The Death of Nuance and Conversation

No one is talking. Everyone is screaming.

I hope the weekend is treating you well, wherever in the world you are. Enjoy the few days of actual spring before we all melt to death in what will probably be a scorching summer.

Today I want to talk a bit about nuance. Most of you probably know the puzzle with the father and son that have a car accident and when the child is rushed to the hospital, the surgeon replies “I can’t operate on him, he’s my son.” (spoiler, the surgeon was the mother).

I’m gonna share another one that some of you might know, but I think it’s important because it gets a valuable point across when it comes to lateral thinking:

It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts.

Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

• Candidate A

  • Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

• Candidate B

  • He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

• Candidate C

  • He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

An answer, as usual, at the end.

---

You’re looking at debates the wrong way

The most common mistake when getting into an argument or debate is thinking that one of the two parties involved has to be right.

They don’t.

Both can be wrong. Situations when both sides are wrong are often used as a comedy trope, but they happen more often than you can imagine.

This scene from Thank You for Smoking (link is timestamped) explains it perfectly. People who end up talking on the public scene understand this very well. It’s not about them being right - it’s about showing that their “opponent” is wrong.

If you manage to do that, you win.

Looking at politics, the far left and right don’t even try to prove they’re the better solution anymore.

They’re just showcasing what the other side is doing wrong hoping their voice will break through the clutter and get people mad enough to jump on their boat.

And unfortunately, it’s working. It’s why we’re so divided.

We don’t care about nuance anymore. We just want to win.

This is why you there are less and less people you can have a conversation with. Because people don’t want to understand the other side or actually solve a problem.

They want to find a villain that they can throw all these problems on. Once you do that, life becomes simpler.

• Uncontrolled capitalism? Hard to solve on a global scale, but much easier if we personify it in Bezos.

• Corruption and shady dealings? They happen all the time, but it was the center piece of Biden’s communication in the in 2020.

• Gender based discrimination? Long and tough conversation to have, so let’s vilify J.K. Rowlings for her opinions because that’ll advance our cause.

• Free speech? A topic so fluid it has been (and will be) on the public agenda for centuries, but now it’s personified in the Twitter-Musk story.

I’m sure these comments will piss some people off. But if you get pissed and immediately attack the author of an opinion you don’t like, you’re not capable of a conversation and are just part of the problem.

Terry Crews has a great remark in Tim Ferriss’ podcast (here’s a highlight - it’s less than a minute long) - it’s where I got the inspiration for today’s post, the death of nuance.

And here’s the full podcast episode, I really recommend it.

No one is talking. Everyone is screaming.

On the J.K. Rowling topic, this article has a great point on how unhealthy things have become around “sensitive subjects” - people are complex.

You are allowed to agree with them on subject X, but disagree on subject Y.

Disagreeing with someone (even on a topic you’re passionate about) doesn’t immediately put you at war with them.

Most of us only know a fraction about the topics we debate on social media. It’s natural. You partially argue for (or against) something out of “principle” or because you want to fit in with your peers.

But if you do that, you miss out on so many perspectives.

You stay in your little trench blindly throwing grenades to the other side, despite not even seeing them.

And when you’re at war, you don’t listen to the other side. You just try to eliminate them. But that’s not things should be in day to day life.

So stop going to war with people. Stop screaming. Talk.

Don’t come into a conversation trying to “win it”. That’s a debate mindset - and funny enough, debates are not meant to solve things.

Funny enough, even the etymology for the word “debate” is all about conflict.

debate (v.)

late 14c., "to quarrel, dispute," also "to combat, fight, make war" (senses now archaic), also "discuss, deliberate upon the pros and cons of," from Old French debatre (13c., Modern French débattre), originally "to fight," from de- "down, completely" + batre "to beat," from Latin battuere "beat".

---

Here’s who you voted for (and why nuance is everything):

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Candidate B is Winston Churchill.

Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.

In case you missed the previous post, here it is for your clicking pleasure:

A Few Good (Lateral) Thoughts #14