How Can We Break Free from the "Us vs. Them" Trap?
Forget Binary Thinking And Embrace The Power of Multiple Truths
There’s something really draining about feeling like every conversation is a test—like you have to pick the “right” side or risk being misunderstood.
We’re surrounded by a world that keeps forcing false choices: us or them, right or wrong, this or that. And that kind of binary thinking doesn’t just polarize people—it erodes trust, shuts down curiosity, and makes it harder to work through what really matters.
That’s a recurring theme in my podcast, and what I’m digging into in this week’s Humanity at Scale. The article below looks at how this way of thinking is showing up in our organizations and relationships—and how we can start to reclaim the ability to hold multiple truths at once.
It’s a thread that also came through in my recent podcast with Katherine Elkins. We talked about how stories shape what we believe—and how AI might make it even easier to flatten people and ideas into simple narratives. That conversation was a powerful reminder of why we need to stay open to nuance, especially when the world pushes us to simplify.
I hope you enjoy this edition. If you do, I’d love for you to subscribe and share it with others who might benefit. Let’s dive in.
Breaking the Binary Thinking Trap That Fuels “Us vs. Them”
We’re living through a time when everything feels divided. Not just in politics or ideology, but in how we see one another. We’re being pushed into camps, into false choices. Are you pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? Do you support law enforcement or racial justice? Care about free enterprise or care about inequality?
We’re told we must choose. And once we do, we stop listening. We stop questioning. We stop seeing people in full. Complexity disappears—and with it, our capacity to solve problems together.
This binary trap shows up again and again in my Humanity at Scale podcast conversations. It reveals itself not just in global crises, but in the day-to-day breakdowns inside organizations, teams, and relationships. Underneath it all is a truth we can’t afford to ignore:
If we can’t learn to hold multiple truths at once, we will keep breaking the things that matter most.
The Evolutionary Roots of Division
Our instinct to divide people into "us" and "them" isn’t new. It’s ancient. It helped early humans survive—quickly separating friend from threat. But today, that instinct fuels division, not protection.
Behavioral scientists call this ingroup-outgroup bias. And it intensifies under pressure, especially when combined with affective polarization—the tendency not just to disagree with others, but to dislike or dehumanize them. We don’t just reject their ideas. We reject their intentions.
In my recent podcast with Kurt Gray, he calls this the destruction narrative: the belief that our side is trying to preserve something valuable, while the other side is trying to destroy it. His research shows how easily we assign bad intent to people we disagree with—even when their motivations mirror our own.
In my podcast with Tania Israel, she describes a related phenomenon: motive attribution asymmetry. We assume our group is driven by values and care. The other side? Ignorance or hostility. That illusion of moral clarity becomes a fast, efficient—and ultimately dangerous—shortcut.
Once it kicks in, we stop engaging with people. We start engaging with our story about them.
Why Binary Thinking Feels So Right
Why is this thinking so sticky? Because our brains crave certainty.
According to dual-process theory, we have two ways of processing information: fast, emotional, intuitive thinking (System 1), and slow, analytical reasoning (System 2). Under stress, we default to System 1. We reach for coherence, not complexity.
Add in confirmation bias—our tendency to look for information that supports what we already believe—and we’re primed to simplify. We don’t just want to be right. We want the world to feel stable.
But stability isn’t the same as truth.
As research from Stanford, Harvard, and the APA shows, Americans aren’t nearly as divided on the issues as we think. The problem isn’t disagreement. It’s distrust. We stop assuming good intent. We start defending our group’s narrative at all costs.
We’re not wired for complexity. But we can choose it. And we must.
The Everyday Damage of Either/Or Thinking
These patterns don’t just live on cable news or social media. They show up in meetings. In hallway conversations. In our assumptions.
We read meaning into a bumper sticker. We assign motive to silence in a Zoom call. We label someone difficult when they challenge our idea. We dodge hard conversations—not because we don’t care, but because we’re afraid of what they might surface.
As Israel points out, we’re constantly signaling group identity—in what we say, how we say it, and what we leave unsaid. These signals get amplified, distorted, and weaponized. And in the process, we flatten people into categories.
