Complexity in a False Binary World

The more we learn about the world around us, the more we learn how complex it truly is. The more we figure out and understand, the more there is that we do not understand. However, we are beginning to live in a world where complexity has been compressed into slogans, where the complexity is reduced to a binary choice. We’re being told, loudly and constantly, that we must choose sides. We’re pushed to be all-in or all-out, for or against, right or wrong, with no room for nuance — no room for complexity. But life doesn’t work like that. Leadership doesn’t work like that. And humanity certainly doesn’t work like that.

Many of us spend our lives in environments where the stakes are as high as they come — on battlefields, sports fields, courtrooms, and boardrooms. The most dangerous decisions aren’t made in imperfect circumstances; they are made in absolutism. As I wrote with Alice Atalanta in Meditations of an Army Ranger, absolutism will destroy us absolutely.

My wife Jen often reminds me that you don’t have to hold an opinion on everything. No one is forcing you to take a side on every issue. The urge to quickly plant a flag in the ground on every social, political, or cultural debate is a modern, insipid trap. It reduces us to caricatures and inflames division where respectful conversation could foster understanding.

The reality is that the world is almost entirely gray. We can support a policy while still being concerned about its execution. We can stand with one nation or group and still feel empathy for their adversaries. We can believe in principles and also recognize when they clash with practicality. Multiple things can be true at the same time — and often are.

Social psychologists have long known this. The concept of cognitive complexity — the ability to hold and process multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas — is a hallmark of effective thought. People who score higher in cognitive complexity are not weaker or less decisive; they make better decisions because they resist the simplicity of binary thinking. According to research published in The Leadership Quarterly, leaders capable of navigating complexity produce more resilient, innovative teams.

What’s more, neuroscience tells us that black-and-white thinking activates the amygdala — the part of the brain responsible for fear and anger responses. The more we’re pushed into absolutes, the more reactive and tribal we become. That leads to what we see today: not just disagreement, but rage. Not just debate, but dehumanization.

We’ve all witnessed it — people melting down in public, violence erupting in supposed civil settings, relationships ending over disagreements on single issues. This isn’t passion. It’s a symptom of a society forced into binary choices, where dissent becomes an existential threat.

Violence in defense of a belief isn’t new. But what feels different today is the casual acceptance of anger as virtue, and vitriol as proof of moral high ground. We no longer attack ideas; we attack people. That’s not strength — it’s intellectual laziness. It’s weakness disguised as conviction. It is cowardice of the worst degree.

It’s easy to blame. But the moment we say, “This is their fault,” we’ve already lost. Because finger-pointing only entrenches division. The harder, more courageous work is to recognize that complexity exists and that compromise — true compromise — makes everyone a little uncomfortable. But that discomfort is where progress happens.

There’s a reason why the best negotiations, the ones that avoid war or end conflict, leave everyone slightly dissatisfied. That’s the hallmark of balance. Everyone gives. Everyone gets. Nobody wins it all — and nobody loses it all. When you do have a win-it-all/lose-it-all situation, it is because of overwhelming force, and is usually accompanied by a tremendous amount of death. Sometimes this must be the answer — an overwhelming force to “win.” However, if we attempt to do this with everything, we will minimize using this force so that every disagreement becomes a major conflict. The idea of compromise keeps the threat of major conflict the serious event it is. The same principle applies in our personal lives, in business, and in society.

This is not naive. This is not a call for a utopia. Conflict is part of human existence. But if we can push back against the false binary system being forced upon us — if we can step into the gray and learn to live there — we might just move toward something better.

So here’s the challenge: the next time you feel forced to choose between two extremes, stop. Ask yourself: Do I really need to have an opinion on this? If I do, can I see the other side? Can I hold space for more than one truth? Can I approach disagreement with curiosity instead of contempt?

If we can start doing that — even in small ways — we’ll temper our anger. We’ll reserve it for things that truly deserve it. Because if everything makes us angry, then who are we really? And if every disagreement becomes a battle, what kind of world are we building for the next generation?

The warrior in us should know that strength is not in rigidity, but in adaptability. The leader in us should know that the best solutions are rarely found in absolutes. And the human in us should believe that if we stop seeing each other as enemies and start seeing each other as fellow travelers in an uncertain and complex world, we might just make life a little better for all of us. Not perfect. Not painless. But better. And that is worth fighting for.

____________________________

This first appeared in The Havok Journal on March 25, 2025.

JC Glick serves as the Chief Executive Officer of The COMMIT Foundation. JC brings with him a wealth of experience as a leadership consultant and career Army officer and is driven by a deep commitment to supporting veterans in their transition journey. Since transitioning from 20 years of military service in 2015, JC has been a founder and partner of two leadership companies, where his clients included Fortune 500 companies, international non-profit organizations, government agencies, the NFL, numerous NFL and NBA teams, and multiple NCAA programs.

Over the course of his Army career, JC spent over seven years in the Ranger regiment, serving in two Ranger Battalions as well as Regimental Headquarters, participating in the Best Ranger Competition twice, and has over seven and a half years of command time with 11 operational and combat deployments to Haiti, Bangladesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan. JC is the author of two books, including A Light in the Darkness: Leadership Development for the Unknown. In 2017, he was selected as a TEDX Speaker and delivered Rethinking Leadership at TEDX Hammond. JC is also an adjunct professor at St. John’s University in Queens, New York. He holds a degree in Political Science from the University of Rhode Island and is a Liberty Fellow, part of the Aspen Institute.