I Used to Like You Until...: (How Binary Thinking Divides Us)

by Kat Timpf

Unfortunately, the impulse to allow a single facet of a person to form your overall opinion of them can lead to far worse outcomes than unnecessary embarrassment. All too often, we will let a single difference in viewpoint or association be enough to write off another person entirely, even if we know nothing else about them.

There are, of course, many legitimate reasons to write people off. What is never a good reason, though, is on behalf of a partisan-political-power scheme that cares nothing for you, other than as a pawn for its own ends.

the more divided and tribal and polarized we become, the more we’ll lose. We miss out on opportunities to connect, or even collaborate, all while people in power over us turn us against each other for their own gain.

“[e]very side is the Darkside for us here in America. They’re all the same until something changes for us. They all lie and they all cheat but we can’t afford not to negotiate with whoever is in power or our condition in this country will never change. Our justice is bipartisan.”

Unfortunately, Trump was such a lightning rod that you had to unequivocally shun him—even if you thought working with him on something might make the world a better place—to avoid the Blue Team declaring you an irredeemable pariah.

I’m a small-l libertarian, which means I’m a registered independent who uses the common noun “libertarian” to represent her political philosophy, which is that the government should be limited and questioned and individual rights respected. There are many misconceptions about what this means. For example: Contrary to what many people may think, believing that government power isn’t the best way to solve a problem does not equal not caring about the problem. Similarly, focusing on people as individuals doesn’t deny the importance of working together. Actually, it demands it! If each of us is a unique individual with unique strengths and weaknesses, then we will need to work together if we want to achieve the best outcomes.

we must remember that thinking a person’s view on a political issue is bad should not equal you thinking that the entire person is.

The way that hearing “Fox News” breaks people’s brains is a symptom of what has really broken people’s brains, and that is binary thinking… if it can even be called “thinking” at all. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Binary thinking is the enemy of critical thinking. For some reason, we’ve largely limited ourselves to just two options on so many crucial, complex issues. Once you pick a side or a lens, you no longer have to think, because all the thinking has been done for you. No matter the issue, you’ll just go with whatever the people on your side are saying. You don’t have to challenge your beliefs or feel uncomfortable. Unfortunately, that stunts personal growth, as well as personal relationships that could have been fulfilling.

Refusing to interact with people you disagree with, after all, will inevitably lead to you believing incorrect assumptions about them. Believe it or not, supporting the Second Amendment does not automatically equate to caring more about guns than children’s lives.

Unfortunately, we do do that now. Or, as the John Updike quote I picked for the epigraph of this book puts it: “…hate suits him better than forgiveness. Immersed in hate, he doesn’t have to do anything; he can be paralyzed, and the rigidity of hatred makes a kind of shelter for him.”

Although lobbing insults at another person might make you feel better, it doesn’t mean that you are better, and it’s certainly not a way for any of the issues that we face to get better, either. In fact, the way that we keep unfairly and unnecessarily tearing each other apart is making our problems so much worse that I had to write a whole book about how it would be cool if we could cut that out.

The book will also delve into the way that binary thinking enables government corruption. Rather than needing to face any actual accountability for wrongdoing, each side just points out things that the Other Side did that were “worse,” and people in power spend far more time fighting these completely unwinnable and self-righteous arguments than they do looking for actual solutions. They then anticipate that we’ll fight each other about these things, and can always rest assured they’ll have millions defending any of their wrongdoing for the sake of the Good Team. It’s pathetic, but it’s true: Politics makes us fight with the people we actually know on behalf of people who don’t even know we exist.

I hope this writing will make it enjoyable for people to do the usually hard work of examining their beliefs and biases to challenge power structures and open themselves up to the idea that they might have something in common with another person whom they may have previously written off, or even seen as irredeemable. This work is essential, not only in terms of the joy and fulfillment that relationships with others can bring us on a personal level, but also on a larger scale, allowing ourselves to be open to hearing and discussing solutions for society’s problems from a wider pool of people.

Politics does an excellent job of making people argue with people they actually know on behalf of people who have no idea they even exist. If that sounds pathetic to you? You’re right. Simping generally is.

The problem with binary thinking isn’t only that it shuts us off from each other personally, or that it allows the government to get away with corruption, but that it can shut us off from being open to solutions or help from people just because of their political team. It’s more than just the things we lose as individuals; we’re also losing as a society by being hesitant to come together and hear each other out. If we did, if we could just realize that a political label or difference of opinion on one issue was no reason to discount a person on everything, we could solve so many of our problems—or, at the very least, come together and agree to stop bowing the knee to the ruling class, which routinely abuses partisan loyalties and plays us against one another for the sake of gaining and maintaining its own power and control.

We wouldn’t have to freak out about what might happen if This Guy or That Guy got elected if the people we elected didn’t have so much authority over us in the first place.

