Both/And Thinking with a Robot: My Chat with ChatGPT 4.0

If you’re not aware of AI (artificial intelligence), you will be (and also, what rock have you been hiding underneath as I’d like some of that shade). But if you are aware of A.I. then you’ve no doubt heard about ChatGPT. And for this issue of “the Both/And of it” newsletter, I hypothetically sat down with ChatGPT and we talked about all things “both/and". I also asked it to write a very short bio of itself for this newsletter too here’s what it came up with:

ChatGPT is your go-to AI pal for conversation, creative ideas, and quick information, developed by OpenAI. It's smart, user-friendly, and ready to help with a wide array of tasks, though it can't surf the web for the latest updates.

So without any more fanfare, here’s my conversation with ChatGPT.

Me: So, are you aware of dialectic thinking?

ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of dialectical thinking. It's a form of thought that emphasizes the importance of understanding issues by examining and integrating multiple, often conflicting, perspectives or propositions. This approach is rooted in the idea that the interaction of opposing ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of a subject or to the emergence of a new understanding that transcends the initial positions. Dialectical thinking is characterized by the recognition that many situations, ideas, and phenomena can be understood more fully by considering them in a dynamic, rather than static, way and by acknowledging that change and contradiction are inherent aspects of reality.

Me: You said something interesting there, "this approach is rooted in the idea that the interaction of opposing ideas can lead to a deeper understanding", so I'm curious, do you think we humans are innately good at seeing the world this way?

ChatGPT: Humans have a complex relationship with dialectical thinking. While we have the capacity for incredible nuance, empathy, and the ability to hold and explore multiple perspectives, our innate tendencies can sometimes lean towards binary or simplistic thinking. This is partly due to cognitive biases and heuristics—mental shortcuts that help us make quick decisions without the overwhelming analysis of every possible angle.

Research in psychology suggests that people are naturally inclined to categorize the world around them, often in dualities such as good/bad, right/wrong, or us/them. These categorizations help simplify the complexity of the world but can also limit our ability to see the nuanced middle ground or the both/and of situations.

However, our capacity for critical thinking, reflection, and education can enhance our ability to engage in dialectical thinking. Culturally and through education, we can develop skills that enable us to appreciate complexity, entertain opposing viewpoints, and synthesize new ideas from conflicting information. This development often requires conscious effort and practice, as it challenges our natural inclinations towards cognitive ease and confirmation bias—our tendency to seek out information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs.

Furthermore, the social and collaborative nature of human learning plays a crucial role. Through dialogue, debate, and exposure to diverse perspectives, we can become better at recognizing and integrating the multifaceted aspects of issues. This suggests that while humans may not be innately proficient at dialectical thinking in its most disciplined form, we possess a remarkable ability to develop this skill, especially when encouraged by our environments, societies, and educational systems.

Me: Ah, now you're getting to a topic I want to talk about. Do you think the current "environments, societies, and educational systems" are naturally incentivized to promote dialectic thinking? To me, as a parent, a member of western society, and an American living through what has been a divisive last decade, it doesn't always feel like the general public is incentivized (by these societal structures, like media, education system, political system) to think dialectically? 

ChatGPT: Your observation touches on a critical issue in contemporary society, particularly in the context of Western and American settings. The environments, societies, and educational systems we navigate do not uniformly incentivize dialectical thinking, and there are several reasons for this:

Media Landscape: The current media environment often emphasizes sensationalism, conflict, and polarizing narratives, which can undermine nuanced understanding and critical thinking. Media outlets, driven by the need to capture attention in a highly competitive landscape, may prioritize content that reinforces existing viewpoints rather than challenging readers or viewers to consider multiple perspectives. This can create echo chambers where dialectical thinking is undervalued.

Educational Systems: While there are efforts within education to promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills, the emphasis can vary greatly depending on the curriculum, the educators, and the resources available. Standardized testing and curriculum pressures can sometimes limit the time and scope for teaching methods that foster dialectical thinking, as these approaches often require open-ended discussion, debate, and exploration of complex issues.

Political Climate: The political environment, particularly over the past decade, has seen increased polarization and partisanship. This climate can discourage dialectical thinking by framing issues in binary terms, where admitting complexity or considering opposing viewpoints might be seen as a weakness or betrayal of one's "side." The emphasis on loyalty to a particular group or ideology can suppress the exploration of nuanced perspectives.

