Abstract

This essay combines our thoughts concerning the generally destructive practice of dichotomization with a selective review of the literature supporting our critique. The apparent simplicity of dichotomous thinking encourages its use even when a dyadic representation is totally inadequate to understanding complex situations, and this "simpler is better" mantra continues to stymie our understanding of many of the world's complexities. The identification and naming of two distinct, opposing categories often results in their being seen as in opposition to one another, and that it is somehow incumbent upon us to choose one or the other. This either/or orientation reinforces the original split, confusing explanans and explanandum. We begin by considering dichotomization in general terms, and then turn to brief descriptions of several particular dichotomies. Some of these persist despite what might well be considered sufficient evidence to deny their usefulness, and this often deflects attention away from the more fertile, interesting, and important questions that may be directed to the points at which they intermingle.

pdf

Share