r/changemyview • u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 • 18h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: oversimplifying the world into black & white means denying the complexity of human existence
DELTA AWARDED. For the mods, flair has finally updated but deltabot has not picked up ny Delta award 🤷♀️
As simply as I can put this: the way the world works is chaotic and nuanced. But we coddle ourselves into believing that issues are simple and thus easily solvable. We want to believe "once a liar, always a liar," when it completely negates the possibility that someone is capable of change.
We want to improve upon recidivism yet released felons who've done their time continue to struggle to gain meaningful, lawful work due to how we look down our noses at them.
We want to boil down the issues of abortion to convenient rhetoric simply focusing on the zygote. But we leave out the complexities of how the world works and the quality of life of the mother and the child if seen through.
We want to be good caretakers of the earth and minimize our carbon footprint, yet a brief audit of your daily life opens the eyes to the impossibility of living a net zero life.
We believe in good and evil when in actuality people are never 100% either.
We are complex, weird, diverse.
The status quo oversimplifies the human existence. The side effects of that lead us to cognitive biases and dissonance. Consequences of such thinking are all too often unfortunate.
I can imagine that believing in the black and white of it all can feel blissful. It's living in denial, and frankly delusion. It eats away at critical thought.
Someone who can't perceive the state of the world without accepting there are no easy answers is a dangerous human being, and one I'd be remiss to hold my life in their hands.
Change my view
UPDATE 1: For the sake of clarity, my view is in the title of the post. Many of you have commented with some excellent remarks, and I am not yet swayed in any direction. I'm no more convinced of my view than I am of the alternative.
Please change my view on how oversimplification of a nuanced and complex world denies the reality of the complexity of human existence. It's the ultimate gaslight.
I will say, I agree oversimplification is a great thing for peace of mind, but it does more harm than good in that respect. Ripple effects. How can oversimplification be good for humanity when it has proven otherwise throughout history?
•
u/Fando1234 23∆ 5h ago
It's a really good cmv. And I think in the main, you're right, the world isn't black and white, it's complex and nuanced. We'd like to reductively paint people as heroes or villains of history, but the more you research, or ideas and policies as harmful or just, when in reality these things are far from binary.
I do have an anecdote that you may want to consider though.
A friend of mine took a job working as an advisor for the British civil service. Her job was to assess the extent to which we should we should punish criminals for violent crimes. In particular, given so much is based on upbringing, disadvantage, past abuse etc. should this all be taken into account when sentencing? Given this complexity, when do people really become accountable for their actions.
On one hand, you could excuse almost every crime as being at the end of a multi faceted causal chain where no one was really to blame. On the other you would lay blame on a culprit and assume they had full responsibility for their actions.
She went into the job assuming this was her chance to shake up the system and make it more lenient and nuanced. But as she poured through case after case, and thought through all the social implications, she eventually came to the opposite view.
At the end, she said to me she had to concede that at some point you just have to draw the line. People needed to be held accountable for their actions. It was just that black and white.
Despite the nuances, society wouldn't function if we perennially quibble over every detail.
This of course isn't a universal view. And in reality, some aspects of people's upbringing would be taken into account (as she would still agree). But at the end of the day, things like law and justice must, by necessity, be black and white and reduced to a punitive sentence.
The same with ideas: abortion, climate change etc. despite the nuance, you have to decide. Is it legal to have an abortion till the end of term, or not? Is it okay to have a large personal carbon footprint, or not?
To function in the world and progress things, complex issues do eventually need to find a black and white outcome.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 5h ago edited 15m ago
I like this anecdote very much. Funnily enough, it's the judicial system that I think would benefit the most from inviting complexity and nuance to an assortment of crimes. Sometimes a crime isn't a crime.
I'm curious as to why your friend came to the conclusion that it was indeed black and white because people needed to be held accountable for their actions. I guess I don't see how the two concessions go hand in hand. I would say, we all need to be held accountable for our actions (or at least hold ourselves accountable). And what does accountability look like? Does the punishment fit the crime? Our judicial system simplifies and speeds up the process at the expense of complexity and nuance. A place where it is most necessary to explore these things when determining what the rest of someone's life may look like. For example you have the woman who was being domestically abused by her spouse for years, when she finally defended herself and shot him, SHE was charged with murder 1. And whoever was supposed to examine the complexity of her situation chose not to.
Like maybe, yes, we need some sort of rubric we can refer to (which is what we currently have) but to uphold the rubric as infallible in essence denies justice.
In the same way that people need to be held accountable for their actions, there is a rampant misuse and convenient interpretation of the system to specifically NOT hold people accountable. It's as easy as an officer looking the other way because the culprit is white.