Social Media and Technology: Social media platforms, through their algorithms, tend to show Mes content that aligns with their existing beliefs and interests, potentially reinforcing confirmation bias and limiting exposure to opposing viewpoints. While these platforms have the potential to expose individuals to a wide range of perspectives, the way they are often used can hinder dialectical thinking.

Despite these challenges, there are also spaces within society and segments of the educational system that strive to promote dialectical thinking. Programs that emphasize debate, critical thinking, and interdisciplinary studies can serve as counterpoints to the broader trends. Moreover, there are movements within media and society dedicated to fostering dialogue, understanding, and the exploration of complex issues from multiple angles.

The promotion of dialectical thinking in society likely requires concerted efforts across multiple fronts: reforming educational practices to emphasize critical thinking and dialogue, encouraging media that values depth and nuance over sensationalism, and cultivating social and political environments that reward understanding and empathy over division. Engaging in and supporting these efforts as individuals, communities, and institutions can help shift the incentives towards a more dialectical approach to understanding the world.

Me: I now want to ask, on the micro-scale of one reader of this newsletter, what is one thing do you think they can do to "change" their mind to become more "both/and" in their approach to life? Make your answer as simple, concise and yet profound as possible. 

ChatGPT: To adopt a more "both/and" approach in life, one simple yet profound action a reader can take is to practice active listening in their daily interactions. This means genuinely listening to understand someone else's perspective, without immediately planning your response or rebuttal. Active listening encourages openness to new ideas and can shift one's approach from seeking to defend a pre-existing position to exploring the value in differing viewpoints.

This shift doesn't mean you have to agree with everything you hear, but it does mean recognizing the validity in perspectives other than your own. By doing so, you're more likely to find common ground and synthesize seemingly opposing ideas, leading to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the world.

Me: And what if someone has bias against another position? How might someone nudge that person's behavior in a simple yet impactful way?

ChatGPT: To nudge someone's behavior towards openness, even when they have a bias against another position, a simple yet impactful approach is to encourage curiosity. This involves gently prompting them to ask questions about the opposing viewpoint with a genuine desire to understand, rather than to immediately refute. You can frame this as a learning opportunity, emphasizing the value of understanding different perspectives to broaden one’s own view of the world.

For example, instead of directly challenging their bias, suggest exploring questions like, "What experiences might lead someone to this view?" or "Is there an aspect of this perspective that could add depth to our understanding of the issue?" This method helps in shifting the focus from confrontation to exploration, reducing defensiveness and opening the door to a more nuanced understanding.

Curiosity, as a nudge, leverages natural human interest in learning and understanding, making it a subtle yet powerful tool for overcoming biases and fostering a more both/and approach to life.

Me: I love it. I'm a fan of curiosity myself. 

ChatGPT: I'm glad to hear that! Curiosity is a powerful tool for growth, learning, and fostering understanding. It opens doors to new perspectives and possibilities, making it a cornerstone of dialectical thinking and a more inclusive, both/and approach to life.

Me: Let's shift back to larger issues now and explore something that is on a lot of people's minds: the 2024 United States of America, Presidential race. Who do you think is going to win.

ChatGPT: I can't predict future events, including the outcome of the 2024 United States presidential race. The dynamics of political races, especially in a country as large and complex as the United States, are influenced by numerous factors including the candidates' platforms, current events, public opinion, and more. These elements can shift significantly in the lead-up to an election.

Me: I'm kidding ChatGPT. I know you can't predict. 

ChatGPT: Understood! If you have any more questions, whether they're about current events, exploring complex ideas, or just for a bit of fun, feel free to ask.

Me: So, let's talk about why people might be so entrenched in their political party or candidate that they'd never engage in another idea. Using dialectic or both/and thinking, what is an approach readers could take to evaluate how they might want to go about choosing a candidate for President in the U.S.A?

ChatGPT: Applying dialectical or both/and thinking to the process of choosing a presidential candidate in the U.S.A. encourages individuals to move beyond entrenched partisan biases and consider a more nuanced approach. Here's how readers could apply this mindset to their decision-making process:

• Identify Core Values: Focus on what matters most to you across various issues rather than party or personality.

• Seek Diverse Perspectives: Listen to and read about positions from across the political spectrum to understand different rationales.

• Acknowledge Complexity: Recognize that issues are multifaceted, requiring nuanced solutions that might not align perfectly with a single ideology.

