Since this Post Continues to Get a Lot of Hits, I want to Inform those Still Hitting it that I have Posted something Even Better on the Subject in a More Recent Post Entitled, "Black and White Thinking; The Definition is Gray." Naturally, though, you are also Free to Read what Follows Below. 2/5/20011
The Original Post
Man! You know what? Communication can be so hard at times. I still feel bad about a comment that Griper submitted that I decided not to Post. He is always polite and my only complaint is that he was getting off subject, but the real reason is because we have been going back and forth for ever and ever over the subject of "Back and White" thinking and when ever I try and clear up this confusion, all that results is more and more confusion. Even now, I am wondering if submitting this Post to my Blog is going to invite even more confusion and lead to a lot of confusing comments below it. I almost feel as if I'm at a loss and do not know what to do about it.
I wonder if someone out there could explain better than I can what Black and White thinking is and when it is and isn't appropriate.
Mixed in with this whole Black and White idea is the idea of Balance verses Extremes. I really do hope that someone smarter than me can participate in this discussion and help bring more clarity to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
One approach, a simple one, is the allegory of digital vs analog: digital processing involves ON/OFF,
Yes/No, Black/White..Either/Or, while analog processing involves the state of things: our old car dial has a needle pointing to lbs of Oil Pressure (analog) and the new one has a red light that says
Low Oil (digital), the digital watch compared to the dial watch, etc. And an argument could be made for people being digital or analog "thinkers". On your sidebar subjects, note the 'choice' offered..five _and_ and one _vs_ , suggesting either/or. The black and white thing is natural, perhaps inevitable when we are subjective in presenting an argument..certainly we admit naught that would even slightly damage our view. The formal analysis in problem solving..
listing the good vs bad in seeking an outcome, we likely all do to some extent 'in our head'; subject, of course to our own bias, background and starting view of things. One consequence, I've probably mentioned before, is that black may not like white (and vice versa), but they both intensely dislike gray! We also avoid critical thinking, because we don't accept information or data that we disagree with...lest we
be budged into the awful gray area. Much of the subject matter in blogs/conversations involves opinion, thus we see the frequent disclaimer IMO, IMHO. This, IMO (ha!) permits of a subtle admission of possible gray. So,
you didn't want to 'invite more confusion', but now I'm confused as well.
Back for more of a response later.
"is that black may not like white (and vice versa), but they both intensely dislike gray!"
that i'll agree with in the sense that it makes one appear to be straddling a fence in regards to issues and knows he has to jump off some time but doesn't want to in fear of making enemies of the other side thus doesn't know which side to jump to.
as for the gray issue itself just because we see it in different ways does not mean we deny its existence nor, may i add, does it make either one of us wrong or right in how we see it.
the fact you see it in terms of issues only declares you do not think it possible to break that issue down to a black and white issue. and imo every issue can be broken down to that.
everyone has a black or white viewpoint on some issues. and those black or white views will usually be those issues we feel very strongly on. another aspect of a black or white viewpoint is that when one supports a black or white view they usually feel confident that they can defend their position on it.
the only problem with holding a black or white viewpoint on an issue is the fact that someone will eventually come along who will make you look foolish for holding the position in the first place.
Having an Open mind is key
I could ramble on and on in relation to this subject and wish that I had the time. I just wanted to pop in and say a quick hello to "The Gray Headed Brother". Thanks for dropping by. I agree with your comment whole heartedly. A lot of times the shortest answer is the most right on!! Please come by again because I have so much more to say.
"the only problem with holding a black or white viewpoint on an issue is the fact that someone will eventually come along who will make you look foolish for holding the position in the first place." Indeed. Because in the 'opinion' world, time will prove one correct and one wrong.
The gray thinkers are either not interested, refuse to make up their mind based on insufficient evidence, or fear being wrong.
As GH Bro notes, they may just be keeping an 'open mind'. Probably why opinion polls offer the check square 'no opinion'? The further we stray from mathematical proofs, the more prevalent the grayness.
