If you don’t like Dr. Who, you can’t really consider yourself a nerd.
If you didn’t graduate from college, you’re lazy.
If you haven’t been to every Taylor Swift concert, you’re not a real fan.
Do any of these statements rub you the wrong way? Are you grinding your teeth right now, insisting that you wear the Swifite label proudly, and that those other posers probably don’t even have her unreleased demos or ultra-rare video of Taylor at her first rock concert?
False Dichotomies like these are everywhere.
This fallacy emerges when we're presented with choices that seem binary, leaving no room for nuance or complexity. It’s either black or white, and shame on you for considering the wrong side.
Let’s make sure we can recognize these for what they are—dangerous traps that can lead to disastrous outcomes—and learn to avoid them by way of historical cautionary tales.
Faustian Dichotomies
The Faustian bargain I wrote about just two days ago between Britain and Germany is also a great example of a false dichotomy that led to disastrous results. As Hitler’s appetite and boldness grew, the conversation in the rest of Europe began to speak in terms of two potential approaches: total war, or appeasement.
Much has been said of Prime Minister Chamberlain’s decision to throw the UK’s lot in for appeasement, but I find little discussion about the initial conditions that made this disaster possible. By framing the situation itself as “you’re either pro-total-war, or you’re for appeasement”, alternatives were thrown out like so much bathwater.
Since the leadup to World War II, many different “in between” approaches have been used to deter aggressive actions by hostile nations. Most notably, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the west didn’t simply declare total war on Russia, nor did it rush in to appease Putin (although a few global leaders have certainly taken this approach).
Instead, President Biden loudly called out what Russia was planning to do, sharing the evidence of the mounting troops with the wider world. Then, after Russia denied that it would invade and the did it anyway, a series of unprecedented sanctions were deployed, including limiting Russia’s ability to do business with other nations.
This in-between approach may or may not work, but it’s certainly a far cry from the binary “appeasement or total war” concept we’ve seen in the past.
With Us or Against Us
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
In fairness, 9/11 really, really stung us Americans. For the first time in the lives of the majority of the population, the US was attacked on its territory. It’s hard to overstate how shocking this was at the time.
I vividly remember the morning of September 11th, in the same way that my parents’ generation remembers what they were doing when Kennedy was shot.
When the veil of invulnerability had been lifted, fear and projection got into the driver’s seat. The above quote from George W Bush is from just eleven days after the attack, and it might be the best example of a false dichotomy that led to disastrous consequences I’ve experienced in my own lifetime.
If you opposed the war in Afghanistan, you were in the silent minority, or at least that’s how I felt. Two years later, the US built on this momentum of “anti-terrorism” to attack Iraq, with the false justification that there were WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction).
Dubya’s “with us or against us” statement left no room for in-between steps. Now, the US is deeply in debt from these wars, and the world trusts us a whole lot less. People are cynical, veterans are damaged (physically and mentally), and our relationships with our neighbors is frayed.
Zero Sum
Let’s talk about climate change for a minute.
The conversation often boils down to a false dichotomy: economic growth versus environmental protection. On one side, there's the idea that imposing stringent environmental regulations would hamper industrial growth and job creation, leading to a loss of life (and quality of life) for millions. On the other side, failing to act would result in catastrophic environmental consequences, affecting life on Earth in unpredictable and potentially devastating ways.
Here's the thing: both sides have legitimate concerns. We need to consider how rolling out new infrastructure will impact millions of jobs, particularly in economies already strained by external factors, like Russia's recent actions in Europe. Likewise, the immediate cessation of oil production is not a viable option when so many global systems depend on it.
But these concerns do not mean the situation is zero-sum. Instead of “either/or”, we need to think “both/and.”
We'll have to walk a lot of tightropes and perform a delicate balancing act between these two poles. Economic growth isn’t about money as much as it is about health care, infrastructure, innovation… essentially, anything that improves the human condition over time in major ways. It’s worth fighting for, and so is the future of the planet.
Walk and Chew Gum
Today’s world is a complex place. There are 8 billion of us, and we each seem to have our own way of viewing the world.
This means that a strict “either/or” mentality can be much more of a hindrance than a help. Instead of focusing on false dichotomies, we should direct our energy toward finding middle-ground solutions that respect the multiplicity of challenges we face. This means questioning our biases, acknowledging the legitimacy of differing views, and being open to compromise.
By recognizing the pitfalls of binary thinking, we are taking the first step toward creating a more nuanced, complex, and ultimately more realistic understanding of the world.
What are some examples of false dichotomies you’ve noticed out there? Help me think about this by joining in the comments!
An issue I notice increasingly (although maybe it was always like this) is that on pretty much every topic, the debate is always dominated by those on the extremes, and therefore the debate becomes very much "A is all good and B is all bad" or vice versa.
For passive followers of the debate, all they hear is these opposing extreme views that seem (indeed, are) too far apart for any constructive debate
I've been thinking a lot about this and I haven't really formulated a good answer for this question, maybe you have some input that could help. How does one build bridges in divided, partisan country? To me, it seems like a tall order considering everything that's happening today i.e. identity politics. I for one, would like to work towards unity but I understand that 8 billion of us means that there are at least 8 billion perceptions of what should be the best way to live. I also tend to think at the micro level, within my immediate family/community and not so much at the macro level. Maybe I need to practice magnanimity. Good food for thought here.