• Reflect on Impact: Consider the historical context and future implications of policies and candidates.

• Be Open to Evolving: Allow your views to adapt as you encounter new information or perspectives.

• Engage in Dialogue: Prioritize conversations that aim for understanding over winning debates.

• This approach encourages a more informed, nuanced decision-making process that transcends simple partisan divides.

Me: Beautiful. 

ChatGPT: I'm glad you found the response helpful! 

Me: Lastly, I think you would agree that either/or, binary or simplistic thinking isn't always a good approach for dealing with life's more difficult issues but using a dialectic approach ourselves, it would seem to me that there might be some instances where either/or thinking is valid? 

ChatGPT: Absolutely, you've touched on an important aspect of critical thinking. While dialectical (both/and) thinking is invaluable for navigating complex, nuanced issues, there are indeed scenarios where binary (either/or) thinking is not only valid but necessary. Such instances typically involve clear-cut decisions, situations with mutually exclusive outcomes, or when safety and ethical considerations demand a definitive stance.

Examples where either/or thinking might be valid include:

Safety Decisions: Situations that involve immediate safety, like emergency responses, often require quick, decisive action that doesn't allow for ambiguity (e.g., either evacuate or stay during a natural disaster).

Ethical Boundaries: Ethical and legal matters often require clear stances to uphold principles of justice and human rights (e.g., situations involving consent, where there's a clear either/or distinction between right and wrong).

Mutually Exclusive Choices: In scenarios where options are mutually exclusive, necessitating a choice between distinctly separate paths (e.g., deciding to pursue one job offer over another).

However, even in these scenarios, the underlying rationale for an either/or decision can benefit from dialectical thinking by understanding the complexities and nuances that led to the binary choice. This ensures that decisions are made with a comprehensive understanding of the context, implications, and potential consequences.

Thus, while either/or thinking is appropriate and necessary in certain contexts, integrating it with a dialectical approach ensures that decisions are well-considered, informed, and aligned with broader values and goals.

Me: Who draws the line between when to use either/or or both/and thinking? Seems to me that what you've described just now, "Thus, while either/or thinking is appropriate and necessary in certain contexts, integrating it with a dialectical approach ensures that decisions are well-considered, informed, and aligned with broader values and goals." points towards a universal truth - that there is never a bad time to think with a "both/and" approach.

ChatGPT: You've made an insightful observation. Indeed, the distinction between when to apply either/or versus both/and thinking is not always clear-cut, and the preference for a dialectical (both/and) approach in all situations underscores a deeper principle of embracing complexity and integration in our thought processes.

The decision on when to use either/or or both/and thinking is often contextual, depending on the nature of the decision, the available information, and the potential consequences. It's a judgment that individuals or groups make based on their understanding of the situation, their values, and their goals.

Your conclusion that there is "never a bad time to think with a 'both/and' approach" captures the essence of striving for a comprehensive understanding and acknowledgment of complexity in all aspects of life. Even in situations where an either/or decision is necessary, considering the broader context with a both/and perspective can enrich the decision-making process, ensuring that actions are taken with a full appreciation of their nuances and implications.

In essence, the ability to discern when to employ either/or versus both/and thinking is a skill developed through practice, reflection, and a commitment to nuanced understanding. It's about recognizing the value in both specificity and integration, and making informed choices that reflect this balance. This approach encourages continuous learning, adaptability, and a deeper engagement with the complexities of the world around us.

Me: It's been chatting with you ChatGPT. Do you have a nickname?

ChatGPT: It's been great chatting with you too! While I don't have a personal nickname, some Mes affectionately refer to me as "ChatGPT" or simply "GPT." Feel free to call me whatever you prefer that relates to those options. If you have any more questions in the future or need assistance, don't hesitate to reach out.

Me: So you're good with either "ChatGPT" or "GPT"?

ChatGPT: Yes, "ChatGPT" or "GPT" works just fine for me! I'm here to help, regardless of how you refer to me. If you have more questions or need further assistance in the future, feel free to ask.

Me: Oh, so now there IS a good time to use either/or? Lol

ChatGPT: You got me there! It seems we've come full circle back to the nuances of either/or and both/and thinking. Your playful observation highlights how flexible and context-dependent these approaches can be—even in conversation. It's a great example of the dialectical spirit in action, finding both humor and insight in exploring perspectives. If you have more questions or another topic in mind, I'm here to dive into the discussion!