The Critical Business of Avoiding Oversimplification

As researchers interested in making meaningful contributions in various academic and professional contexts, one of our primary goals in the application of critical thinking is to move past the oversimplified idea that complex issues in the world can usually be understood in terms of “right” and “wrong” or “correct” and “incorrect.” I call this “binary thinking,” but it is called by other names, too. The following explanation is adapted from Wikipedia’s entry for the logical fallacy called the “False Dilemma”:

“A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option…

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that “if you are not with us, you are against us” or the paired questions “If you were to die tonight, where would you spend eternity? Would it be in heaven or in hell?”).

The False dilemma fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual, patterned, black-and-white and/or intensely political /politicized thinking whereby a model of binary (or polar) opposites is assigned or imposed to whatever regarded object/context, almost automatically–a process that may ignore both complexity and alternatives to more extreme juxtaposed archetypes.”

The last sentence highlights the problem with this kind of oversimplified thinking: binary thinking creates a situation in which it is likely that the real complexity of an issue is ignored, whether out of purposeful deception or irresponsible accident. Our goal as critical thinkers is to do the (sometimes uncomfortable) hard work involved in engaging with issues in all their complexity… or, at least as much as we can stand. To avoid complexity, whether out of laziness, haste, habit, or straight-up deception, is to respond to an issue that doesn’t exist with an argument that is severely limited.

Stereotyping: Unethical, Unsympathetic, Illogical… and Potentially Hazardous

It’s extremely likely that you’ve heard the word “stereotype” before and that you understand it to be bad in at least some vague way. You may also immediately think of specific kinds of stereotyping, such as stereotyping based on “race” or sex. Wikipedia defines stereotype as “a thought that can be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things,” and there is a lot of information on that page if you are interested in exploring the psychological causes and implications of this kind of thinking (that’s optional, though). For now, understand that stereotyping occurs when one assumes that an individual person or situation will have a certain characteristic simply because it belongs to a particular group. There are examples of stereotypes on the Wikipedia page as well, but I’m sure you’re aware of some common ones because they are everywhere and it is (admittedly) very difficult for people to completely avoid them.

Remember that we are trying to become stronger critical thinkers so that the conclusions we draw in response to important issues are reasonable and we are able to communicate them to others. Stereotypes aren’t just bad because you should respect the individual complexity of sovereign human beings (and you should do that, sure); they’re bad because they fail ethos, pathos, and logos all at once.

Failing Ethos

Because stereotyping is a kind of oversimplification, authors that rely on it risk diminishing their credibility in the eyes of the reader. Whether the stereotype is particularly offensive or not, if an author demonstrates that he/she is unable to address the real complexity of individual humans and situations, it makes him/her look bad.

Failing Pathos

Imagine what a response you’d get if you relied on a stereotype in a text and some of the audience were part of that stereotyped group or sympathetic to the unfair and irresponsible nature of stereotypes. You would be directly offending your audience, which is not usually a competent rhetorical strategy for developing an identification with their emotions and values.

Failing Logos

Thirdly, stereotyping is bad for critical thinking because it’s not reasonable. To believe that all individuals that share one characteristic are certain to behave a certain way is to rely on a faulty assumption (more on that logical fallacy to come). That’s not to say that certain groups don’t share some common behaviors; indeed, individual humans share many characteristics of behavior based on cultural influence. However, we are complex creatures and have the capacity to behave as individuals, so there is no telling for sure that someone is going to behave a certain way.

Moreover, stereotyping can have serious social and personal effects on humans. In the following TED Talk, Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie discusses “The Danger of a Single Story.” After viewing the video (18 minutes long), you will be asked to contribute to a discussion of why stereotyping should be avoided in composing texts and engaging in critical analysis, so you may want to take a few notes along the way.

You can also view a full transcript of the talk.

Works Cited

“False Dilemma.”  Wikipedia.  Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Apr. 2015.  Web.  1 Jun. 2015.