BY STUART CHASE On a famous radio program the moderator used to hold up a ball for the studio audience to see. "What color?" he would ask. "White," they would answer. Then he turned the ball around and asked again. "Black," they said. Every question, he continued, has two sides, and we ought to hear both
But the ttouble with this is that a great many questions which perplex us today have more than two sides. Whenever we force a problem which contains various shades of gray into a rigid pattern of black or white, we create a serious roadblock to straignt thinking.
John and Mary are being divorced. Their friends line up in two camps. One group declares that it is his fault. ;he other that it is her fault. But—perhaps both of them are to blame, or perhaps the fault lies with neither Forces beyond 'he control of John and Mary may he causing them to sep- arate—physical factors, for instance, making children an impossibility.
146 WOJ*D POWER
There are many sides to a broken marriage, not just two. All should be taken into account. Experts call this type of situation "many-valued." Many-valued questions cannot be intelligently decided on a simple either-or basis.
"Women are bad drivers!" says Roe, contemplating an- other bill for a crumpled fender. His friend Doe disagrees: "You're wrong. They're good drivers—better than men!"
What are the facts? Statistics of accidents indicate that in some respects women are better drivers than men, in others, worse. Women probably crumple more fenders, but mile for mile have fewer crashes involving fatal injury. The debate is meaningless as it stands—entertaining perhaps, but without profit.
Once we grasp the implications of that turning ball, we begin to watch for black-or-white arguments by others and by ourselves. We come to enjoy the mental adventure of finding them, like hidden reefs. Next we try to determine when they are warranted and when they are not.
Living things, most of us believe, are either "animal" or "vegetable." Careful biologists, however, have discov- ered an organism called Euglena, which digests food like an animal and employs photosynthesis like a plant. Asci- dians, though classed as animals, produce cellulose, which has long been considered a unique property of plants. Either-or thinking will not fit Euglenn or the Ascidians.
Similarly, the old philosophical debate, "Which shapes character—heredity or environment?" is a misleading cast- ing of data into either-or terms. Scientists have found that both heredity and environment shape character. An excel- lent inheritance can be ruined by unfortunate associates; a mediocre collection of genes can develop, with careful up- bringing, into quite a man. The pursuit of scientific truth is a many valued proposition. Scientist avoid either-or thinking.
As we tackle our personal and political problems, it helps to adopt this approach of .the scientists. Black-or-white thinking can be positively dangerous in some situations. A noted columnist, for example, speaking of the part played by Nehru and other "neutralists" in the cold war, said re- cently: "They are not for us; therefore they are against us; therefore they are Communists." Good heavens! We have
Neither Black Nor White 147
enough real Communists against us, from Leningrad to Hanoi, without taking on the whole neutralist world of perhaps a billion people!
In problems calling for specific action, the final decision may have to be a black-or-white, yes-or-no vote. But it is likely to be a wiser vote if we first review all important facts from a multivalued point of view.
Our town held a zoning hearing the other day to discuss whether a man should be allowed to open a toy shop in an area zoned for residences. The hearing quickly degenerated into a hassle between those who held that Little Business was good for rural towns, and those who were positive it was bad. The questions of how the toyshop might look, of possible hardship to the applicant, of what a zoning variance now might mean in the future—all were forgotten. The debate, stimulating as it might have been to the contestants, contributed little to an equitable solution of the specific problem before the meeting.
The current world is full of similar discussions, largely meaningless unless the variables involved are given fair consideration. You have encountered plenty of these dis- cussions: private schools vs. public schools; city living vs. country living; amateur sports vs. professional; little busi- ness vs. big; states rights vs. federal government; freedom vs. regimentation.
This last has been around for a long time. As a two- valued debate, one side says that we must have complete freedom or submit to slavery. But a wise judge saw the trap when he remarked: "Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." Even the most liberal society im- poses restrictions on how citizens shall behave.
There are at least three good reasons why we so often accept either-or thinking:
(1) We (especially we Americans) feel that we live under pressure and must get things decided fast. "Make up your mind, Mac!"
(2) Most people are mentally lazy. It is easier to select black or white than to judge the various shades of gray. It saves analysis, fact-finding.
(3) Linguists report that the structure of the English lan- guage—indeed of all Indo-European languages—tends to
148 WOJ*D POWER
force us into the two-valued approach. We are brought up to think in opposites such as: clean vs. dirty, long vs. short, hero vs. villain, body vs. mind, true vs. false, good vs. bad, life vs. death. It takes an effort, accordingly, to bring in the intermediate tones.
But if we make the effort we shall be rewarded. We will tackle our problems more surely, and render our decisions more justly.