I cannot help but wonder why either-or, yes-no, take it-leave it thinking is so popular. What makes delving into the shades of gray, the nuances of a position, unattractive?
I’m sure some of the preference relates to survival. Certainty increases the probability of our survival. If we know that something is poisonous, then eating it (yes) versus not eating it (no) becomes a clear choice; survival is improved by a no response.
Survival, however, also requires curiosity. Survival requires us to explore the uncertainty of the world around us. Babies pick up objects and put them in their mouth. Children ask a parent for a treat and, regardless of the answer, will ask the other parent the same question. They are curious about what kinds of questions get a yes from both parents, what kinds of questions get a no from both parents, and what kinds of questions get the crucial yes/no response. The final outcome, a different response from each parent, allows the uncertainty to become an opportunity. With further “experiments,” the child learns to predict under what circumstances each parent is more likely to support their request.
Part of the assessment process for entering kindergarten is listening skills. This includes the ability to wait until someone is finished speaking before you add to the conversation. This is, in “fact” important in a conversation, but so is enthusiasm. So, if a teacher is reading a story and a child wants to interject about their experience with something in the story, why do we consider that “poor listening”? Isn’t it really poor impulse control or poor memory (fear they will forget what they wanted to say) or something positive (like involvement in learning)? In elementary school, we have them take multiple choice tests to prove that they have read a book. Why is it more important to know what the first obstacle for the Pokey Little Puppy was than it is to discuss that sometimes we are as pokey as that puppy and sometimes what we discover while being pokey is super interesting? Why has reading for facts become more important than reading to discuss shared human emotions? Why do we teach children a particular way to solve a math problem and make them think any other way is “wrong” when, in fact there are multiple ways to solve the same problem. Division may be faster than subtraction, but the end result is the same.
As adults, we take these lessons and apply them to our social lives. If our significant other hurts our feelings, they are “bad”. The either/or thinking – apologize or risk losing the relationship– kicks in. Our focus become this one “fact” within the storyand, based on that one fact there is one right answer: apologize. If we are curious, we will ask why they said that hurtful thing, or we will ask ourselves what we did to provoke that hurtful comment.
We could certainly apply this to situations in our larger community. Rather than asking does climate change exist (yes/no), wouldn’t it be more productive to ask what evidence supports/contradicts it? Isn’t it important to consider the possibilities and uncertainties involved in action or inaction in this area? Similarly, vaccines are better thought of in terms of the benefits/risks rather than either/or. Food choices do not need to be meat-eater or vegan; there are options in between. We don’t need to hate or love others; we can choose to tolerate them – or better yet, we can choose to try to understand them.
I wonder what the world would be like if we embraced the quest for curiosity and possibility rather than the quest for the one correct answer, for the “fact,”. Imagine the meaningful solutions that could be generated.