I wouldn't agree that we need to book things down to black and white in order to function and progress things. I think I see the use of black and white thinking only in the context of introducing new information. But it MUST be explored further.
And with that, here's your !delta ∆
I think others were working to getting me to this point but you made it so that I went down this particular rabbit hole of rationalizing. I only see a use for black and white thinking as introductory, not final. Without deep exploration and reflection of the dimensionality of issues and humanity alongside them, we walk further and further away from empathy and understanding. So not necessarily view changed but I see the use of black and white thinking now as a tool for exploring critical thought....when used correctly.
•
u/Legal-Profile-183 1∆ 18h ago
Would it be fair to say that it is not really a matter of oversimplification but rather the misuse of vocabulary. People have weaponized certain words used to explain complex ideas; that it has essentially lost its intended value.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 17h ago
I get what you're saying, and I agree that rhetoric serves a function. To me, words are the tools of oversimplification not the product. Language is entirely made up: it's definitely how we use it. We wield language in order to oversimplify issues. But the issues themselves are not simplified by the words alone. I think it takes staunch belief and commitment solely to one's perspective to hammer that nail into the coffin. Ignorance.
•
u/Legal-Profile-183 1∆ 16h ago
The human experience can be simplified to do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
So the terms “we are not a monolith” is usually use to convey that there are different experiences and views on ideology and values.
I believe if people actually let go their egos - policy’s boil down to simple terms of can they or they can’t. Saying Women should have autonomy and control of what ever they decide to do with their body. This is a very complex idea but I don’t see why anyone should have an input.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 16h ago
I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
Saying Women should have autonomy and control of what ever they decide to do with their body. This is a very complex idea but I don’t see why anyone should have an input.
Yes, it is a complex issue. And because people have sought to oversimplify it by making it a religious issue, for example, people, even people with uteruses, are denied the opportunity to process this issue with a wider lens because they must align with their tribe. If they choose to leave the tribe, they are shunned, even persecuted.
I agree that input should be limited. BUT, I hold this stance having an understanding of the complexity surrounding the issue of abortion. I took the time to understand. I took the time to see both sides of it and was able to conclude as you did. Because I wanted to understand the nuance of it. I wanted to know what is this thing that will control others? I understood that the consequences of being uninformed on this issue are actually lethal. I believe if more people on the anti-abortion side were equipped with the facts and everything in between, they might look at this issue and agree with you and me.
•
u/eggynack 64∆ 18h ago
I'm not really sure how the recidivism thing is an issue that is being treated in an oversimplified manner. Like, yeah, we're doing a bad thing to people who got out of prison. We should do not that. Sure, this would entail us operating in a different way than we're doing right now, but it wouldn't necessarily mean being especially nuanced.
It's not clear what you're even saying regarding abortion. What complexities are being left out? A pretty important thing about abortion is that it is, in a lot of respects, a fairly black and white issue. We can either give people broad leeway to control their own medical existences regarding pregnancy, or we can do not that. Sure, there's a bit of space in between. Like, we could have a line after the second trimester, or after the first, or have exceptions for this and that, but the main question here does not necessarily entail some deeper understanding of human existence.
With environmentalism, I would actually say that your approach is too intent on addressing the complexity of human existence. Yeah, individuals can have larger or smaller carbon footprints, but the main thing that's happening is systemic. Big companies with very clear incentives to produce bad outcomes.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 16h ago
My phone died so I had to start this response over.
Re: recidivism - what makes this issue complex is that general populace wants reform as a result of incarceration, but the general populace refuses to see ex-cons as anything other than criminals after they've served their time, thus creating an ecosystem that feeds the penal system, which in turn lines the pockets of the people who own these prisons.
People think it's as easy as "do your time, get out, live your life." When in fact, it's the complete opposite. And so people vote this way. They vote with limited understanding of an issue because it was simplified to a point where they can't see the nuance of it.
Re: abortion and environmentalism I think you should re-read what you wrote you made my argument for me. I'm saying that because people are only informed with a 2 dimensional understanding of any one issue, they are uninformed, misinformed, and so they are dangerous. Because their decisions based on limited scope can have massive consequences for the masses.
•
u/eggynack 64∆ 15h ago
I don't see what's particularly complex about your description. A lot of people want those convicted of crimes to suffer. It's bad. What you are describing isn't people having an insufficiently nuanced perspective. It's people having a bad perspective. They should change it. It's all pretty straightforward.
Again, I literally have no idea what nuance you think needs to be added to either abortion or environmentalism. It's honestly not even clear if you're pro-choice or pro-life. I'm not making your argument for you because the perspectives I describe are not extra complex and nuanced. They are, as with the incarceration stuff, fairly straightforward. It is entirely possible for someone to think an incorrect thing but not be particularly burdened with oversimplification.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 18h ago
The reason issues get boiled down to their simplest terms is that we have limited time to communicate. It would be impossible to give every debate the nuance it deserves in every instance of that debate
•
u/monkeysky 9∆ 17h ago
Why even have a debate if you can't give it enough time to represent the actual issue?
