Dodging the Danger of False Dichotomy
Before we start — the definition of dichotomy:
dichotomy|dīˈkätəmē| noun (pl. dichotomies) [ usu. in sing. ]
a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different: a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism.
First of all, I love the word dichotomy, it sounds like the name of a fierce Greek god. The word, in fact, stems from the Ancient Greek dikhotomia, from dikho- “in two, apart.”
Beyond the way it resonates off the lips, the word itself is utterly potent. The notion of diametric opposites is a powerful form of emphasis and analogy. In many ways, dichotomy seems to rule our lives: Conservatives vs. Liberals, the East vs. the West, Men vs. Women, Young vs. Old, Jews vs. Muslims, and so on.
These contrasts are known in social psychology as heuristics, which are mechanisms humans use to learn and retain information… it’s also what leads to the lovely mechanism of stereotyping (of which I did above.) However, in many ways, heuristics are necessary.
What makes humans stand out from other creatures in the animal kingdom is our ability to retain information. Indeed, Homo sapien quite literally means “wise man” in Latin. Without heuristics with which to categorize information in our mind, we would be unable to remember a fraction as much knowledge as we do with them.
A potential danger of heuristics (beyond the insidious nature of stereotypes and its ilk) exists at a very personal level… and it’s a foible few of us are without; that is the notion of false dichotomy.
Often, in order to help ourselves, or others, make decisions, we set up orthogonal contrasts that lead us to the wrong conclusion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Literal) Example: Jane has been dating Bob for a long time. Jane really likes Bob but sometimes their relationship feels dull. Then Jane meets Bill. Bill is handsome and charming and has a nice motorcycle. Jane sort of likes Bill.
Jane is torn by her seemingly contradictory feelings, so she talks to her friend Sarah. Sarah tells Jane that there’s no way she could like both Bob and Bill. Thus, Sarah suggests, Jane should create a “Pros and Cons” list for Bill and Bob.
Having known Bob for a long time, Jane’s “Cons” list for him is pretttttty long. On the other hand, Billy Boy is looking dreamy.
Jane dumps Bob’s sorry ass for the modern day Romeo that is Billy… and things are wonderful… for five whole weeks!
That is, of course, until Jane realizes Billy is a dick.
She realizes she made a mistake and goes back to Sarah. Jane’s friend tells her she must go back to Bob and make up immediately!
Jane runs back to Bob and the heartbroken chump happily takes her back. In fact, he proposes to Jane three months later, and they live miserably ever after (until their divorce four years later.)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
These are very straightforward false dichotomies (Bob vs. Bill, Pros & Cons, etc.), but the reality is that we create them for ourselves all the time. I often find myself deciding between two choices, when in reality, I have a handful of viable, and often more optimal, alternatives than the most obvious choices before me. Whether this is in work or in school, in romance or in friendship, our tendency to create binary options for ourselves can be incredibly damaging.
So here’s a strategy:
Avoid false dichotomies using game theory
One of the reasons I am such a huge fan of game and decision theory is the underlying understanding that there is never just a single option. There is one tool, in particular, that I have found especially useful for avoiding the orthogonal decision-making I outlined above, and preventing bad decisions in general, which is the concept of decision trees.
The tool is a blend of decision theory and game theory; so let me define each, for clarity’s sake.
Decision theory: “the mathematical study of strategies for optimal decision-making between options involving different risks or expectations of gain or loss depending on the outcome.”
Game theory: “the branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of strategies for dealing with competitive situations where the outcome of a participant’s choice of action depends critically on the actions of other participants.”
A decision tree must consider both the risks and expectations of one’s action, and how those actions will affect the decision making of others:
Start with the current state of affairs (Jane dating Bob). Then create branches for different courses of action (Jane stays with Bob, Jane takes a break with Bob, Jane experiments with women, Jane leaves Bob for Bill, Jane cheats with Bill, Jane kills Bill.) For each branch, there should be sub-branches for the potential outcome of each action (If Jane stays with Bob, Jane stays bored, if Jane stays bored, she becomes complacent, if Jane becomes complacent, she agrees to marry Bob, who then hires her a shrink due to her marital dissatisfaction, which leads Jane to becomes addicted to Xanax, etc.)
What you get is a tree of potential outcomes and decisions, and from that, there is always a pareto-optimal outcome; that is to say, an outcome with which no better decision can be made for one individual without leading to a more negative outcome for others (Jane takes a break with Bob, realizes she doesn’t like Bill… or Bob, explores her long-lost passion for painting, joins a commune, falls in with Alice, and lives happily ever after). Obviously you can never fully write-out a decision tree, but you can get much closer to the ultimate array of options than Pro-Con lists, or binary options, can get you.
As a firm believer in the golden rule (and as a bit of a Marxist), I like pareto-optimality. That being said, a decision tree enables the best decision-making, regardless of varying levels of self-interest (i.e. you can pick a strategy that is most optimal for you and screws over everyone else). Nevertheless, the game theory involved forces you to recognize how large of an impact the smallest decisions can have for both yourself and for others, especially as you draw them out.
But decision trees need not be drawn. In fact, I subconsciously create decision-trees in my mind all the time. To be sure, this methodology for decision-making is not foolproof. In fact, I make poor decisions with some frequency even after laying down the outcomes. (For an example of a decision tree gone wrong, see the story at the bottom.) But that’s the nature of our existence: you can prepare for every type of pitch life throws at you, whether it’s a slider, fastball, curveball, or knuckleball; but every once in awhile, you’ll find yourself up at bat and, all off a sudden, you’ll have a submarine pitch coming at you, and you’re going to whiff.
Life goes on, even with strikeouts.
The moral of this post is not to suggest that everyone needs to start studying game and decision theory. Realistically, I didn’t expect anyone to read this and suddenly consider using decision trees. However, the next time you find yourself in a dilemma, whether it’s social, romantic, or business-related, please do not create a false dichotomy for yourself. I guarantee you have better, and more nuanced, options.
