“Human beings have a strong dramatic instinct toward binary thinking, a basic urge to divide things into two distinct groups, with nothing but an empty gap in between. We love to dichotomize…Dividing the world into two distinct sides is simple and intuitive, and also dramatic because it implies conflict, and we do it without thinking, all the time.” – Hans Rosling, Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
I recently saw Season 2 of RuPaul’s Drag Race UK[1], and was struck by the conversation in Episode Three between Ginny Lemon and Bimini Bon-Boulash when they talked about being nonbinary. For those who aren’t certain of the definition, nonbinary is “a term that can be used by people who do not describe themselves or their genders as fitting into the categories of man or woman[2].” Both Ginny and Bimini talked about their discomfort in fitting societally-defined gender roles, with Ginny stating that they didn’t know if they were a boy or a girl and that was the reason they were always wearing yellow, which is the nonbinary color. Quite quotably, Ginny stated “I’ve found more success as a woman than I ever did as a man, and I realized that I was neither of these things.” Bimini added that “nonbinary isn’t a new thing, it’s just a new term…as humans, we are so complex, that having a binary to fit everyone into…just doesn’t make sense…”
While the idea of nonbinary gender issues is gaining attention, it highlights a deeper conundrum around our thought processes in general, particularly in the areas of complexity and uncertainty. If you look around, we neatly define everything into two categories, and anything outside of it is seen as misplaced or a waste. From US politics (Democrat vs. Republican), our labeling of social media mavens and monsieurs (good vs. evil), and even our comics (Marvel vs. DC[3]), we neatly place things in one of two categories for the sake of simplicity and to eliminate uncertainty under the false pretense of making definitive decisions.
Binary thought isn’t new, but it is growing in its apparent use and understanding, leaking into all of our advances and automated systems. Imagine that you were looking for a new job at this time. You have many qualifications and certifications that anyone would be eager to gobble up – and yet, crickets. Everyone wonders why you’re not getting any interviews, let alone offers. It couldn’t just be that you’re a hidden treasure. Months pass, and you’re still looking, feeling more and more demoralized by the day. Even then, you move into a binary decision-making process: I must be bad at my job. If I were good at my job, I’d have been snapped up by now.
Another binary process is working against you: automated systems are programmed to look for specific buzzwords, and if you don’t know what those words are, you are immediately out of the running. To that end, jobs are eliminating good candidates with qualifications that may seem somewhat obscure but relevant, placing more importance on the straightforward rather than the nuanced. Essentially, companies are eliminating qualified applicants who could bring true innovative thought to the table, simply because they are in the category of “wrong.”
We live in an age of increasing complexity and uncertainty. We’ve created our own paradox of wanting answers to complicated problems, but only the simplest answers, which may not be the right answers. Back to our hiring example, we know that the world is moving to multidisciplinary workers and specialties[4], yet hiring programs are looking only for those with specific words to trip their systems. We prize those who had unusual routes to success, yet we’re not willing to invest the time and energy to developing those people within our companies. Why? Because they belong to one of two categories: exact qualifications or not applicable.
We think that in this information-overload age moving to a simplistic binary decision process would make things more efficient, but ironically, this is not so. Most of our decisions are multifaceted, and way more complex than “Should I have a second cup of coffee today?[5]” And when we face situations of great uncertainty (like, say, oh, I don’t know, a pandemic), we retreat even further into our binary modes because it allows us the illusion of control in a situation where we know perfectly well we have no control. Ultimately, this simplistic thought process leads us to the same solutions over and over again, expecting this time innovation and success. And you might find that – to the point where you plateau.
The world is not simply black and white, but exists in multiple shades of colors, patterns, and processes[6] that makes the world uncertain – and that’s good. Uncertainty should frighten us. It should drive us. It should make us question if the status quo is quo. Attributing certain personality traits and hobbies to a gender is shortsighted[7]. Thinking a history major can’t become an effective risk manager is inane[8]. Using the scales of good and bad for almost anything is a surefire way to make the wrong decision.
Why? Nuance. We are all nuanced in some way. Hardly anyone fits the concept of “normal,” whatever that means. You may have an employee who is a wonderful administrative assistant and looks like a Stepford Wife, and yet on weekends she’s the game master of her Dungeons and Dragons group, leading with an iron fist. Lessons she learns from being the game master she may bring to her job, although she’d never express it that bluntly. You may have the head of IT at your company spend his free time acting in a comedy troupe hoping to end up on Saturday Night Live[9]. Comedic timing may assist in his ability to present complex IT problems to upper management, calming them in the face of a major malware threat.
Simple isn’t always best. If we were to treat our decision-making with the philosophy of falisifiability[10] versus the incorrectly paraphrased Occam’s razor[11], we can create a multitude of solutions to be tested, rather than settle for the “simplest” answer. We can’t say with certainty that someone is a good candidate for a position because they have the right buzzwords, and someone isn’t because they don’t have their MBA. Someone isn’t wrong because they’re of a differing political party[12]. And no one should feel like they have to be feminine or masculine. The world cannot exist two-dimensionally, and it doesn’t help our future to treat it as though it does.
[1] No spoilers, but it was an interesting season to watch.
[2] https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq?utm_source=pocket-newtab
[3] Admittedly, I am Team Marvel.
[4] As seen in healthcare: https://www.td.org/insights/multidisciplinary-teamwork-ensures-better-healthcare-outcomes
[5] The answer is always yes.
[6] There will be no mention of that horrible book that is usually the joke for this. Please. I have my pride.
[7] I love to weightlift AND bake cookies.
[8] Someone I worked with was one, and I admired his ability to look at the past to help determine the future.
[9] Do people still want to be on that show?
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
[11] It’s actually “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity,” not “The simplest explanation is usually the best one.” Very different.
[12] Please, for the love of God, people, READ BOOKS ABOUT HISTORY. Even if it’s just to understand wordplay, like why a Trojan (virus or condom brand) is called one.
formthefuture.org 