Binary arguments and the art of conversation

From Why the Poor Remain Poor by Paul Hiebert. Hiebert's article has some interesting information and he makes some reasonable arguments.

In April 1995, a poll organized by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal revealed that 60 percent of Americans believed the biggest cause of poverty was “people not doing enough.” Only 30 percent blamed circumstances beyond one’s control, while the rest thought it was either a combination of both or weren’t sure.

Today, however, the same survey shows a nation divided nearly in half: 44 percent ascribe a life of financial struggle to laziness; 46 percent point to external factors.

Life isn’t so simple, though. Splitting the source of indigence into either one of two camps—poor because not enough effort; poor because not enough opportunity—may help facilitate conversation on the issue, but it’s also somewhat hurtful. This framing tends to turn the destitute into caricatures—either sinners who deserve their damnation or saints denied their salvation. Whatever they are, they’re no longer complicated creatures capable of contradiction. They’re no longer human.

It is an interesting argument but I am more interested in the source of the tendency towards binary arguments and false-dichotomies.

Let's identify two camps in the poverty debate as Hiebert does. There is the Personal Responsibility camp and there is the Subject to Circumstances camp. There are likely relatively few extremists in either camp. I doubt anyone believes that everyone has equal chance because they have equal capabilities and therefore all results are solely dependent on individual choices. I also doubt that there is anyone who believes that all outcomes are solely the result of Circumstances with no individual contribution.

I think most would agree that there is some interplay between Personal Responsibility and Circumstances and that interplay varies by person, over time, and that there is some degree of path dependency.

So why the passionate arguments? First, I think it is simply an artifact of complexity. When you have a binary model, it is a more straightforward, though less accurate, discussion. How do you define your terms, measure the consequences, and resolve assumptions so that you can debate whether the mix is 55:45, 60:40, 50:50, 70:30, etc. Very challenging.

Second, I think there is simply a bias towards extremes based on fear. If I am arguing a binary, I concede no ground. But if I am a Personal Responsibility person, as soon as I concede that circumstances do play a role in outcomes, then that concession is likely to be exploited. It is a negative feedback mechanism that reinforces extremism. Better to not concede anything and be less accurate than to concede something and have that concession exploited. It requires the personal courage and integrity described by Kipling in his poem If.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

So why does accurate concession lead to exploitation? Perhaps it is simple pursuit of victory at any costs. Certainly there are plenty examples of that. I suspect, though, that people just aren't reared in the habits and traditions of polite discourse. If you are brought up in an environment where there is conversational discovery, respect for the other speaker, willed interest in the topics of others, the self-discipline of letting others have their say without interruption, etc. there is greater confidence and willingness to extend conversational courtesy to others. If you haven't been reared in a conversational, story-telling environment, you have probably missed out on those good behaviors and simply fall into bad habits and attack dog discourse which drives everything towards inaccurate extremes.