That’s when things fall apart. That’s when trust erodes, creativity shrinks, and teams fracture.
What Binary Thinking Costs Organizations
Binary thinking doesn’t just shape our politics—it shows up at work every day. It’s there when teams fall into “us vs. them” dynamics, when tradeoffs get framed as either/or choices, and when silos block trust and collaboration.
We see it when Sales and Finance lock horns over pricing. Or when Product pushes for speed while Operations worries about stability. These tensions are natural—but when they’re treated as battles to win instead of truths to hold together, organizations get stuck.
Too often, leaders collapse complexity into forced—and often false—choices:
You can be efficient or empathetic.
You can be innovative or compliant.
You can be fast or inclusive.
You can be results-driven or people-centered.
But when priorities are framed as opposites, people retreat into their roles, defend their turf, and stop looking for shared solutions. Collaboration turns into competition. Progress slows. Trust erodes.
The best organizations don’t pretend these tensions don’t exist—they name them, hold them, and work through them. They make space for tradeoffs to be explored, not avoided. And they reward the kind of thinking that connects rather than divides.
Because when we replace binary thinking with curiosity and connection, we unlock more than just alignment—we unlock energy, momentum, and collective intelligence.
Reclaiming the Capacity to Hold Multiple Truths
Letting go of binary thinking isn’t just about seeing things differently—it’s about responding differently. In moments of disagreement or tension, we can learn to pause, to stay open, and to engage with more intention. It’s not always easy, but it is possible. Here are five everyday practices that help us hold space for multiple truths:
Assume positive intent—even when it feels unlikely. We often interpret disagreement as a personal threat, but people across ideological or organizational lines are usually trying to protect something they care about. Kurt Gray’s research shows that most moral judgments are driven by perceived harm—not hostility. Reframing the interaction as a values-protection moment shifts your posture from defense to curiosity. When you hear something that frustrates you, pause and silently ask: “What might they be trying to preserve?”
Interrupt your certainty reflex. The stronger your conviction, the more likely it is to blind you to nuance. Research shows that certainty shuts down curiosity by giving us the illusion of complete understanding. When you feel the urge to react quickly, pause and ask yourself: “What would make a reasonable person hold this view?” That small moment of self-check can prevent defensiveness and invite more generous interpretation.
Slow down your emotional reactions. Strong emotion triggers your nervous system to prepare for danger, even when none exists. Tania Israel reminds us that feeling unsafe isn’t the same as being in danger—but our bodies don’t always know the difference. Try short grounding rituals like a deep exhale, feeling your feet on the floor, or noticing your posture. These small interventions calm the body and allow your brain to re-engage with complexity instead of defaulting to binary judgment.
Focus on interests, not positions. In negotiation theory, positions are what people say they want; interests are the underlying needs they’re trying to meet. This principle, central to Getting to Yes, is echoed in Gray’s findings: people respond best when we explore motives, not just arguments. When a colleague says, “That won’t work,” resist debating the point. Instead, ask: “What would feel fair to you?” or “What’s important to protect here?” Uncovering shared interests turns opposition into co-creation.
Resist tribal shorthand. Language like “They always push back” or “That team never cooperates” reinforces stereotypes and eliminates the chance for change. These shortcuts may feel efficient, but they shut down dialogue and reinforce conflict. Replace them with observable specifics: “We’ve struggled with alignment in the past—what would success look like this time?” Precision invites partnership; generalization breeds resistance.
Sparking New Leadership Thinking
It’s not enough for leaders to hold multiple truths themselves—they need to shape environments where others can do the same. That requires operationalizing nuance, normalizing tension, and creating space for meaningfully divergent perspectives. Here are five ways to lead with that intention:
Build rituals that surface tensions before they harden into conflict. Start strategic discussions by explicitly naming the tensions at play—“What are the truths we’re holding that may seem in conflict?” This encourages alignment without oversimplification.
Create psychological space for slow thinking. Let your teams know that reflection is not hesitation. Say things like, “Let’s take 10 minutes to think on this,” or “We don’t need to rush this call.” Slowing down opens the door to deeper insight and prevents reactive decision-making.
