Embrace Complexity

Reject binary thinking.

One serious problem with people in general – and Der Right in particular – is simplistic, non-nuanced, binary thinking, reducing everything to a digital-bit-like 1 vs. 0 paradigm, either something is 100% true or it is 0% true (and hence 100% false).

Thus, if a vaccine is not absolutely 100% effective, conferring complete and permanent immunity, then it is completely worthless. People are unable to understand that immunity from vaccination may be incomplete and/or may wane over time and/or doesn’t work for all people; yet the vaccines may still be very effective for the large majority of the population. If you cannot guarantee with 100% absolute certainty that there is an absolute 0% probability of side effects from a vaccine or drug, then it is a “dangerous toxin.” The idea of relative risk does not compute. If an illness doesn’t seriously affect everyone, then it is completely harmless. Again, there is no understanding of the complexity of risk and of illness (or of basic biology). Thus, the idea that different people may exhibit different responses to an illness does not register. Herrenvolk Nutzis, being essentially compared to themselves in the tests, believe that commercially available ancestry tests are 100% accurate and precise (until they themselves get results they don’t like), while SJW “scientists” and “academics” assert that the same tests are 100% completely useless.  No one accepts that the tests have someactual validity, but that this validity is limited – the tests can distinguish the major races and for relatively homogeneous ethnies that are well represented in the reference databases, somewhat accurate and precise narrower results can be obtained; however, for other people, the narrower results are nothing more than a very fuzzy snapshot of reality, not very inaccurate or precise, with radically different results with every database update.  Jews are either 100% responsible for the decline of the White race or they are 100% completely innocent and 0% responsible, no one considers an intermediate, partial degree of responsibility. If there are any isolated data points that don’t absolutely and perfectly, in every single instance, 100% match, without the slightest deviation, theoretical predictions, then the atom bombings of Japan were napalm and mustard gas, the moon landings were faked, the moon is a hologram, the Earth is flat, etc. People are either 100% altruistically disinterested or they are part of vast, overarching conspiracies, the idea that people may be individually selfish doesn’t enter into the equation. If scientists, doctors, etc. make errors then that means that all science is bunk or the errors were part of one of those aforementioned conspiracies, it is not possible for people to simply be wrong, not have all the right data, or have personal ideological biases.  Everything has to be one of two extreme, 1 or 0, 100% or 0%.  No nuance, no complexity is accepted in this binary thinking. This leads to rigid social and political dogma as well, such as ideas of “worse is better” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and other non-nuanced paradigms that are often wrong in the complex real world.

Hopefully, mocking this way of thinking will help illuminate why we sometimes need to embrace complexity.  Now, yes, Occam’s razor tells us that the simplest explanation that effectively describes a phenomenon is likely correct, but note the “effectively describes” part – if a simple binary description or explanation is wrong, it if fails, then Occam’s razor does not apply.  In real life, descriptions and explanations often need to be complex – Occam’s razor tells us that we should not unnecessarily add to that complexity. It doesn’t mean that the simplest explanation is always best - only that the simplest effective explanation is typically best. Similarly, the Pareto principle suggests streamlining to the essentials, but, again, the essential descriptive explanation needs to be useful. We need the 20% of the best explanations, not 20% of the simplest explanations, or 20% of the required information for an explanation.  And, also, truth be told, sometimes binary thinking, being overly simple, actually leads to increased net complexity – if a 100% binary explanation requires an overly convoluted conspiracy then that is the 80% wasted effort that violates Occam’s razor. 

By embracing complexity and rejecting overly simplistic binary thinking, in the long run, we will likely end up in the net sense having to deal with less superfluous complexity than if we had accepted some moderate degree of complexity and nuance from the beginning.