“Being Human” — Binarization
I purposefully withheld discussing the notion of binary thinking for a while. Partially, binary thinking is so deeply human that it feels like a train moving at an impossible speed; there’s no slowing it down. The other component is that binary thinking is one of the easiest to reinforce because it inherently contains a very strong smidge of truth.
Binary thinking is the idea that ideas and things can be categorized most basely through a process of binary labels. The world is made of a lot of nouns, and there are any number of ways to split the world into two pieces using a formulaic approach of “[insert adjective here]” and “not [insert adjective here]”. It’s sometimes referred to black-and-white thinking, which does showcase a stunning visual analogy of the process, but is more closely related to an idea like “black/not-black” thinking.
The black-and-white thinking grasps the basic behavior; one thinks in extremes and only considers two possibilities. The silver lining here is that typical black-and-white binary thinking has a readily available solution.
After all, black and white is an insane argument. Humans have literally never had only two choices.
It doesn’t necessitate that a third option is desirable, or even comfortable. It is often enough to say, “there is a third option.”
If world necessarily has three options, why bother thinking in binary at all? It’s efficient and maximizes pure chance for success. I want it to be deeper and more philosophically impactful, but most flatly binary thinking is extremely easy. It’s the basis for artificial computation, and we have reason to believe that it’s a primary mechanism in how we think as well. Forming memories, recalling information, synthesizing new ideas could all be the result of millions of binary choices made in the span of seconds.
So why not consider the tri-nary? Well, if we can create grey from black and white, and we can add further and further granularity to the grey scale by mixing black and grey to make slate, slate and grey to make timberwolf, etc. can’t we theoretically model all phenomena as a string of permuted binaries? Even more basic, why bother computing in the tri-nary when we can reduce three choices to two?
Well. Yeah.
But the binary can only serve us when we want one of two options. That’s the danger of the bigger form binary thinking. The binary language of computers is a series of 0 and 1, in chains beyond most human comprehension. The logical operators used to facilitate the interpretation of this language is one of yes and no, or more appropriately, True and False, True and Not. The seed of truth is there; the notion of “not” seems to be a very fluid divider for splitting the world into two pieces.
Consider a world divided between:
Things that are and are not red.
Things that are and are not August.
Things that are and are not good.
Oh no. The real trouble has shown up. Intrinsically, these binaries are not equitable — things that are “not red”, “not August”, not [insert descriptor here] dwarf the other half of the binary. Additionally, there are objective standards for some binaries. Humans general scientifically agreed on “red” (though there’s definitely wiggle room and room for nuance). I am August, and there are certainly others, but the rest of the world is decidedly not “properly” August.
What’s good? What’s not good?
The combination of subjectivity, linguistic ambiguity, and a binary structure is dangerous in that you almost immediately arrive at friction between any two participants. You and I can’t have the exact same perspective of good even with the same definition because we have different histories with and references to the idea of good. The friction is lessened by our ability to incorporate some fuzzy logic — we can appreciate similar ideas (subjectively similar here, distinctly different from two perceptively similar yet unique phenomena) as “close enough.”
But that’s just it, in order to make binary thinking work, we have to admit that it’s inherently impossible for us to coexist through that line of thoughts. The binary has to be illusory by nature of the constraints of interaction between two humans.
Fun enough, that concept nullifies all of the binaries that don’t rely on “not.” The male-female binary? Immediately shattered given that you and have to have — at best — “similar” definitions of what a female is. Same goes every human phenomena because all the human features we juxtapose onto harsh binaries are actual the composition of hundreds, even thousands or more combinations of resulting binary events. Both sides of the infamous Nature versus Nurture debate willingly admit that either side is wildly complex, and that it is excessively difficult to point to any specific binary as causal for a resulting complex behavior. The result is necessarily a spectrum of possibilities beyond human calculation (certainly within a human lifetime).
We’re so addicted to the “yes-no” binary thought pattern despite it being self-defeating in practice. It has to have served us at some point; likely, it was probably much more useful when communication was a more limited game (when a language was necessarily smaller) and when humans were more frequently encountering existential threats that demanded a “live-or-die” response.
That’s food. That’s not food.
That’s life. That’s not life.
That’s danger. That’s not danger.
These moment certainly still exist. But think about where these binaries are most useful in these words. They’re exactly for existential threats and they’re core lessons for naive brains. It’s how we teach kids.
Language is bigger these days. Situations are arguably much more complex.
The binary served us at some point. Arguably binary systems are much easier to handle than tri-nary and beyond.
Binary thinking doesn’t serve us anymore.
Beyond that. The expectations and social pressure enforced by the binary is killing people. The binary structure IS creating existential threats for marginalized groups. Through complicit action in social contracts that enforce binary thinking…
You are assisting in the death of those that exist further from average than you.
So there are two primary situations to consider for the individual.
- You feel subject to an oppressive binary structure.
- You are enforcing (passively or otherwise) an oppressive binary structure.
The first case is idiomatically “between a rock and a hard place.” In my own experience, it’s often enough to consider that we exist in three dimensions, and that there is wiggle room in one of those dimensions. It has been helpful to follow some simple pointers.
- Recognize the feeling of only having two options.
- Consider inaction as action.
- Ask for an outside perspective.
The third point is perhaps most important. Outsiders have an interesting quality in that they aren’t usually subject to the oppression of the binary structure we’re suffering under. As such, they have an ignorance that allows them to brainstorm wildly. While a number of their solutions may be infeasible, the fact that they are providing additional options begins to break down the rigid binary thinking in which we feel trapped. Furthermore, they may well be able to think of something new that does work, because they aren’t burdened by the pressure of the result.
In the case that you are the oppressor (passively or otherwise), the most crucial step to growth is to recognize your binary stance. In my experience, it will most often take the crude form of, “I’m [this] and they are not.” Pitting yourself against others reinforces an old state of “us vs them” — or even more primal “me vs us”. If you can recognize your binary stance, the next step is appreciate whether or not the “threat” is existential. That is, does the existence of the other side of your binary pose a life-or-death risk for you.
Right now, in America, the existence of the police force as is poses an existential threat to people of color.
Right now, in America, the existence of trans people poses at best a threat of discomfort to “Christians.”
If you’re going to use binary thinking, make sure it’s about your life and death, and not about what makes you feel uncomfortable. You’re not going to be uncomfortable’d to death. But feel free to prove me wrong.
- Recognize where you’re drawing a line in the sand.
- Consider whether that line is between life and death.
- Act if it’s existential, otherwise mind yourself and move on.
Remember, the “them” is often human. Human, like me. Like you.
Sincerely Not You,
August
