What is All-or-Nothing
Thinking and is it a Fallacy ofrMistake?
Short answer, yes it is a mistake. But let's break this one down for a moment. The all-or-nothing
approach is one where you see something as either completely one way or
completely another way, with no options in-between.
This all-or-nothing approach is a limiting
mentality that does not like to either acknowledge and/or admit to there being
various degrees and stages of things, rather than "all-or-nothing."
For example, we say it
is either hot or cold. However, is there not also warm and cool? Is there not
also lukewarm? Yes, there is in fact an entire temperature scale, with many
degrees on it. This scale shows the full range from extremely hot to extremely
cold.
Also, when we think
about pain, there are varying degrees to pain. Pain can be a "10" at
its worst or a "1" at its least. We usually don't notice a pain until
it becomes a 3 or 4, and we don't start complaining about pain until it becomes
a 4 or 5.
Just as there are
varying degrees of pain there are varying degrees of beliefs found within the two major political parties.
Although there seem to be only two political parties, there are varying degrees
of their views. One could be a staunch conservative or a staunch liberal.
One
could be a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal. One could be a liberal
conservative or a conservative liberal. This is because most things vary in
degrees; they are not all-or-nothing as we have been led to believe.
We've unfortunately been
taught that things are more one way or another rather than a mix of things.
This has led to poor decisions, using an all-or-nothing mentality. Within the
discipline of logic, this binary, yes-or-no, all-or-nothing approach is false logic, and even has the name called
"fallacy of the excluded middle" for example.
All-or-nothing thinking
is therefore a way of reasoning and approaching things where one does not allow
for flexibility in thinking or judgment. Instead, things are presented in a way
where they must either be one extreme or the other, without a broader and more
intelligent range in between.
You are "either for
us, or against us." There is no allowance for neutrality. What is wrong
with that is that this causes people to follow others, who themselves may also
be bad.
This is how political
parties do it. They take advantage of issues to cause all-or-nothing thinking.
This logical fallacy is related to others, and therefore can carry one away
with an entirely incorrect way of seeing things.
One of these fallacies is the short-term view, versus long-term view. I will
talk about these more in another article. For now, let's look at where
absolutism has been misapplied.
A better
non-absolutist way is to use the rule of emphasis as a percentage or degree, as opposed to an all-or-nothing way of thinking. You're already defeated if
you with a "I'll try my best" attitude. You come with less
than your best. you need to come with a "all or nothing" attitude.
Like I have also said
before, you need to have everything lined up where "making it happen"
and "doing it" rather than "trying" is the name of the game. Do or do not, there is no try!
The
difference here is not all or nothing, which people hold the false view about, but
instead the right balance based on the person, situation or
circumstance. Things must be uniquely tailored for these variables, and take them into account.
Another example is that our capabilities with
tactics and strategy cannot be limited where we only can take worst-case
planning or all-or-nothing actions, rather than tailored planning, specific,
decisive and precise actions and their graduated levels of response, to the
situation.
This is called risk and issue management, as well as: deliberate response, graduated response or tailored response. It is also something the military calls "precision engagement" where you tackle the exact, specific problem rather than trying to target everything. This requires a hyper-focused approach.
All-or-nothing thinking can get us into trouble, and rob us of resources, as well as make us less agile and more constrained and confounded. This thinking is too rigid and inflexible, and we should seek to eliminate it where we can.
Today, we need to be more precise, and be more specific. Things should have always been that way, actually. But today, it's more necessary to deal with our complex world and the wicked problems it tends to throw at us.
Also, remember the approach we used to set SMART goals? The same kind of thing applies here, using a precise and realistic approach versus all-or-nothing. #ProblemSolving #PersonalEffectivness #GTD
No comments:
Post a Comment