A dichotomy is something that is divided in to two camps that fight each other. A vs B. It's a very common style of thinking because it presents a neat package that has two clearly defined sides, which plays to our sense of tribalism.

A second way of thinking, other than using dichotomies, is thinking everything is one, so there is no A vs B. Another way to spin that is "My way of thinking/being is obviously the truth, I don't see any other way". Everything is unified.

Or a third lens through which to view the universe is seeing it as a million fractured pieces that cannot relate. There is no A vs B because that's comparing apples and oranges, everything is just itself. This one is just as intellectually lazy as thinking everything is one. This mindset of a million pieces cannot see the similarities, just as a mindset of oneness cannot see the differences. Both are disadvantaged and do not properly describe the world, because they lack subtlety.

A fourth way of thinking is to realize there's A vs B, but there's also C which is a contender, and D could be an option too, and don't forget about E and F... We could call this a multichotomy. Things don't have just two sides, they have 10 or more sides.

Every problem has at least 10 ways it can potentially be solved. We humans have a habit of honing in one just one or two, and try and make those ideas work. On the one hand this is efficient behavior because it conserves energy and time, but on the other hand it is intellectually lazy and puts us quickly in to ruts, both on an individual level and a societal level especially as groupthink comes in to play, along with in-group bias that is exacerbated by the echo-chamber media.

So my proposal is that we as individuals start being more conscious about recognizing dichotomies that are presented to us by the media, as the dichotomies they are. When people are arguing A vs B, that is exactly when you should be thinking about C and beyond. If it were just a matter of A vs B, then one would win naturally, but in a situation where they're caught in a deadlock means that neither A nor B capture what's really going on. So instead of being stuck in a rut like all the A-supporting people or the B-supporting people, step back from the whole A vs B thing and think about C, D, E, and so on.

---

Here's an example to illustrate:

A: Superman would win in a fight.

B: No, Spiderman would win.

People could argue A vs B all night if they really wanted and were emotionally invested in it. However if you break outside this A vs B dichotomy framework, you may discover these ideas about this topic:

C: One is Marvel and one is DC, so they wouldn't interact anyway.

D: Comic super heros are make believe and are pointless to think about.

E: Fictional narrative can act as a mirror of society, and give us food for thought about real life, so they do have value despite not being real.

If you only think in terms of A vs B, option D and beyond might never enter your brain. Here's a more down-to-earth second example just to drive the point home:

A: Capitalism is best.

B: Socialism is best.

C: Sometimes one is good and the other is good, depending on what it's applied to. Socialism should be applied to roads, firefighters, water/sewage pipes, and healthcare, but capitalism works better for consumer goods and other things.

D: Socialism is only meaningful if it actually supports the people, instead of just being a populist guise for increased centralization of power and the resulting authoritarianism as that centralized power inevitably gets corrupted, as has happened historically many times.

E: The essential political battle of our time is not Socialism vs Capitalism, it's Authoritarianism vs Anti-Authoritarianism. The dichotomy is framed incorrectly from the start. Capitalism can be Authoritarian (for example Liberia) or not (like Taiwan), and Socialism can be authoritarian (like Venezuela) or not (like Sweden). The real problem is the authoritarianism, not the socialism or capitalism. This original A vs B argument is a red herring.

---

...and so on. If you only see the world as A vs B, you are caught in a dogmatic ideology that is as nonsensical as zero-tolerance policies in schools, where children get suspended for biting a poptart in to the shape of a gun.

If you learn to habitually see beyond the dichotomies as a skill, you will begin to more readily see the other options that might be downplayed or outright denied by all the A vs B people. If a person fervently believes A 100%, then there is no room for exploring ideas C, D, E and beyond, which might be closer to reality. They're just clinging to A, trying to defend against the attacks of B, and that becomes their mental world on that topic. This is very limiting. This is a big chink in America's psychological armor, both on a cultural and individual level, that is currently being heavily exploited by those in power, using the media.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky