Disney cartoon thinking and the Halo effect
| Summary | |
|---|---|
| Issue | People like to reduce nuanced topics to easy black-and-white questions. |
| Exploit | Prove your point by reducing it to absolute good, while painting the opponent to be absolute evil. |
| Exploit example | In US elections the two opposing political parties are trying to paint their opponents as absolute evil (using descriptions like “Nazi” for Republicans or “Groomers” for Democrats). |
| Defence | In a public debate there is no viable defence against this technique (which is why everyone is using it). |
We live in the world of colours 🌈 and shades. And yet in emotionally charged discussions we revert to good old black and white.
Disney movies, comic books, and fairy tales taught us to navigate a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil. A fair princess who sings and talks to animals versus an evil, murderous witch. A poor smart boy with a pure heart against the greedy, evil plotting vizier of the sultan.
Obviously, this dichotomous thinking is not sufficient to process real-world complex issues. The attempt to reduce these issues to simple binary categories can make them easier to understand and navigate, but eventually leads to failure to make conclusions, extreme polarisation, and impossibility to have a dialogue.
Failure to observe #
A person engaged in thinking in good vs. evil categories fails to see and take into account any facts that cast a shadow on what they’ve decided to be “good” – and vice versa, any facts that represent the “evil” side in good light. The [in]famous “reductio ad Hitlerum” internet argument is often used to fast-forward the assignment of the “evil” label to a particular side of a conflict.
An extreme case of black-and-white thinking is called splitting, or dichotomous thinking.
Splitting is a protective but maladaptive coping mechanism used to avoid rejection or being hurt by simplifying stressful situations, instances, consequences, or people.
Failure to reason #
When confronted with information that challenges their rigid perceptions, the good-vs-evil thinkers react aggressively, as their beliefs about good and evil are often tied to their identity and values. Challenging these beliefs can feel like a personal attack, which leads to hostility.
One common case of failure to reason because of a good-vs-evil bias is called Halo effect, or Horns effect for its negative counterpart.
The nature of the effect is that a positive or negative impression on a subject (idea, person, product) will influence further judgement on the subject as a whole, making the person who is doing the judgement dismiss all facts and evidence that contradict the formed impression.
Failure to act #
Once it becomes clear that a particular conflict is not a clear-cut “good-vs-evil” situation, paralysis is the next stage. Which stance to take and for what reason if there’s no “good” or “evil” side? This “neither side is good” paralysis will be taken advantage of by bad actors.
Russia vs. Ukraine conflict is a topic that’s very close to me.
Sometimes I’m surprised when reading comments like “We shouldn’t support Ukraine because they are a very corrupt country”. Then others (Ukraine defenders) make an argument that Ukraine is the epitome of justice and triumph of the law.
Both arguments appeal to “Disney movie thinking”. Whether it’s right to kill Ukrainians now suddenly depends on the existence of corruption among Ukrainian political elites.
Exploiting the Halo / Horns effect #
In social discussions, halo/horns effect is extremely exploitable. Here are some examples:
You advocate for state-sponsored healthcare, do you realize it’s communism?
Communism evil ⇾ free healthcare is evil.
Given that William Shockley, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and one of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, advocated for the sterilization of individuals with low IQ, it’s clear that such ideas must have some scientific merit worth considering.
William Shockley is a Nobel laureate ⇾ all his ideas must have value.
In conclusion #
In this world of colors and shades, it is possible to maintain moral integrity and still act decisively. â–