First of all, to be clear, “a platform” is exactly what Fox News is. It’s not an idea in itself, but a platform to share them. And yet? “Fox News Bad” is a rabid sentiment you can see clearly when looking at, for example, the Twitter/X mentions of Glenn Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who’s been consistently antiwar, anti–security state, and pro–civil liberties, getting attacked as some kind of traitor or (gasp!) Right-winger for simply appearing as a guest on the channel. Again, Greenwald was simply using the platform of Fox News to share the exact same antiwar, anti–security state, and pro–civil liberties viewpoint that he’d always held. Still, you will see him pervasively and viciously criticized because “Fox News Bad”—a criticism that’s far too pervasive when you consider how senseless it really is.

multiple studies have shown that simply jiggering social media algorithms to combat polarization does not have the intended effect. A massive 2018 study paid Twitter users to follow a bot that retweeted politicians and media and thinkers from the other side. The result? Conservatives became way more conservative, and liberals became a little more liberal. Yeah… it managed to make things worse.

Basically, what I’m asking for here is for people to stop pretending. We have too many problems already; we don’t need to be perpetuating fake ones, too. By doing so, all we’re doing is creating a bunch of rules for society that don’t even represent what we really want. So, instead, let’s be honest—whether that’s in admitting that you don’t know enough about a subject (or person) to be outraged, or admitting that you do know a person well enough to like them, regardless of any potential controversial association.

Given that whole First Amendment thing, after all, a media entity is free to lean whichever way it wants, which is certainly better than the alternative! Giving government the power to enact limits would be forfeiting a crucial check that we have on their overall control. Plus, the partisan-news-outlet genie really is just totally out of the bottle. So the only way to deal with any anger or hurt or pain over the current media landscape is something I learned in therapy called “radical acceptance.” (Yeah… in case you couldn’t tell earlier when I asked you if something “fit with the facts,” I have been to a lot of therapy.) Anyway, “radical acceptance” is the complete and total (you guessed it!) acceptance of things as they are. By truly letting go of any illusion of control, you’re also releasing any bitterness or temptation to throw any tantrums about how unfair it is, because, well, there’s nothing you can do about it anyway, so why bother wasting your energy and time?

Now, radical acceptance of the fact that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop the existence of partisan-leaning media doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do to combat polarization overall. Like in the case of Big Tech, placing the blame on some powerful, untouchable conglomerate is a cop-out, because it allows you to place all the responsibility there, too—when really, it is up to us to question what we see and hear and to be curiously open to listening, learning, and kindness, no matter how futile it can seem at times to try. In the same breath, I’ve never said you should blindly trust and agree with everything you hear on Fox News or anywhere else. You should always think critically!

Or, as Bob Crowley, an Army colonel and a senior counterinsurgency adviser to commanders in 2013 and 2014, put it in an interview with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction: “Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible. Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

The need to do something differently is obvious to anyone paying attention, but the government bypasses this by instead doing what I’m trying so hard to bring attention to in this book: turning us against each other with politics and manipulative narratives. Often, the narratives are rooted in partisanship. Remember when President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2009, less than eight months into his presidency? It seemed at first premature, and then eventually like a total joke to anyone unbiased, considering that the ceremony wound up taking place just days after Obama declared that he would be sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. In September 2013, when I was in Los Angeles as part of my work for a writing fellowship, I went to the University of California to ask students about whether they felt that then-President Obama deserved the award. Answering that question was easy: Yes! What was more difficult, apparently, was my follow-up question: Why? “I just feel like in general being a good guy, it’s just creating a lot more peace and like, mellow,” said one student, adding, “I love Obama, and I love everything he is doing. I just feel like everyone is so hard on him and it’s only his second year.” When I asked one student what the difference was between President Obama and President Bush invading the Middle East, she replied: “Bush, I just didn’t like him. I just don’t.” If you want to see the video of these interviews, I’m pretty sure it’s st...

To me, it seems clear that, the more pressure you feel to not question something, the more important it is to question it.

there is often no clearer sign that someone seeks to hide reality by forbidding you from even thinking about questioning it in order to maintain control.

Considering complexities and leaving yourself open to nuance aren’t helpful only when looking at political issues. They’re also, and perhaps even more so, important when looking at people. How can we preach and post about how much Mental Health Matters while also taking part in a society where so many people do define others by their mistakes? A mistake or a struggle doesn’t equal a person. There should, of course, be accountability for wrongdoing, but there has to be some kind of path to redemption. Most of us are able to do this in our personal lives. What might be harder, though, is to see that the people we read about in headlines have personal lives, too. At this point, it’s gone far beyond parasocial relationships and into the realm of parasocial judges and juries, insisting that a person is irredeemable forever based on a single bad moment or characteristic, despite not knowing what that person is going through, or even knowing a thing about the person at all. Just as the public repudiation of a person can have far-reaching consequences, so can choosing to show grace. For one thing, observing more forgiveness and grace might make all of us more willing to examine ourselves, and perhaps even more likely to admit it when we’ve done something wrong. Instead of being reflexively defensive, people might spend more time listening. Think about it: If there’s no path to redemption anyway, what’s the motivation to seek it? People must know that path is there if we want to ha...

