If you ain't first, you're last

#22—The psychology behind binary thinking and how it's letting the world down.

Welcome to Mind Flexing, your weekly thought expedition to everywhere and anywhere. Strap on your boots (or put your feet up), take a deep breath, and let’s get flexing.

---

What is it that drives us to oversimplify the world by dividing issues into black and white, good and evil, bad and good? Must there always be this duality? I was thinking about this yesterday when a well-known scene from the Will Ferrell comedy Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby played out in my head. In it, a young Ricky Bobby runs into the street, chasing his absentee father—Reese, a semi-professional race car driver who is abandoning his son yet again. Before speeding off, Reece turns and yells to his son:

“If you ain’t first, you’re last.”

The young boy mouths the words in a moment of profound realisation, setting into motion a must-win mentality and resulting arrogance that drives his life from that moment forward. He must win at all costs: he’s first, everybody else is last.

Gosh this film makes me laugh. It’s a smorgasbord of one-liners delivered brilliantly in comic dead-pan by a killer cast. And the first time I saw it, many, many years ago, I remember thinking, “If you ain’t first, you’re last”, what is that? A metaphor for life?

It could be viewed in that way, and that’s certainly how little Ricky Bobby understood it. But, the reason it makes us laugh is because it’s quite absurd, as Reese points out years later when he turns back to Ricky—who’s yelling the phrase out in desperation as his father walks away from him yet again— and says:

“Oh hell Ricky, I was high when I said that. Well, that doesn’t make any sense at all. You, you can be second, you can be third, fourth, hell, you can be fifth.”

There is first, there is last, and there is everything in between and outside of it. As is most often the case, the possibilities are far more complex than duality allows.

Preaching to bugger all

Dylan Thomas puts it much more eloquently. In many ways, these words have been my mantra, one instilled in me at a very young age. My father would often play a recording of Thomas’ Under Milk Wood, which had been given to him by his eldest brother as a Christmas gift, and over the years I came to know it very well. A line nearing the end, in a prayer the Reverend Eli Jenkins recites to Llaregyb Hill (a name derived from ‘bugger all’ backwards), has stayed with me:

“We are not wholly bad or good

Who live our lives under Milk Wood…”

The poem—a play for voices—is one of such love, laughter, heartache and debauchery. We are not wholly bad or good; we are complex and contradictory, we are human, and Thomas captures the essence of that in the most wonderful of ways.

Complex and contradictory we may well be, but we struggle to deal with it.

More than ever, society frames the world and its issues into two opposing viewpoints and coerces us to choose a side. The changing way in which we absorb news, in shorter and simplistic snippets via social media and click-bait headlines, only exacerbates this oversimplistic duality. You must choose: Israel or Palestine. The loud voices won’t accept anything in between, they won’t hear that all life is precious. They shout each other down in a war of words and attempt to silence anything that disrupts this balance. And shamed and struggling with the ambivalence of it all, governments and media fall into line. They choose a side, and the world is simple once again. Except that it’s not.

Black and white thinking

Contemplating this, I went looking for an explanation as to why humans force the world into black and white, and remarkably, the answer was quite easy to find because it just so happens to be called ‘black-and-white-thinking,’ also known as ‘binary thinking,’ ‘all-or-nothing thinking,’ or ‘thinking in extremes’. In psychology, it’s most often referred to as ‘splitting’. It’s described as a common defense mechanism in which, to avoid having conflicting emotions toward the same thing at the same time, the mind removes the middle ground and splits these qualities into two. We apparently do this because of a primal instinct that drives us to seek pleasure over pain. We create an ‘us and them’, a ‘good versus bad’, and at its worst, this process of split thinking is the source of hate.

Psychologist Andrew Hartz, in an interview with Forbes, said ambivalence—simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings—is what causes humans to subconsciously ‘split’ situations into opposing binary forces. He said:

“Ambivalence can be anxiety-provoking. In the short term, splitting reduces this anxiety by removing ambivalence and making the world appear simpler and more coherent.”

The problem with splitting

While it might make life easier to deal with in the short term, Hartz said splitting causes people to misunderstand what’s happening around them.

“It makes it harder to solve problems and predict events. Splitting is also emotionally dysregulating, fostering behavioral problems like aggression and leading to psychic pain and mental illness. It also makes it hard for people to have productive dialogue, and it works against our shared ideals as a society, like love, peace, justice, and unity. Splitting can impact relationships, identity, morality, fantasies, etcetera. The potential problems are numerous.”

The impact of splitting on all aspects of our lives, from personal relationships to global issues, makes it quite a fascinating behaviour to be aware of.

Any situation in which ideals of ‘good’ mix with ‘bad’ can cause this sort of storm, and it’s more prevalent in traumatic circumstances. Between individuals, it can explain disintegration of friendships, or the complexities of relationships between abusers and their victims. On a grander scale, we often see how politicians and the media struggle with these concepts. Can a country that has always been your ally be capable of indiscriminate murder on a mass scale? Are they justified in the extremity of their actions? Can a US president be a rapist? court White supremacists? be a fraudster? incite insurrection? and make America great again?

Gaza, sketch by Alia Parker

The ambivalence in such situations has the ability to silence opinions, to cause many to tread carefully with their words, or not tread at all. The Israel-Hamas War is one clear example, and you can see the self-censorship playing out among political leaders. And as the world stands by, the death toll increases. As of 21 May 2024, over 37,000 people—35,562 Palestinians and 1,478 Israelis—have been reported as killed.

If, right now, there’s one thing in the world we should refuse to accept the application of a “If you ain’t first, you’re last” mentality toward, it’s the Israel-Hamas War. Life is too precious. The world must confront the ambivalence and demand war come to an end.

Things I’ve enjoyed reading on Substack this week

• The Endgame—by Philip Slayton

  Philip provides an interesting insight into identity politics and the divisiveness caused by naming generations. I must admit, I’d never heard the term ‘Okay, boomer.’ I guess I don’t keep up with the cool kids.

• The Ghost of Dennis Hopper—by Kent Peterson

  I once spent a few years in North America, and this poem just so happens to combine two very fond memories into one. So for me, it is perfect. And you’ll love it too.

• a recipe for midlife—by Luisa Skinner

  I have way too many eggshells and not enough wisdom, but I’ll keep trying until I get it right. Thanks Luisa!

---

Thank you for Mind Flexing with me. If you enjoyed this essay, please subscribe, comment, click the ❤️ button, or share it with someone who would appreciate it. I’ll be back next week. Until then, keep 💪.