"I don't know" is one of the most powerful attributes a science researcher can possess; his/her
experiment design will be freer of bias than those that approach with a preconceived concept they seek to prove..and as Griper notes, they will need not admit of being wrong. :)
Personally, I don't agree with the premise behind "grey areas". Grey areas stem from a distant view without centralized focus. This "grey" appearance is a result of too often generalizing an isse rather than looking at its intracate parts.
Were you to look at the intracate parts, you'd find black and white dots (positions if you will).
I wonder how many comments I'm going to have to do in order to respond to all of the above. I already have about 3/4 of a page written in response to the very first comment submitted by BB, which I'm going to divide into two comments. Oh well. Let's just do this a little bit at a time.
BB,
The Digital Red Light is not as detailed as an Analogue Pressure Gauge, for it simply reads "Low Oil" when it reaches a certain number of lbs of pressure. It could easily be said that the Digital Light does not tell the entire story.
The Digital Red Light could even be described as Overly Simplified, as is reflected by my fathers attitude towards such lights, which he calls "Idiot Lights", because too often they do not come on until it is too late.
A Dial Watch is not Black and White because it is not and either/or sort of thing, but rather provides an entire Circle of Data.
The Digital Watch isn't really Black and White either, though, because even though it is Digital, it displays more than two options, in that there 1,440 possible minutes in any 24 hour period. When seconds are also displayed, the number of possible numbers displayed is even higher.
In the __vs__ example from my side bar subjects, the two things mentioned usually reflect Extremes, thus the two far ends of a spectrum. A Black and White thinker only sees the Extremes and thinks that he has to make a choice between the two, not realizing that there is an entire line of possibilities between them.
From Subjective Experience, we assume that the only solution to the Negative Extreme that we are reacting to is the Opposite Extreme and we do not consider that even something a little less Extreme would take the edge off of the Negative Experience. If only we could realize this, it would be so much easier to compromise, whether than demanding a solution that is just as Extreme as the one we are reacting to.
I do not think that Black and White thinking is inevitable, BB. I think it is something limited that we should try and get past.
Even your Good vs Bad/Pro. vs Con. example over looks something, for there are always factors that we feel sort of neutral about. The fact that we usually do not include these things when making a decision does not cause them to not exist.
As soon as we realize that something we feel neutral about might matter to someone else, if we care about others besides ourselves, than these previously considered neutral items might be added to the list of pros and cons once we realize that these things do matter to someone.
Your comment that Black and White do not like Gray is interesting and this is probably the best reason why both Black and White are more Negative than not, for Gray represents Compromise and Compromise is needed in order for people to get along. And, yes, Black and White thinking prevents Critical Thinking.
Opinion does not have to exclude Gray, though, for IMHO, Gray is a valid option and should not be excluded from consideration. Even the idea that Opinions can not include Gray is an example of Black and White Thinking.
Don't be confused, BB. Believe it or not, I'm actually not. I'm quite clear on my own ideas on this subject, I'm just realizing by the responses that I'm having a little trouble conveying these ideas in a clear manner.
Griper,
Even the idea of Straddling a Fence is in some ways more Black and White, than Grey, for it still assumes only two options; One Side of the Fence or the Other.
To fully understand all of the Gray, you have to see the entire spectrum between the Extremes. If a person sees only Black (One Extreme) and White (The Other Extreme) and also a Fence (The Exact Middle), this person is still missing the fact that there are many options along the line, even on only one side of the Fence.
The analogy of Straddling a Fence still assumes that a decision needs to be made between only two options (Black and White) and over looks the fact that just because someone takes a position closer to the fence than someone else, does not mean that this person has, or is even considering, actually crossing over.
A Moderate Republican is still a Republican and a Moderate Democrat is still a Democrat. In order to cross over, they would have to switch over to the other party, and no matter which party a person is in, there are still lots of options between the Fence and the Extreme. So you see, only seeing the Black and White (Republican/Democrat) is Over Simplifying and Limiting One's Options.
I do not see the idea of breaking "that issue down to a black and white issue" as a positive, Griper. I feel that that Over Simplifies and Limits One's Options. Why would Limiting One's Options be considered a Positive?
