What will dissuade “radicalized” individuals like those who perpetrated the attack on Charlie Hebdo from carrying out such action in the future?  Criticism from the west? Criticism from clerics they view as puppets of the west? Arguments about morality?

Presumably, the goal of these terrorists was to discourage disrespect for the Prophet Mohammad. Their actions have called world attention to a publication that, up to now, has had a very small circulation. The “offensive” cartoons are being disseminated in even greater numbers. They have promoted anti-Muslim sentiment and violence around the world.

Terrorists are victims of DT. They are overwhelmed by it. The way to decrease the spread of terrorism and radicalization is to address the underlying problem, DT. The more we teach people, especially, young children, how easily DT leads to unwanted consequences, the harder it will be to radicalize them. Terrorist will stop being terrorists when they realize how counterproductive it is.

To any sensible person, US sanctions against Cuba have been a waste of time. After 50 years, the only effect has been to prop up the Cuban regime. All the arguments against normalization of relations are couched in small-minded dichotomous terms. Essentially, Cuba is bad and needs to be punished. I can’t think of a better example of DT supplanting problem-solving then the argument that maintaining the sanctions will somehow bring about change in Cuba. Today the president has handed DT a crushing defeat. He has not just taken a step that will benefit the people of both the US and Cuba, he has taken a step that will significantly promote long-term human evolution.

One argument against the U.S. engaging in torture is that it degrades our “moral authority.” Unfortunately the concept of “moral authority” is quite dichotomous. To many in this world the U.S. has no right to claim moral authority, with or without torture (or drone strikes). It is unfortunate this is the framework of the discussion. The real issue should be human evolution/development. If we do not progress as a species, we run the risk of extinction, either through our own direct actions or through inadvertent ecological collapse.

The best argument against torture is that it does not move us forward as a species. It represents a backward step in our evolution/development. Instead of trying to be a “moral leader” the U.S. should strive to be the leader in promoting human evolution/development. What makes the system in the U.S. great is the degree to which it promotes life and dignity. The argument should be from a more objective scientific/humanistic standpoint rather than from the more subjective moral standpoint. This would avoid the dichotomous noise that comes from the arguments about whether the U.S. deserves to be regarded as a “moral leader.”

The tragic loss of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo this summer will only be compounded if we don’t learn anything from it. As always, DT will stand in the way.

Did Michael Brown act the way Officer Wilson said he did, or is Wilson a bold faced liar? Did Wilson misinterpret Brown’s action? We could ask questions to help us come to a better understanding of what happened, but we will never know for sure. The critical question is, do we really have to know what actually happened to move forward?

The Ferguson issue is at the intersection of 2 fundamental human problems, racism and crime/punishment. With so much attention focused on the issue, this is a time for some genuine progress. Unfortunately DT is not only at the heart of the problem, but impedes progress in addressing the problem.  Does the discussion of the issue have to be couched in the framework of whose version one believes, rather than the framework of addressing the problem?

Regardless of which version one believes, the following are true. Racism is real in this country and black people are often seen as scary to white people. Police in high crime areas feel the need to maintain an aggressive attitude towards the local community, especially when it comes to young black males. There is a perception that if the police were to back off from an aggressive stance, crime and lawlessness would go up.

The current protests have the goal of pointing out the negative consequences of these aggressive tactics. The result is the opposite as the violence just reinforces the preconceptions that black people are inherently violent. The Brown family said it best when they asked people not to make “noise.”  (I wish we lived in a world where it would have been natural to have referred to it as “dichotomous noise”)

Police forces need to get the idea that their dichotomous actions may have a short term effect of deterring crime, but they are ignoring the long term consequences. They need to get how DT just leads to more DT. This will not come out of the Ferguson issue as long as protests are violent.

Every black family in America should have “The Talk” with their sons. Everyone, especially young black males should treat the police with deference, respect and cooperation. Why? Not because they are always right or good. Not because there tactics are not ultimately counter-productive and not because we believe Officer Wilson version.  The reason the police should be treated with deference, respect and cooperation is because to do so is consistent with 2 goals we all generally share.

First, we want to survive and we want our children to survive. Regardless of what actually happened on the day Michael Brown died, mouthing off to or acting aggressively towards an armed police officer puts ones survival at risk. Second we want an orderly society in which we can live in peace and security. We can only have this with a functioning professional police force. Mouthing off and acting aggressively generates dichotomous noise that the police force simply echoes and amplifies. It increases the risk of unprofessional behavior on the part of the police. Makes them less effective and more likely to make mistakes.

Clearly this is not what will come out of the Ferguson issue. Why? Because of DT. Why should we take the first step? It’s their fault not ours. If we promote this idea now it will mean we believe Officer Wilson. It would mean Michael Brown deserved to be killed. It would mean it is Michael Brown’s parents fault for not having “The Talk” with him. In the end it looks like DT will win out over problem-solving again.

At this year’s celebration of the third anniversary of OWS, I conducted a small non-scientific one question survey. I asked a total of 33 people to say if they favored reform of our current system or if they believed reform was a waste of time and the system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up (revolt). As usual with OWS, there was a wide diversity of responses. 16 people (48%) favored reform, 12 people (36%) favored revolt and 5 people (15%) refused to be categorized for a variety of reasons. Clearly the movement is unlikely to accomplish much until this fundamental question is better resolved.

This little survey turned out to be a great way to initiate dialogue and explore the various values and goals of the participants. The one thing everyone seems to have in common is a lack of apathy. Everyone I spoke with was motivated in some way to make this a better world. Most people I spoke with valued life and the environment. I found many of the people on the revolt side were motivated by the evils of capitalism, especially the way it encourages greed and exploitation. There was also a strong cynicism about reform especially in light of the Citizens United ruling.

