February 22, 2021
Binary Dilemmas: What They Are and how to Avoid Them
Binary dilemmas are dilemmas that force you to choose either of two options. You could argue the term “binary dilemma” is somewhat redundant, in the sense that a dilemma usually only involves two options.
However, this is not always true; you could be facing a dilemma between wearing a red, a blue, or a white t-shirt. More importantly, I deploy the term “binary dilemma” to emphasize the particular social dynamics involved: Binary dilemmas are insidiously constructed in a way that conditions you to believe these are the only alternatives.
As a humoristic example of a binary dilemma, imagine a woman asking her boyfriend’s opinion on her new dress. If she phrases her question as “does this make me look fat or thin?”, there is no way for the hapless man to offer a pleasing answer.
If the example seems familiar, it’s taken from my post on the only game in town fallacy. However, whereas that post only focused on the fallacy, the focus of this post will be on avoiding binary dilemmas.
Moreover, the concept of a binary dilemma transcends a mere discussion between two people, having far wider consequences. Think of media, social media, social conditioning, misinformation, and ways to control public opinion.
Importantly, whereas in the example with the dress there is likely no intention to deceive, binary dilemmas are nearly always precisely constructed to make it appear as if there were no alternative.
To Avoid a Binary Dilemma, Begin by Recognizing It
“You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge” is quite the cliché. But it’s also quite true. This is also the case with a binary dilemma, we can’t do anything about it unless we recognize it as a binary dilemma. But how can we do that? How can we recognize we are the target of manipulation?
Before we address that, there’s something we need to get out of the way: The source of the dilemma – which is nearly always in a position of authority – has an incentive to keep opinion polarized.
From Polarization to Binary Dilemmas
In other words, the polarization of public discourse – good/evil, with us/against us – serves the authority and perpetuates the status quo. Why?
Because the polarization of public opinion precludes critical thinking.
The authority – be it a government, an institution (such as organized religion), or any hierarchically organized group – has an incentive to offer you simple answers to complex problems or “superheroes” who will take care of the thinking for you.
By dividing you into two neatly separated categories, the authority achieves the following:
- It ostensibly offers you an answer to your problems, thus lulling you into sleep and keeping you from critically addressing the situation.
- It conditions you to consider your “side” as the fully correct one, and the other “side” as the fully wrong one, keeping you both occupied with fighting each other.
- By presenting you with (false) binary dilemmas, it can steer the discourse in heated, only apparently important directions, causing you to miss the underlying reality.
Some Quick, One-Line Examples of Polarization and Binary Dilemmas
Here is a short list of minimalist examples of binary dilemmas. Look at the pairs below and try to think why they constitute a binary dilemma. Pay particular attention at how they match with the list above, i.e. what those in a position of authority achieve by presenting these dilemmas.
- Democrat or Republican?
- Left-wing or Right-wing?
- Capitalism or Communism?
- Democracy or Tyranny?
- Safety or Liberty?
Once you become conditioned to believe these constitute the only possibilities, they’ve got you by the proverbials. Because binary dilemmas are polarizing by their nature, people feel pretty strong about whichever side they pick.
You can’t afford not to vote for a Democrat/Republican candidate, because you can’t allow the other candidate to win. Similarly, you are conditioned to believe “there is no alternative”, because they threaten you with the Soviet UnionWe could have a long discussion about whether the Soviet Union was communist or not..
This way, with your binary behavior, you perpetuate the lesser-evil paradigm. It’s a race to the bottom.
So, what can you do to avoid becoming entrapped by binary dilemmas?
Escaping Binary Dilemmas
Whenever the game is rigged, leave it. That’s it. You wouldn’t be playing an unfair game, so why do you accept false dichotomies?
The first step in escaping a binary dilemma is to take a mental step back and realize there are always other options. Perhaps they are options with unpleasant consequences, but, as I mentioned, there aren’t any easy and simple answers.
A binary dilemma is a form of a strawman fallacy: It attempts to convince you of how great option A is, because it presents how bad its ostensibly only alternative option B appears. This way, it steers you away from seeing A’s repercussions.
The trick is to decide for yourself what your priorities are.
If you are a vegetarian at a dinner, and the only options are veal and chicken, you can create a third option for yourself, by eating nothing – or only a side dish. Perhaps there would be unpleasant consequences – say, you would draw attention to yourself and maybe put the host in a difficult position – but that’s where priorities enter the picture. If having control over what you eat is important to you, it’s highly likely you wouldn’t care enough about these consequences.
“But It’s not that Simple”
You might be thinking I’ve committed a strawman fallacy myself with the example above. You might say it’s not that simple.
And you would be right; it isn’t.
I would’ve committed a strawman fallacy if I had claimed it were. But it isn’t. As I’ve repeatedly stated, life is complex and there are no easy answers. However, the complex part is not the action but dealing with the consequences after you have figured out your priorities.
As, I believe, Thucydides has said, you can be either free or you can be peaceful; being both is impossible. Similarly, you have the freedom of making your own options, avoiding the binary dilemmas in front of you. But the repercussions can be unsettling.
I’ve abandoned Twitter and Facebook because my priorities were such that made such platforms of inanity incompatible with my priorities. This takes away a major source of free promotion for the blog. Fuck it; so be it.
I’ve also made a conscious decision to stay away from traditional publishing. The lessons I learned from my past experience with publishing houses make it imperative. Again, this basically means my art reaches a fraction of the audience it could have. Again, fuck it. I prioritize artistic freedom.
There are always options. But they come with repercussions. The authority scares you with these repercussions, but there has to come a point when you ask yourself the big question.
What’s the authority’s stake in all this?
2 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
FB has one saving grace – for me: it is my online support group for the disease which has devastated my life and for which medicine offers nothing. Other than that, it was a place to communicate ONLY with like minded people during the recent politics – for a place to dump frustration there was no way to make useful; I was aware of that, of choosing to do that, of accepting its limitations.
I need it a lot less now – and accordingly give it much less time (the disease isn’t any better, and we’re about to be joined by a huge number of long-covid types, and they are new and needy and self-centered – and still hoping for salvation, which might even happen, and might even include other people with long-term post-viral syndromes).
But I create those dichotomies at the critical decision points in my writing ON PURPOSE: how a character responds, positively, negatively, or wishy-washily, is the touchstone to character. Things aren’t as pure in life as they can be made in fiction, so it is possible to examine the principles in fiction that we try to soften in life.
When the writer is the arbiter for every single word in the story, the power to say precisely what we want is huge. Too many writers don’t use this power properly. It’s harder if you also want to be read, but the absoluteness of the power is quite real.
Other people, non-writers, need to become dictators to have similar power, and only think theirs is absolute. 🙂
This last paragraph reminded me of a scene from Ridley Scott’s 1492, where a nobleman is about to pour wine into another one’s cup, but withholds it in the last moment, with the words: “The fascinating thing about power is that what can be given so effortlessly can so easily be taken away.” 😎