How to challenge black and white thinking in relationships
JYOTI GILL, MA, RCC, VITALITY COLLECTIVE
SURRY THERAPIST & REGISTERED CLINICAL COUNSELLOR
How often have you gotten stuck in a conversation where someone refuses to see your point of view? Perhaps you’ve been the one who can’t seem to understand where the other person is coming from. Or has someone ever told you to think outside the box, or that the story you’re telling yourself may not be the full story?
It is quite common for people to think in black and white, or in other words, engage in “all or nothing”, or “dichotomous” thinking. It’s actually considered to be an evolutionary adaptation, as our long-past ancestors had to make quick and instinctual decisions, otherwise, they would get attacked by an animal. And while we may not have these physical threats present in the same way that we used to, we do have psychological threats – an opinion or belief by another that may make us defensive and feel emotionally unsafe in a relationship, fearing rejection or abandonment.
Unfortunately, a lot of the time, our instinctual response is still the same – to fight, flee, or freeze. This is another reason we may think in black and white because our pre-frontal cortex – the part of our brain that thinks logically and is responsible for more complex thinking is often not functioning so well when there is a perceived threat (National Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioural Medicine); instead, it is the emotional part of the brain that ends up formulating our thoughts, which often tend to be black and white.
Freud, a founding pioneer in psychology, talked about how there are three main systems that are functioning in our minds – the id, the ego, and the superego. Our dichotomous thinking can also be understood from this lens if we see the id as the instinctual part of our minds, the superego as our moral conscience, and the ego as the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the other two parts, the id and the superego (Mcleod, 2023).
In a conflict with another person, this may look like the Id having us respond instinctively by expressing our urges and impulses, which in the case of conflict may be to protect ourselves; and the superego may be the one passing judgments of right and wrong, good and bad on ourselves and the other person involved. It’s important in these cases that the ego step in and employ rational thought and realistic thinking in order to ensure that our behaviour isn’t completely controlled by our impulses or our subjective morality. Often, in counselling, people are supported in strengthening their egos (this ego is different from the spiritual ego which often refers to self-importance and aggrandizement) in order to respond in a way that is more responsive instead of reactive, and more aligned with their values.
Sometimes it can also be helpful to ask ourselves whether or not we are paying attention to the whole story. It is easy to see our own point of view, but are we making enough space for the other? Utilizing empathy can help us understand where the person we are in conflict with might be coming from. We can even ask ourselves, “if I were them, how would I be feeling? What would I be trying to communicate? What may be behind this anger or other defence?”
Just as we may be limited by our dichotomous thinking, the other person might be as well, and when this happens, often it becomes a battle of trying to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong. We can often psychologically disarm another person if we validate their experience, instead of shaming or blaming them. This is often a core strategy in couples of family counselling, where the counsellor facilitates communication amongst members helping them empathize with each other which creates a greater chance of them feeling understood and respected, and therefore allowing them to lower their defences.
Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy (CBT) also has a great technique in helping us challenge our ‘cognitive distortions’ i.e. thoughts that may not be based in reality, such as dichotomous thinking (Psychology Tools). This technique requires us to brainstorm all of the evidence that supports the thought, and then all of the evidence against the thought. Often, we tend to automatically only think about the evidence that supports the thought which makes us believe that the thought is true, whereas it may be an irrational thought as we may not have looked at all of the evidence that goes against it. An example may be the thought, “Nobody likes me” which may automatically come up during a conflict. It may be easy during that time to think of all of the evidence that supports this thought, but we may not pay attention to the evidence against it. In examining the evidence against it, we may find that, in fact, we are liked, and this person that we are in conflict with perhaps also likes us. This can help us have a more balanced or realistic thought such as “some people like me, or this person does like me even if we are currently in conflict”.
So the next time you find yourself thinking in black and white, it may be helpful to challenge your thinking in order to include all of the evidence, pay attention to the whole story, and use our realistic thinking as it may allow us to see perspectives that may be more helpful to us.
References:
Mcleod, S. (2023). Freud’s theory of personality: Id, ego, and superego. In Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Freud%27s%20psychoanalytic%20theory,id%20and%20the%20super%2Dego.
National Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioural Medicine. How to overcome the freeze response. https://www.nicabm.com/topic/freeze/
Psychology Tools. Thought record (evidence for and against). https://www.psychologytools.com/resource/thought-record-evidence-for-and-against/