Let’s face it – binary decisions are easy. Yes or no. Left or right. Vanilla or chocolate.
Life gets complicated when you add the maybe, the forward, or the strawberry.
But are all decisions truly binary? No. I think we, as a society, like to believe that to keep things simple, or at least seem simple.
Is this the right approach for UX or marketing? Or is this desire to create situations where there are binary decisions an accurate reflection of life and the world around us?
In UX we constantly try to create experiences where users choose what's best from a select few options. We construct paths and experiences with the business to make the choices simpler, often creating questions where there is a yes/no answer or multiple choices. But sometimes I wonder if, when we do this, we are creating a too simplistic view of the world and forget to consider expanded perspectives?
There are some features that always appear in designs. One is delete or remove. I notoriously forget to include delete options in my designs. I often refer to that flaw as my personal signature design approach that reflects my optimism. I always wonder why would someone want to remove something when we always march forward. I sometimes forget that we all make mistakes and need an eraser.
Similar to delete, all designs tend to include some type of exit or overall cancel button. People sometimes want to leave a process and not finish it. I have had some curious discussions with business types about the need to include an exit button. They don't want users to leave, but I have to remind them that at times, users want out. Maybe have an autosave feature associated with the app so no data is lost upon exit (and a version control feature to access earlier versions). But what if the user really does want to leave? You can't stop them and need to consider these types of perspectives.
What's ironic about me working in UX, creating experiences with a few multiple choice answers, is that I was horrible at taking multiple choice tests. I saw all answers as being possibilities and had a hard time choosing a single best answer. I'd always look at a question from different perspectives and see all of the ways each answer could work. I know I'm not alone in this style of thinking. (And this is why I really don't like multiple choice tests.)
I sometimes wonder if by constructing these simplified environments, I'm helping to create oversimplified experiences with answers or choices and options that fit ok. Am I creating a world with answers and solutions that provide the "right" fit?
Maybe complexity isn't so bad?
In marketing we do something similar. At first, we try to help prospects figure out what they should buy and encourage them to narrow down their options to one or two. There should be a period where marketers ENCOURAGE customers to think broadly and consider a number of options, even some unorthodox considerations. Some marketers wouldn’t agree with this approach. However, going wide helps prospects define their problem as well as find a solution and explore all options. Rather than rush a prospect find a solution, that just happens to be your solution, help him find the right solution for him. By doing that, you build trust and breaks down false dilemmas that just don't serve any purpose.
What's the origins of binary obsessions?
I think our obsession with binary choices lies in our culture. Let's face it – we are trained at an early age to consider choosing between 2 extreme, opposing choices:
- Religion: good and bad or God and Satan
- Sports: two teams and we make them extremes (AFL/NFL)
- Politics: two parties – and we highlight their differences rather than similarities.
Our analytical mind responds well to the 2 options and somehow, we have a tendency to make these types of choices an extension of our identity. Because we are choosing not just the best option, but the best option that reflects who we believe we are, our choice is more of a reflection of ourselves and our beliefs. Our choice becomes very personal, and therefore very emotionally connected to our identity. Our actions around that belief and choice become emotionally driven – something to defend at all costs.
Is that really a way to make good, logical decisions? Isn’t this now more about emotions driving decision making? Or is it emotions and facts?
Being part of the "right" side
For my undergraduate thesis, I studied Edward Albee's plays. I noticed a trend in each one:
- In the first act, he defined a society with rules and added an individual who didn't really fit into the society or follow the rules
- In the second act, the society kills the individual (in the plays, literally. Or those who don't fit in are dismissed and told to leave forever.)
In Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? the individuals who didn't fit into society adapted; they got to live. I wonder if this was Albee's way of commenting on society's treatment of people who are different, who don't choose the majority choice. He chose to illustrate this using an us/them situation (which it often is anyway).
And an us/them situation where one is right and the other is wrong to the majority group. No one likes to be wrong – on the wrong side of history, wrong about their perspective, wrong about their opinion. Enter perceived dichotomies or false dichotomies – the perception that there are only 2 options. One is right; the other wrong. However, there aren't only 2 options. Ever. There are 2 choices that are clear. Or more. But if you take a beat and consider all aspects of a situation, you'll see how many answers exist to the problem. There are dozens of choices.
They are merely perceived dichotomies – divisions we project onto the world because of our perceptions and biases. For example, in the U.S. we divide people politically as Liberals and Conservatives, but the terms are so poorly defined it’s easy to find examples of people who have some liberal views and some conservative views.