Feeling "very Strongly" on an issue, Griper, is not always a good thing either, for often our Emotions get in the way of Reason. The idea that "Feeling Strongly", though, leads to Black and White Thinking is absolutely correct.
My opinion is that both Black and White Thinking and Excess Emotion are Negatives, not Positives, and I try to avoid both.
I guess I already responded to Gray Headed Brother, who I agree with whole heartedly.
BB,
"Because in the 'opinion' world, time will prove one correct and one wrong."
This is again, only two options.
"Gray Thinkers"..."refuse to make up their minds".
Some "Gray Thinkers" have made up their mind in a very clear way, but have taken a position in the Middle, rather than way over to one Extreme or the other. Remember, to assume that there are only two options is Black and White Thinking.
I agree with you, BB, that the "I don't know" position is a "Powerful Attribute" that frees people from Bias. That's very well said.
Soap,
"This 'gray' appearance is a result of too often generalizing an issue, rather than looking at its intricate parts."
I feel that it's just the opposite. Black and White is more Generalized (ONLY TWO OPTIONS) than Gray (The Entire Spectrum).
Even though "the Entire Spectrum" is made up of Black and White dots, this is not what I mean when I say Black and White Thinking. Perhaps I should have defined it better from the start. Black and White Thinkers are those who have a tendency to reduce everything down to "Only Two Options, instead of seeing all the Many Possibilities in between.
When you infer that there are more than two options Lista, you're getting away from fundamental premises and responses and instead looking at consequences or corollaries.
For example, consider the issue of whether or not to take steps to gain more equity on your residence.
One could pay down more of the principle, they could put on an addition, they could do some landscaping, they could remodel the kitchen.
Those "options" are virtually infinite.
However, with respect to the fundamental issue, subject, topic or premise, there are really only two options.
One is taking the necessary means to increase the equity. The other is doing nothing.
Soap,
"With respect to the fundamental issue, subject, topic or premise, there are really only two options. One is taking the necessary means to increase the equity. The other is doing nothing."
If one decides to do nothing, that is pretty simple and basic, but the decision to so something is full of not only "Options" by "Degrees". By this I mean that someone could do a lot or only a little and this would still constitute doing something.
The bottom line is this... Who is being more helpful, someone who only points out the two options, producing a guilt trip on the one who decides to do nothing, or the one who points out a few of the many options and thus helps in the thinking process that will lead to a solution to the problem?
As I recall, Griper at one point noted that most folk tend black or white on issues which are important to them, while may be gray in others. The point I tried to make above was that the black/white/gray paradigm frequently appears in 'opinion', which I think you noted, often comes with emotional baggage as well as basic data. I used to think that morality was an area where gray seldom occurs, but when we start sorting through the issues regarding the importance of human life, for example, we have
killing of unborn, killing of soldiers, killing of comatose, killing of enemies, legal execution, killing of experimental zygotes, killing of someone breaking into our house, killing someone while drunk driving, euthanasia, etc.
If a formal hypothetical list were
made, I'm pretty sure most folks
would check off black here, white there, etc. Personally, I have no problem with either black/white or
gray thinking processes..consider the common school test: some answers require true/false..others require compare/contrast...two different approaches, both legitimate. Somewhat relative is our confidence level..there are times when 'I don't know' is honest..then the obverse: when my boy was a tyke, he was cocky (uber confident)..I heard "I know dat!"
a dozen times a day! One early evening there was a zaaap! and the lights went out. Kid is sitting by the electrical outlet with a bobby pin and smoking diapers. Me, "I told you before, you can get killed doing that!"...Kid, "I know dat"
..a little off track, but an example of what Griper observed as a disadvantage of the white (or in this case dusty) black position.
A final (thankfully) observation:
when we hold very strong views, we tend to regard the opposite as an enemy..the old 'if ya ain't wit me..' aphorism. This precludes any meaningful dialog, although I like to think that some of us will retain some oppositional argument and in the future (out of sight, in the dark) admit the other side made a good point. :)
"The bottom line is this... Who is being more helpful, someone who only points out the two options, producing a guilt trip on the one who decides to do nothing, or the one who points out a few of the many options and thus helps in the thinking process that will lead to a solution to the problem?"