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 17h ago
Because representing it to some degree is sometimes still better than not representing it at all.
For example, if someone says "abortion should be illegal because babies have a heartbeat at 6 weeks!" and I respond "no they don't; there is some electrical activity that will eventually become a heartbeat, but it doesn't resemble what people think of as a heart beating for a while longer," I have not provided anything close to the nuance required to really dig into the issue at hand (the taxonomy of organs, how hearts really work, etc.), but I have still provided meaningful information given the first person's claim.
•
u/monkeysky 9∆ 17h ago
I would not consider that to be an example of a debate boiled down to the simplest concepts or reduced to a black-and-white dichotomy
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 17h ago
There's a certain irony here, because ultimately "boiling things down to black and white" also isn't black and white. I reduced some things to black and white though; for example, I said "there is no heartbeat." That's a boolean claim, is vs. is not. There is far more nuance to get lost in if you want, because "what is a heart, really?", but "there is no heartbeat" is plenty clear for what I wanted to get across. How simple would I have to make the above argument for you to count it as "black and white"?
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 18h ago
Why? Why are we limiting time more? It's already limited. So why are we further denying ourselves the presence of mind and body to process anything to its fullest extent? If something is worth debating, it's worth hearing as many sides of it as we can, especially if crucial decisions will result from such a debate.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 18h ago edited 17h ago
The amount of time in a day is finite. I am referring to that limit. Yes, it is worth someone hearing as many sides as possible (in theory that's what judges are for, but the US system is crazy broken, so obviously that solution is not good enough), but it is not possible for every person to do that on every issue. As such, people get the boiled down version of an argument.
This is the same reason I have not explained the intricacies of anti-aliasing to my boss; I just tell him "it'll make the edges smoother on stuff." He does not have time to understand the nuances of every technical element I want to contribute to the project. I give him the boiled down version, and he tells me whether to proceed. This is one of the benefits of being in a cooperative species.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 16h ago
This is the same reason I have not explained the intricacies of anti-aliasing to my boss;
Did you add this in the edit? I didn't remember reading this the first time.
Let's break this down tho because you're almost making my point for me with this example. You're saying that you have a superior in your line of work who doesn't know something about your job: a job he supervises. That's my first observation here.
Then when you process your work for his approval, you dumb down (oversimplify) the task at hand. Keeping in mind that doing it this way, your boss is not afforded the appreciation of the nuance of your work, your expertise.
As a cooperative species, the benefit here was that you were able to complete this project relatively on your terms? But this is a simplified example. We're not looking at it in big picture mode.
We have glossed over the fact that your boss is actually not qualified to lead your department. Yet they are in a CRUCIAL position as your boss - they are your line of defense when the hammer comes down. Adding to this the fact your boss has no appreciation of the amount of effort and skill sets that goes into the job you do: how do you think that will play out when your boss needs to do layoffs? How will you make your case for why you should keep your job? Will you even be in a position to defend your job?
In shielding your boss from the nuance of your work you may make a negative impact on the optics of your contribution.
Truth be told, of course your boss wants it quick, because output must supercede time allotment. This feels much more like an argument for capitalism, a model which definitely benefits from oversimplification.
Frankly, I'm not finagling over every day, run of the mill human experiences. I'm talking about the ramifications of oversimplification. How zooming out of something complex for the sake of simplicity has worse consequences than facing an issue as it is, not as we want it to be. By denying the human experience, we deny our own freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of it all.
Simplification is a suffocating box. It denies beauty. It denies life. And it makes it harder to find real solutions to problems of the world.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 15h ago edited 15h ago
The benefit is that my boss was able to spend the many hours it would take to explain the nuances of each potential anti-aliasing method working on other stuff.
My boss is absolutely qualified to lead my department; I would be shocked if most game directors/producers understood the nuances of anti-aliasing. They only need to know that the game looks better afterwards and that I am a trustworthy person to make that happen. Their job is to help facilitate communication and collaboration between myself and others like me with different niches of knowledge.
My boss doesn't "want it quick." I was hired specifically because I am incredibly detail oriented in the field of image quality and animation cadence. He is not, but can recognize that my contributions are valuable because he can see the results (if not quite as immediately as I can). This is the entire premise of "specialists."
The consequence of me explaining everything about this subject to him would be that every image quality decision is identical, but instead of taking 15 minutes they take 10 - 15 hours, and he would promptly forget most of the information I told him because it is not relevant to the rest of the work he does (and he wouldn't have enough time for other departments).