Make integrative thinking part of how you evaluate solutions. When reviewing options, ask: “Which idea best honors the different priorities we’ve heard?” or “What are we learning from the tension between these proposals?” This shifts attention from winning arguments to combining insight.
Publicly recognize people who hold space for complexity. When someone demonstrates curiosity in the face of disagreement or helps reframe a polarizing issue, name it. Cultural signals around what’s rewarded shape how others behave under pressure.
Develop teams to tolerate ambiguity, not eliminate it. Use developmental tools, coaching, and feedback to help people build comfort with unresolved issues, slow-moving decisions, and competing goals. Progress depends on people who can stay engaged when things aren’t clean.
The Bottom Line
We live in a world that pushes us to pick sides and make quick judgments. But real progress doesn’t come from choosing a side—it comes from holding multiple truths. That’s how we build trust, deepen understanding, and move forward together.
Additional Resources
Here’s some relevant content that you may find interesting:
Beyond Right and Wrong: Rethinking Moral Disagreements. In this episode of Humanity at Scale: Redefining Leadership, I speak with psychologist and neuroscientist Kurt Gray, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at UNC, Chapel Hill to explore how leaders can navigate moral complexity and foster empathy in organizations.
Outraged. In his new book, Kurt Gray argues that our moral judgments and outrage stem from our perception of harm and our innate need to protect ourselves and others from threats. Conflict arises not from fundamentally different values, but from disagreeing about who is the "real" victim and what constitutes harm.
From Conflict To Connection: Harnessing Curiosity, Empathy, and Dialogue. In this episode of Humanity at Scale: Redefining Leadership, I speak with Dr. Tania Israel, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at UC Santa Barbara and award-winning author, to explore how leaders can bridge divides and foster human-centered workplaces.
Humanity At Scale: Redefining Leadership Podcast
Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.
Make sure to check out my podcast, where I reimagine leadership for today’s dynamic world—proving that true success begins with prioritizing people, including employees, customers, and the communities you serve. From candid conversations with executives to breakthrough insights from experts, Humanity at Scale: Redefining Leadership Podcast is your ultimate guide to leading with purpose and empathy.
Here are some recent episodes:
Unlocking Digital Transformation: The Neuroscience of Change with Kamales Lardi. In this episode of Humanity at Scale, I sit down with Kamales Lardi, CEO of Lardi & Partner Consulting and author of The Human Side of Digital Business Transformation. We explore why successful transformation is 80% about people, not technology.
From Head Count to Heart Count: Loyalty by Design with Joey Coleman. In this episode, I sit down with Joey Coleman, founder and Chief Experience Composer of Design Symphony and bestselling author of Never Lose a Customer Again, and Never Lose an Employee Again, to uncover why most organizations lose up to 70% of customers and employees in the first 100 days.
Humanizing a Legacy Brand: From LEGOs to Insurance with Conny Kalcher. In this episode of Humanity at Scale, host Bruce Temkin is joined by Conny Kalcher, Group Chief Customer Officer at Zurich Insurance Company, to discuss reimagining customer experience in large organizations. They explore moving beyond transactions to build meaningful, empathetic customer relationships.
Designing The Future: How to Be a Good Ancestor with Lisa Kay Solomon. In this episode, I’m joined by Lisa Kay Solomon, Designer in Residence at Stanford’s d.school, for a powerful conversation about leading with imagination in an era of disruption. We explore how leaders can actively shape the future by cultivating foresight, ethical decision-making, and human-centered design.
The Ethics of Empowerment: How AI Can Make Us Stronger with Vivienne Ming. In this episode of Humanity at Scale, I sit down with Dr. Vivienne Ming, a visionary neuroscientist and AI pioneer, to explore how technology can elevate, not replace, human potential. Sharing her inspiring journey from homelessness to innovation leadership, Ming unpacks how purpose, ethical design, and a deep understanding of human complexity should shape AI development.
The podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.
Humanity at Scale is a movement to inspire and empower leaders to create humanity-centric organizations