Actually the "bottom line" as it pertains to black and white thinking as I understand it is this:
You can choose to do something (think of this as white) OR you can choose to do nothing (by contrast think of this as black).
Hello Everyone,
Before I respond to BB's and Soap's most recent comments, I'm going to have to go back to some of the earlier ones, for as I left the computer for awhile, I kept thinking of more things I could say.
Griper,
"The fact you see it in terms of issues only declares you do not think it possible to break that issue down to a black and white issue."
I never said that, nor do I believe it. Of course "Every issue can be broken down to that" (Black and White) and Soapbox has pointed out an example of such. My intend was never to show that Black and White does not exist, but only to point out that just because issues "can be broken down to that", that doesn't mean that they should be.
Just as I said before, Strong Emotion does not establish that something is correct or right.
Soap,
Your comment is the one I've been the most thinking on. That is the one that you submitted at 6:48 AM this morning. In it, you mentioned "a distant view without centralized focus" and "the intricate parts" including many small "Black and White Dots".
This illustration is an interesting one because you are absolutely right that a picture is made up of many small Black and White Dots, just as a computer message can be broken down into many on/off switches, yet what this brings to my mind is how when anyone looks that closely and holds a picture that close to ones face, in order to see all the little Black and White Dots, it is impossible to see the picture itself.
It is only when the picture is held further away from ones face or when a person steps back just a little, that it is possible to see the entire picture, which includes not only areas of Black and White, but also areas of Gray.
Likewise, if we can see only that which is right in front of us or directly connected to our own personal lives, we will not be able to see the whole picture.
BB,
A Black and White thinker will only state that Killing is Wrong and will not break it down the way you did.
Though most people when pressed to think about it, will admit that Killing in Self-Defense is Ok, it requires an extra thought process to include this exception in a discussion. To make it a habit of continually overlooking the exceptions, though, creates and atmosphere of Legalism and Judgmentalism, rather than Reason.
Soapbox,
The fact that you did not understand my point, nor that your view is a simplification of something that can also include Gray (more options within the basic two) puzzles me.
My basic point Lista is that a picture does not include areas of grey but rather areas of black, areas of white, and then areas which feature a mixture of the two.
What's more, the "picture" is merely the sum of its intricate parts.
Lastly, I would challenge your argument in your last post in that you are operating not on one premise but two.
Killing is one premise.
Self Defense (with potential death resulting) is a wholly seperate premise.
Not to continue throwing around examples but I'll offer this one as it came to mind as an appropriate analogy to what I'm inferring.
Let's suppose you were to ask someone:
"Is it inapropriate to touch a young child's behind or their private area?"
Obviously anyone with any sense of moral decency is going to assert that it most definitely is.
However, what if you then asked:
"Well...what if it was your own child, a niece or nephew, or a friend's child and you were simply bathing them?"
Entirely different premise is it not?
It's disingenuous to the argument to suggest that the premise is the same for both.
Soap (Regarding First Comment),
Yes, and when the "areas which feature a mixture of the two" are viewed from a distance, they are Gray.
Also, haven't you ever heard the phrase that "The whole is more than a sum of its parts"? Black and White thinking sees only the Parts and not the Whole.
Your last point has more to do with the Definition of words than with a Premise. Killing can be broken down into at least two parts; Murder and Self-Defense. Murder is actually a more correct term for describing inappropriate Killing. If you decide to not include Self-Defense in the Definition of Killing, than this is still an argument about Definition, not Premise.
Soap (Regarding Second Comment),
Here is an example of a few exceptions...
A parent does touch the child's behind during a spanking and also the private area when necessary in order to treat a rash while changing the diaper.
You would call this Exception a Separate Premise. I call it an Exception. Isn't this just a disagreement in Terminology?
If a Child is told that "It's inappropriate to touch a young child's behind or their private area?" they may or may not understand the distinction unless it is explained to them.
Perhaps another way that I could explain Black and White Thinking is that the Premises are too broad, including things that should be either Exceptions or Separate Premises.
You use different language than I do. I'd change the way I talk except that my audience is bigger than just you.