There are other important alternatives for defining a person’s politics (what do you want to liberate? what do you want to conserve? how do you think it should be done?), but the convenience of the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative hides them from consideration. The convenience of binary logic blinds us from how poor a foundation for thought it can be.
In this world, there are few real dichotomies. It seems that we use the false dichotomy to make life easier, but in a way, we are making life more complicated because we aren't solving a problem. I wonder if we are being presented with potentially 2 wrong options to avoid getting a real solution. Is it more for social reasons?
If we identify with a side, then we are identifying with a group and this becomes part of our identity. It is at this point when things get dangerous. If we rely on our group and community to validate our beliefs and our identity (which is emotionally tied and driven), we are relying on their knowledge for certain issues.
The key point here is not that people are irrational; it’s that this irrationality comes from a very rational place. People fail to distinguish what they know from what others know because it is often impossible to draw sharp boundaries between what knowledge resides in our heads and what resides elsewhere.
This is especially true of divisive political issues. Your mind cannot master and retain sufficiently detailed knowledge about many of them. You must rely on your community. But if you are not aware that you are piggybacking on the knowledge of others, it can lead to hubris.
— Philip Fernback and Steven Sloman, Why We Believe Obvious Untruths, New York Times
Are dichotomies (false or perceived) the best approach to take? The circle continues…
To bring this discussion back to UX. During usability testing, a number of participants would look to me for confirmation when they selected a button. They wanted to use the tool in the right way, as if it were a right or wrong way. It was like the test was a quiz. This goes back to either/or thinking and being right or wrong and that being tied to identity.
Is the Yin/Yang representation more accurate?
At first glance in eastern culture, there seems to be a dichotomy with yin and yang. In reality, the yin and yang are complementary but opposing forces creating balance. It’s a different take on dichotomies. It shows that the two are necessary for the world; you can’t choose one without having the other. You don't understand good without experiencing evil. You need vanilla to understand chocolate.
What's affirming about this perspective shows that there isn’t really a wrong or right. Everything just is. This reflects the beliefs in ancient polytheistic religions. There was a group of gods who acted like humans. They did good and bad things. They represented different aspects of earth and life. No one was perfect. They all just "were." There was no one better or worse. They simply existed.
This comes back full circle to how people don't like to be wrong. In a false dichotomy culture, they are (like the usability test). In a yin/yang culture, they aren't. If we look at the world through yin/yang, every decision is an ok decision. There are better and worse decisions. It's more complicated than the dichotomy, but it's a more complete and accurate representation about the world.
Options appear in conversations.
We brainstorm through conversations. We learn about new thoughts and ideas through conversations. Ideas are shared through conversations. More than two options appear through conversations.
There are many types of conversations. I did some research on this a while back and based on reading a number of articles, came up with 6 major types of conversations:
- Transactional – request an activity to be completed
- Informational – share and provide information/knowledge freely or by request
- Decision Making – come to consensus for a resolution
- Influential – provide information, knowledge, insights and perspectives to help someone make a decision
- Relationship Building – create a connection through the experience of learning about the other person (shared feelings and thoughts)
- Collaboration/Brainstorm – collaborate to create a solution or a new idea
Transactional conversations are more in line with either/or or choose one of these options. The other conversations have nothing to do with choice. They reflect discussions that drive consensus or understanding or build relationships. I've found from my experience that most conversations aren't transactional; they fall into the other categories. We don't really have a binary world in conversations.
I think this is why the next step in interactions is conversations and using voice commands. We'd not only have greater intelligence built into our devices and computing, but we'd be able to accomplish more with our computers at our sides. It would better reflect how we work – less transactional, less choosing the right or best option and more exploring ideas and building connections. Humans are creators. We enjoy exploring options and ideas. We need to do more of that – not narrow our thoughts to what's "best."
When we construct experiences, it’s ok to be complicated. It’s our job to help guide people to make the best decision to achieve their goals. Sometime this means we need to encourage people to think more broadly about their problems, their issues, their challenges. We may need to have a relationship building conversation with them, talk about emotions and feelings, the goals of the conversation and what we want to achieve. Not every decision results in a single answer or a metric. There may be more aspects to consider about a problem or a process. And we should start raising those options and making them available in the UX (but do it in a clear and simple way).
Let's move away from dichotomies, or rather false dichotomies, and move towards conversations and looking at all options and possibilities. In this world, nothing is good or bad. It just is. If we started seeing all options, maybe we'd solve more problems and be open to more solutions rather than choosing a team and picking a side and trying to be right. Even when we use our apps. We don't need to look to our app creators to validate if we are right. We are right simply by our existence.