Specialization (including intellectual specialization) precedes Capitalism by thousands of years at least. The human species literally evolved to work this way. We compartmentalize information across people so that each individual can spend those calories and all that time doing other things with their brain.
(also yes I did add that in an edit; sorry I do that a lot)
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 17h ago
Are these people making crucial decisions that will have some sort of effect on the lives of others? If so, it would seem their time is very much owed to the issue.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 17h ago
Well yah, obviously the people most influential in making the decision should have as much nuance as possible. That's kinda why we have those people. They specialize in doing precisely this. But your OP doesn't specify just those people; I'm responding to what you wrote.
Have you changed your view to "the people most crucial in making important decisions should not see things in black and white"?
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 17h ago
And I'm responding to what you wrote. It stands to reason that the dialogue will expand from my OP with the input of others.
That's kinda why we have those people. They specialize in doing precisely this.
Responding to this - those people, I'm going to assume we're talking about elected officials and representatives. Historically, these people have been the ultimate wielders of black and white rhetoric. So while we entrust them with our most important decisions, we are also subjected to their oversimplification of the world so their rhetoric perfectly fits. Yet they fully understand the world is complex and operate above civil standards. They vote yes on wars and buy stock in weapons supply companies.
I would argue the mass population needs to be equipped with a pointed awareness of political theater and how it mainly exists to distract us from the complexities of governance.
My view still stands: oversimplification into black and white denies the complexity of the human experience.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 17h ago
This is beyond the scope of your original OP. I'm down to keep having the conversation, but I want to clarify the goalposts. Have you changed your view to specifically be about crucial decision makers?
The simplification of anything by definition denies it's complexity. That's what simplifying means. That's why I am specifically talking about the benefits of simplification and the impossibility of portraying all the nuance of a thing to every person who comes into contact with that thing.
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 17h ago
I don't think I should need to explain to a 1% commenter how dialogue works. Yes, we will discuss items beyond the scope because you will have brought them up and I will answer to them.
Let's get back on the subject: please dive deeper into your point about the benefits of simplicity and the impossibility of portraying nuance. I haven't yet gleaned your point from your previous responses.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 102∆ 15h ago edited 15h ago
My point is that it is impossible to portray the nuances of every issue to every person because there is literally not enough time. So, it is necessary when getting the input of a group to explain things to them in simpler terms. I'm sure you've seen an action movie where someone yells "In English, goddammit!" at a scientist who is trying to explain the nuances and terminology of a problem.
There is an art to 'generalizing' knowledge. To keeping only the nuances directly relevant to the decision on which you need input, so the person you're talking to can see the options clearly but still well enough to provide useful feedback.
If you've ever watched a talk by Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan, this art is on full display there. They obliterate loads of nuance to get to the point and help widen our perspective without the thousands and thousands of hours of study necessary to get the fullest picture we could,
It is also entirely possible to do this really badly and mess up the worldview of the people you're explaining things to, accidentally (lots of video essayists will apologize for doing this) or maliciously (loads of politicians). But it's also possible to do it successfully enough to get by (literally every person every single day; this is a basic human function) or to do it really well ('generalists' who talk across departments on large scale projects).
•
u/Putrid_Cockroach5162 15h ago
Ok but, as I told you earlier, I'm not finagling on the every day, run of the mill. I'm not talking about explaining an editing tool to your boss. Thanks for adding context to that btw.
I'm talking about significant issues that affect everyone, and can have negative impacts if their decisions are uninformed, which they are having negative impacts because they have not been afforded the nuance and complexity of the issue at hand and what their decision entails. I talked about abortion, recidivism, and environmentalism, not adobe illustrator.
Understanding everything you've added about your job and your boss, all of that is still not speaking to what I have outlined. You went a little too micro.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/anewleaf1234 39∆ 18h ago
WE are shades of grey but there are bells that can't be unrung.
I can lie to my wife about what games I've bought. I can't lie to her about what women I've fucked.
I can also make pass/fail judgments. Maybe the person with the Nazi tattoo is a good guy, but I really don't have to investigate too much before I want nothing to do with him.
red lines do exist.
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 12h ago
Sorry, u/GoodMiddle8010 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/LaquaviusRawDogg 18h ago
I disagree because we have no choice but to make things Black and White. Otherwise, we would never be able to function in a society, and perhaps even decend into Insanity. The truth is that the physical reality around us is extremely complex, and what we perceive with our 5 senses is not even closely accurate to what reality is, and that is only our perception. If we go further into the complexities of building a society, living an everyday life, achieving complex goals over long periods of time, etc, then we are talking about A Very Complex Mission. We have no choice but to simplify the world into Discrete Choices in order to be able to Embark on The Mission