Here is an interesting take the disadvantages of black/white 'thinking', as well as other simple barriers to thinking critically.
Thanks,
I look forward to reading that.
Hi BB,
Yes, that sounds just like what I've been saying; seeing things "in Extremes, with no Middle Ground". The Linked Web Page explains that "By doing this, they miss the reality that things rarely are one way or the other, but usually somewhere in-between.". This is also called "All-or-Nothing Thinking."
It's interesting that this type of thought pattern is included in a list of "Seven ways to misinterpret what is happening" or "Seven ways to get things wrong".
I knew that I wasn't the only one saying this. It just surprises me when I realize how many people act so clueless when I say it.
Indeed. B/W can easily lead to a formal logical fallacy known as the False Dilemma. Lots of interesting stuff out there Googling 'black white thinking'.
After reading from that link BB, I can only conclude that those persons suffering from such practices are not of sound mind. They're out of touch with reality and reason.
I guess that's why yours truly found such difficulty in understanding where Lista was originally coming from.
I'm very much in tune with reality. And, my only way in navigating through the sometimes complex maze of reality is through the means of logic and reason.
BB,
And there is yet more to read. Ok. I'll get back to that.
Soap,
There are degrees of Black and White Thinking, Soap. The worst of such thinking will lead someone to not be "of sound mind" and lead them to lose "touch with reality and reason". A more mild form of it will lead someone just to understand a particular subject incorrectly.
The fact, though, that "This type of thought pattern is included in a list of 'Seven ways to misinterpret what is happening' or 'Seven ways to get things wrong'.", should not be missed.
There is a verse in the Bible that I think I've quoted for you before.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Roman 3:23, JKV)
All this really means is that no one is perfect.
I have applied this to all sorts of things, such as when I was a part of a support group for "Dis-Functional Families", even though comparitably speaking, my family isn't that bad and yet in some respect "All families are Dis-Functional and 'fall short of' Perfect Functionality."
I could apply this same idea now to the discussion at hand. "'We have all' at one time or another been irrational, illogical, and 'fallen short of' Perfection in our Reason."
No one is perfect, Soap, and therefore, we all need to continually examine our thought processes and make sure there is nothing lacking even in that which we think we have mastered.
"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthtians 10:12, KJV)
Soap,
You know, the first Article that BB left a link to never says that those who have the listed thought processes are "not of sound mind". I don't think that that is what the article is about at all.
It's just about Misinterpreting and Drawing Wrong Conclusions and for anyone to claim that they never ever Draw Wrong Conclusions would be extremely Arrogant.
Now that I have read the Article more completely, I am convinced that at one time or another we have all done and continue to do all of the things that are listed.
Granted the Article does appear to be aimed at those who have Low Self-Esteem issues and are Negative Thinkers and some of the examples given are quite Dis-Functional, such as Filtering being seeing only the bad and not the good.
Filtering, though, can also be just seeing only what supports ones current point of view and ignoring that which doesn't. We all do that to some extend and need to make a conscious effort not to.
Another interesting thought I had is that if a person has a problem with Arrogance, rather than Low Self-Esteem, they would Filter things in exactly the opposite way, only seeing the Positives and not the Negatives.
Likewise, less Extreme Examples can be given for all of the things listed.
Yes, after reading the article, I am convinced that there is no such thing as a person who does not on occasion Misinterpret Reality. Perhaps if I use the word "Misinterpret", rather than "Distort", it will sound more normal, rather than so "Out of Touch". No one is Perfect, Soap. Not even you.
Balance and Extremes/Black, White and Gray: may we refer to Aristotle on the subject?
Is that my daily reading assignment? lol. Oh, I guess it's just a chart. Yes, very good, BB.
I probably would have put "Humility" in the Middle, though, and Low Self-Esteem on the Left and I would have included the words Overly Zealous and Pushy on the Right of "Apathy" (Left) and "Equanimity" (Middle). I guess the word "Apathy" can be the opposite of several things, not only one.
I think that my favorite of the set of Extremes listed is "Quarrelsomeness << Friendship >> Flattery".
Post a Comment