The dichotomy of the Tyranny of the OR

The "Tyranny of the OR" refers to the belief that we must choose between competing beliefs as if they are mutually exclusive. In other words: It postulates a fallacy that something must be A or B, but never both. A failure to embrace paradox.

When we buy into the proposition of "or", we are simplifying the world into a two dimensional, diametric decision space. You are either a conservative or a liberal. You are either sceptic or open-minded. You are either a numbers person or a creative person. You are either a planner or a pragmatist. You are either a dreamer or a do'er. You either prioritize life or you prioritize work.

I think we gravitate towards this black and white thinking because it simplifies choices by removing the near-infinite gray area in the middle. "It's either A or B." One of two choices - no need to get hamstrung by understanding the nuances.

Embracing the "Genius of the AND"

When we're talking about swapping the OR for an AND, we aren't talking about hitting the sweet spot in the middle. The concept is introduced in Built to Last by Jim Collins: If our extremes are yin and yang, we don't want and end result which is neither yin nor yang, but we want an approach which is distinctly yin and distinctly yang. It is not about finding balancing, but being both extremes at the same time. Collins refers to this as the "Genius of the AND".

The best thinkers are really good at wielding thoughts that seem contradictory. F. Scott Fitzgerald puts it nicely: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

At the heart of the Tyranny of the OR is to overpower exclusion and forcing yourself to believe that things can be simultaneously pursued, even if two things appear as opposite ends of a spectrum. It is a great challenge to bring these things together - it does not have to be black or white or grey. But black AND white.