It is certainly important for people to show accountability for their actions, but that’s exactly what it should be: accountability for their actions, not accountability for their being.

Amid an internet full of pink-glitter PSAs telling us that we’re all so special and so amazing and “Just in case no one told you today, you are exactly where you need to be and your butt looks amazing,” reminders that, actually, each of us is pretty unimportant could go a long way in making all of us better people.

(Yeah, that bit about hate as a shelter isn’t the only one that’s stuck with me; there are so many: “We do survive every moment, after all, except the last one.” “How can you respect the world when you see it’s being run by a bunch of kids turned old?” “It comes to him: growth is betrayal. There is no other route. There is no arriving somewhere without leaving somewhere.” “Rabbit realized the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money.” “We are cruel enough without meaning to be.” “You can’t trust anybody not to fuck.” And then there’s the one that made me sob over and over again after my mom died: “What you lose as you age is witnesses, the ones that watched from early on and cared, like your own little grandstand.” Ouch.)

A few things about how this conversation went down stuck with me: For one, the guy who had just been repeatedly calling me “stupid” in our conversation about taxes was so quick and willing to share something personal with me. It’s exactly what I hope this book might demonstrate: Even when we vociferously disagree on divisive political issues, there are millions of other things that can, and should, unite us.

Here’s another stat that should grind your taxpaying gears: A New York Times analysis published in September 2022 “found that 97 lawmakers or their family members bought or sold financial assets over a three-year span in industries that could be affected by their legislative committee work.” As Daily Beast journalist Matt K. Lewis, author of Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America, told the Guardian: “Rich people get elected, and people, when elected, tend to get richer. Over time, it has gotten worse… I think it’s just an irony that I wrote the book Filthy Rich Politicians in a moment when all the politicians in America… one thing almost all have in common is trying to position themselves as being populist outsiders attacking elites,” he said. It’s ironic. It’s absurd. And it’s everywhere.

There’s also the fact that we can’t say we live in a free society if we are literally locking people up for deciding what to put into their own bodies.

As I said earlier: Whenever I hear language from the government that’s clearly meant to evoke fear, I ask myself two questions: Who or what does the government want me to be afraid of? And what do they gain if they succeed?

I agree with this, and I will take it a step further: The fact that this law was struck down is good for everyone, whether you like drag or not. “But Kat, this law is specifically against harming kids! Why aren’t you against harming kids? Are you a pervert?” Well, I’m glad you asked. Whether I am a pervert is irrelevant to my issue here, which is: In this case, and in so many others, what does and does not “harm” children is subjective. It’s up to the individual adult’s views on the matter, which also may potentially change based on the child (which is technically anyone from age zero until eighteen), which also may change based on other contexts. The vagueness of a law leaves it open to abuse, and I’m not comfortable leaving my freedom of expression up to the interpretation of government officials. Of course, some parents are very socially conservative, and those parents might argue that simply seeing a biological man dressed as a woman, regardless of context, would be enough to harm children because drag is evil and immoral. If that’s already their view, they may think they don’t have to worry about the vague language of a law banning gender-bending performances. If drag is an abomination in their minds already, why would they care if the legislation went even further than its alleged intention? But here’s why even those super conservative parents should still be concerned: the realization that there are other parents who might, for example, believe that social conservat...

Here’s the thing: Whether you agree that the ideas that this law would ban are bad ideas or not should not impact how you feel about the law itself. No matter how stupid you think “woke” thought and speech (whatever you consider that to be) is, you have to at least acknowledge that it is thought and speech. The state can’t banish ideas, and any argument that it should is objectively draconian; I am never going to be comfortable with a politician putting forward legislation that aims to silence certain schools of thought and speech. If you are fine with it because you happen to agree that “woke” is bad, be careful what you wish for. Similar to my point above: If the government can be used to stop “woke” thought, it could also be used to stop conservative thought. Once you give the government vague, broad powers to control speech based on subjective criteria, any speech is up for silencing. The better move is always to allow for the free exchange of ideas without censorship from the government. (As of the time of this writing, the courts have blocked enforcement of the “Stop WOKE Act” at businesses, colleges, and universities, but it remains intact for K–12 schools.)

It’s true, you never love someone so much as you do when they’re gone, but realizing that it was the whole person you loved all along can have a profound impact on the way you view the relationships with the flawed, still-living people around you. After all, as human beings, we’re all a bunch of nightmares—and if you think about it, that’s kind of what makes us so special.

“research shows again and again that grappling with diverse opinions and backgrounds makes us better decision makers, more creative problem solvers, and more empathic people.”