To resolve Binary Thinking and its resultant Synthetic Conflict requires managing Ambivalence Intolerance at the grassroots level.
Ambivalence is the coexistence of opposing attitudes or emotions, and is a natural part of human experience. However, many individuals struggle with ambivalence and tend to resolve this discomfort through psychological “splitting” into binary thinking. This tendency to categorize experiences and beliefs into “we vs. they” or “good vs. bad” can have far-reaching implications, turning even trivial matters into arenas of conflict.
Binary Thinking and the “We vs. They” Mentality
Binary Thinking simplifies complex issues into two opposing sides. This dichotomy is evident in various aspects of life, from brand loyalty in consumer choices (e.g., auto manufacturers) to fierce rivalries in sports teams and academic affiliations. People who are intolerant of ambivalence often cling to one side of an issue, viewing the other side as fundamentally opposed to their own. This perspective fosters an “us vs. them” mentality, reducing discussions to entrenchments.
Synthetic Conflict and the Escalation to War
When binary thinking becomes widespread, societal divisions deepen. As more individuals join opposing sides, the potential for Synthetic Conflict increases. Synthetic Conflict is conflict manufactured by the very act of polarization. This phenomenon is largely due to Cumulative Radicalization, which can be understood as long-term Ambivalence Intolerance through Splitting. As each side reinforces its own views and demonizes the other, tensions escalate.
Splitting
Splitting is a stage of response to Ambivalence Intolerance which is characterized by the cognitive and emotional division of perceptions, people, or ideas into mutually exclusive categories of wholly positive or wholly negative, thereby avoiding the discomfort of mixed or conflicting feelings.
In a professional context, a person experiencing splitting might view a colleague as highly competent and trustworthy when they agree on a project but immediately shift to seeing them as completely incompetent and deceitful when a disagreement arises. This response helps the individual avoid the discomfort of recognizing that their colleague has both strengths and weaknesses.
Cumulative Radicalization and Ambivalence Intolerance
Cumulative Radicalization describes the process by which ongoing intolerance of ambivalence leads to increasingly radical viewpoints. Over time, the refusal to acknowledge and integrate opposing perspectives creates an environment ripe for conflict. This process is compounded by the “itchy trigger finger” of militias, both legitimate and otherwise, ready to act on perceived threats.
Ambivalence intolerance involves discomfort with ambiguity and a strong need for clear, unambiguous resolutions.
The Unanswered Question
This pattern of Binary Thinking and Synthetic Conflict raises a critical, yet unanswered, question:
“Why are people so intolerant of their own ambivalence?”
Understanding this intolerance will prove crucial to addressing the root causes of polarization and conflict in society.
Conclusion
The intolerance of ambivalence and the resulting Binary Thinking not only oversimplify complex issues but also foster environments of Synthetic Conflict. As more individuals succumb to this dichotomous perspective, the potential for real-world conflict grows, driven by long-term Cumulative Radicalization. Addressing the underlying reasons for Ambivalence Intolerance is essential for fostering a less polarized world.