Personally, I consider it unlikely that there will ever be a violent overthrow of the U.S. government or the capitalist system. That said, it is difficult to deny the negative effects of unchecked capitalism or the barriers to reform. As always, I see DT as being at the heart of the problem. We will never be without greed, but in a world where DT is considered subordinate to problem-solving, it will be much more difficult to glamorized greed the way it is done today. We will never be without exploitation, but in a world where DT is treated with a baseline degree of suspicion, it will be much more difficult to manipulate the vulnerable members of society.  Finally, DT is the greatest barrier to organization, it cofounds most efforts at problem solving.

Sometimes I feel like it’s the early 1800 and I’m trying to convince the world that a wide variety of diseases can be understood by the germ theory. Infectious diseases hit almost every part of the body and can cause a wide variety of conditions. It could certainly have been considered counter–intuitive to suggest there was a single underlying process. Today we know that there are many different types of microorganisms which manifest in many different forms of disease. Understanding the process by which organisms spread from person to person was a major breakthrough, but the initial barrier was accepting that such a wide variety of diseases could be caused by the same process.

This is at the heart of the DT problem. DT spreads from person to person, infecting them and moving on. The internet has lead to a faster spread of DT. This is why, as information flows more freely, the world is not getting smarter, it is getting dumber. Hate and small-mindedness are more contagious and spread much more easily than logic and reason. This is why we have HAMAS and ISIS. This is why almost 90% of Palestinians support shooting rockets into Israel. They are completely poisoned by DT and have almost completely lost the ability to problem-solve.

So what is the solution? During the early days of understanding infectious disease it was “wash you hands”. So what is the equivalent of washing your informational hands? FIRST ask “What is the goal and is it consistent with my values?” SECOND ask “Does spreading this piece of information really help achieve the goal?” THIRD ask “Is the degree of dichotomaticity appropriate for the situation?”

From a later exchange with the same friends mentioned in the 8/8/14 post:

So what am I really trying to saying to you? What is the real point I am trying to get across? I’ve had trouble thinking about anything else for the past 14 hours. When I first read your latest reply, part of me wanted to say “You are wrong. You are bad. You are selfish and short sighted. You should be more like me. I am good.”  Unfortunately my distain for such overly dichotomous noise prevents me from doing so. Besides, would such statements have any effect, unlikely. Furthermore, who am I to tell you what your values and goals should be? And finally while I do not know you, it is probably the case that, while you may think it silly to go out of your way to try to make the world a better place, you do not go out of your way to make it worse. So in the end, I do not want people like you to change very much. It turns out what I am looking for is a tweak. You helped me realize that what I am trying to do is tweak the world.

So here it is. Starting with your individual values, you arrive at a series of goals. In deciding how to achieve those goals, I propose always question the dichotomaticity of the approach. Be aware of how counterproductive DT can be. When dealing with others, first ask, What are their goals? Next, are these goals consistent with my values and goals? If so, will the actions they propose really help achieving our common goals? And finally, is the degree of dichotomaticity justified? Is DT replacing goal-oriented thinking?

I am not saying you should change your values or your goals. I am asking you to think about the process by which you achieve those goals. To me, the process of achieving goals and solving problems is inherently human. The ability to acknowledge our individual values and set our own goals is part of what separates us from animals and machines. If there are two equally effective ways to achieve a particular goal (A and B) and if A also has the added effect of making this a better world or facilitating the solution of other problems and if B had the effect of exacerbating other problems, most of us would choose A. In general, I believe the more dichotomous the approach to a problem the more it tends to be like B.

In a recent exchange with friends, it was suggested that in dealing with these groups I was advocating “waiting until we reach a higher level as a species.” I realized what I am advocating is that we should be fighting tooth and nail to reach that higher level. My insight is that dichotomous thinking is far and away the biggest single barrier to that goal. To me groups like Hamas and ISIS and Boco Haram are irrelevant because it is too late. Just like it was too late by the late 30’s to stop Hitler. The time to stop Hitler was 1919. Had the Versailles Treaty looked more like the Marshall plan, Hitler would have died in obscurity.  The time to stop the rise of the current groups would have been 10-15 years ago when most of the current adherents were teenagers. My concern is what will the world look like 10-15 years from now? A hand full of isolated groups numbering in the 10s of thousands is irrelevant. Hitler commanded a single army 10 times that size. Built on dichotomous thinking. If we don’t start now doing something seriously different, this is what we will be facing. A unified terrorist army numbering in the hundreds of thousands fueled by dichotomous thinking. Information flows like never before and yet the world is becoming more and more violent. Why? Why is the Information Age failing us?

8/4/2014, World War I started 100 years ago today. It was the first “general” war since the defeat of Napoleon 99 years earlier. The world fell apart in just over a month after a senseless terrorist act because of the same small-mindedness that is driving the current insanity. If problem solving continues to take a back seat to pettiness I’m really afraid we may some day look back on these times the way we do the summer of 1914.

A Google search of this word shows no documents, so I may be able to claim credit for coining it. This is really the concept I am trying to promote. A yardstick, a way to classify arguments and trains of though. On one extreme (high dichotomaticity) would be classical DT: I am right you are wrong, we are great they suck. On the other extreme  (low dichotomaticity) would be clearly goal-oriented thinking “What is the nature of the problem and how do we solve it?” My suggestion is, when thinking about any argument or train of thought, first ask “Is the degree of dichotomaticity appropriate for the situation? Is it too dichotomous?“