, instead, both need to use an intermediary, the brain. In this way, the toe cells can easily get information about what is important to them, even if it happened to come from a retina cell. I believe both human civilization and ATS like sites will evolve brains. They face the same problem, in a large collection of individuals no one person can understand everything that the group as a whole understands, but with an intermediary, they could.

Just think of all of the fantastic ideas and concepts buried somewhere on ATS. But, there is no way to gather them because they are numerically overwhelmed by run of the mill every day posts and the same common core ideas re-packaged in so many different combinations. It's like trying to find the prime numbers that combine to form all of the ideas we express.

War 3.0, or organization 3.0? I wish I knew. The weird thing for me is how this question applies to the topic of the thread. There are two competing theories in my head for the future that are directly opposed to one another. In one, we all go into a BORG like civilization and cooperate 100% and in the other we cooperate 0% and destroy everything with war. I know from experience that this dichotomy points to the fact that my model of the future is just flat out wrong.

If we assume TSHTF should we do anything. I wonder what we could do? I've come to think of civilization in terms of energy and resource flows. We do nature a service by distributing those fossil fuels that have accumulated over millions of years on the earth. For that service, we have been paid well. Our job is coming to an end now as we are really good at what we do and it looks like its time for some layoffs. The whole situation depresses me but I made my peace with possible collapse long ago. I now see collapse as inevitable as death is to us individually. Not the end of the story, but the end of our role in it.

"There is political controversy surrounding claims of anthropogenic global warming."

Of course, it needs to be stated again (for some idiotic reason) that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY here. There is widespread, consistent, and evidence-based consensus that 1) climate change is occurring and 2) it is caused, directly, by the activities of humankind.

Anyone telling you something else is trying to sell you something.

Originally posted by Stunspot
"There is political controversy surrounding claims of anthropogenic global warming."

Of course, it needs to be stated again (for some idiotic reason) that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY here. There is widespread, consistent, and evidence-based consensus that 1) climate change is occurring and 2) it is caused, directly, by the activities of humankind.

Anyone telling you something else is trying to sell you something.

That that discussion is not the purpose of this topic is the reason I stated at its start:

Before I post my thoughts, first let me say that any specific subjects referenced herein are merely examples. These examples should not be construed or misinterpreted as me having a definite position or having necessarily reached a conclusion with respect to any of the specific subjects in question.

I do have a definite position on this, but I'm not stating it here, and nothing I've said in this topic should be construed as me expressing what that position is. Because I don't want that discussion to take over this topic. You don't know whether I agree or disagree with you, because I haven't stated what my definite position on this topic is anywhere in this topic, and have no plans to do so.

Just clarifying.

You can see this sort of black-or-white thinking at work everywhere!

It is a human tendancy. Extremes provoke extremes- even I, (who tends to feel drawn to moderation, balance, integration) can feel the pull at times, when face with an extreme view, to take the exact opposite view in response-
to defend the underdog, to speak for the silent.....I have often found myself engaged in an active debate defending a point of view I myself don't hold!

It occured to me, after observing myself do this many times, that that urge is PART of the desire to bring about balance, moderation, and integration. I see in front of me one side- black or white, yin or yang- and my sense of wholeness wishes to inject what is missing- the other side.

But it doesn't stop there for me- having a thesis and anti-thesis is still not fulfilling that urge! I feel drawn to continue interacting the two until we can find a way to weave them together and get synthesis...... therefore closer to what is most likely the truth, or the reality. Thus I get caught up in debates, and my intent is not to "win" over the other- it is for us to find each other mid way. That is why I will go along and acknowledge point sthe other has made, while still refusing other points they made- synthesis is like weaving cloth- the threads go over and under each other, alternatively.