Beyond Black & White: The Risk of Thinking in Binaries

As humans, we have the innate need to label things and categorize them into boxes (Liberman et al., 2017). We derive a sense of satisfaction from picking one side of the current hot debate, taking a strong stance in order to convince both others and yourself, and then having it reaffirmed through echo chambers present on virtually every platform. Before your brain can even realise, you are thinking in binary terms. It is your own beliefs first, opposing beliefs second. At this point, it would take something close to a miracle to change your mind. No matter how convincing and sound the argument from anyone else is, it is likely that you are cemented in your position. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as black-and-white thinking, is also known as binary thinking. It wields immense power to divide communities, fuel the polarization of different groups, and in some cases, even create the fertile ground for the seeds of extremism to be sown and grown. 

At its core, binary thinking is a cognitive distortion in which we tend to oversimplify issues that are too complex for us to fully perceive, by sorting them into two mutually exclusive categories. Thinking binarily means a situation’s intricacies can easily be ignored and thus, encourages people to adopt an “either-or” perspective on issues (Oxford Review Enterprises Ltd., 2024). We can view this phenomenon through the lens of the Social Identity Theory which was first put forward by Tajfel and Turner (2004). This theory explains how individuals derive part of their self-identity from membership in social groups, leading to favouritism for the in-group and comparisons with out-groups, in order to maintain positive self-esteem.

An example where this can be observed is at the workplace. Say, a person notices that more immigrants (the out-group)  are being hired for a particular company, while a few of this person’s local friends (the in-group) are being laid off. In an instant, binary thinking kicks into action: an ‘Us vs Them’ mentality is triggered. The person views the new hires as ‘infiltrators’, they are then thought of as ‘bad’, and finally, stereotypes are activated in which immigrants are said to be taking people’s jobs. However, the danger is that it doesn’t stop here. When binary thinking interacts with group polarization, a process where groups become increasingly extreme in their positions and move toward opposing ends of a spectrum (Wu et al., 2022), the resulting harm is serious. Take for instance the January 6th riots in the United States which was sparked by QAnon conspiracies; it serves as one of the most prominent examples in recent years of how binary narratives can be weaponized (Zihiri et al., 2022). Supporters of the QAnon movement viewed themselves (the ingroup) as virtuous truth-seekers fighting corrupt elites (the outgroup) and this mindset not only polarized, but also radicalised the supporters as they felt justified by a belief in a moral crusade. The ripple effect comes into play because with critical thinking pushed aside, extremism – convictions opposing societal values  through non-violent or violent means (Trip et al., 2019) – flourishes, especially in binary frameworks. 

To discuss how binary thinking affects us, it is necessary to note that this thought pattern is not inherently malicious, but is simply a mental shortcut which is deeply rooted in human cognition. According to Pratto and Shih (2000), humans naturally rely on simplicity to manage the world’s complexities. This process involves categorization—good vs. bad, us vs. them, or right vs. wrong. While this simplifies decision-making and reduces mental effort, it frequently overlooks the areas outside the boxes, further underlining binary thinking. The thought pattern is also exacerbated by the availability heuristic, which proposes that individuals rely on the first available piece of information when evaluating critical situations (Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D., 1974). Additionally, the risk of framing effects is also dominant (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), which posits that the way issues are presented significantly impacts our thinking. Binary framing, such as “you’re either with us or against us,” encourages rigid perspectives, and once again,  leaves little room for compromise on ‘grey areas’.

Now that we have outlined the internal workings of binary thinking, it is vital to bring up its biggest enabler today: social media. It is a common, often over-exhausted point that social media has some pretty adverse effects, but if we take a moment to consider the sheer speed it occurs at – it’s fascinatingly horrific. It is no secret that algorithms are fed to us on the basis of content we ‘like’ and believe in (Del Vicario et al., 2016) but what we often fail to see is that this creates an ‘echo chamber’ where similar opinions are continuously reinforced and the majority of dissenting views are dismissed, further forming ‘filter bubbles’. Moreover, complicated stories are boiled down to memes or 280-character-texts for the simple greed of fast and easy user consumption, strongly encouraging snap judgements. All in all, groupthink is accelerated at such a hyper-speed that people don’t even recall when they started to conform to the dominating opinion – because thinking binarily, at that point, has become the norm. 

Overall, binary thinking, while a natural cognitive shortcut, poses significant risks when it goes unchecked. From polarizing communities to fostering extremism, this black-and-white ‘all or nothing’ view of the world fuels division, amplifies hostility, and erodes empathy. In a world increasingly defined by ideological battles, it is crucial to challenge narratives and therefore, embrace the risk of straying from the binaries. So, the next time you find yourself thinking in absolutes, take a minute to pause and ask yourself: Is there more to this story? The answer is almost always yes.