Two-dimensional thinking, and the limitations of human cognition

By Robert A. Vella

One of my irritating frustrations in life is constantly facing the great limitations of human cognition.  It is irritating because we humans have big egos and like to see ourselves as the most intelligent creatures who have ever existed.  This might be true, but it is probably false considering the sheer vastness of space and time.  Regardless, intelligence isn’t the issue here.  What I’m talking about is how we think and formulate conclusions.  And, in that sense, many of us might be embarrassed to learn just how limited we really are.

In the classic Star Trek film “The Wrath of Khan,” Spock suggests to Captain Kirk that their opponent – played by actor Ricardo Montalban – is highly intelligent, but constrained by two-dimensional thinking.

What was Spock referring to?

From Walter McIntyre:  Two Dimensional Thinking

A two-dimensional thinker sees the world as a polarized place. Who you are and what you believe becomes categorical. It is either one way or the other. These individuals can see facts, but truth eludes them because the facts are generally considered without context.

The problem with two dimensional thinkers is that they skew, or misinterpret, facts in order force them into a two dimensional framework. As a result, they frequently have “the facts”, but do not know, or are misrepresenting, the truth. This is how marketers sell their ideas, products or services. They build context around a set of facts so that the listener’s interpretation is guided to the desired conclusion.

From Seth Slater M.F.A.:  Launching Into Multi-Dimensional Thinking

As earth-bound creatures, human thinking reflects our essentially two-dimensional environment.  Most of us travel through life thinking like a car driver at an intersection whose only choices are left or right turns when it comes time to change course.  To open new vistas of possibility, a third dimension may need to be added to our psychic landscape.

That, it turns out, is a relatively tall order.

We humans can and do think multi-dimensionally whenever we navigate through three-dimensional space, but doing so typically requires a great deal of technological support.  Think airplane pilot or submarine captain.  Think elaborate panels of dials and switches.  Think support crew and years of training.

Furthermore, three-dimensional thinking can be achieved through the systematic application of logic.  The following examples might help illustrate the base levels of cognition:

One-dimensional:  I’m hungry.  There’s a banana.  I will eat it.

Two-dimensional:  I’m hungry.  There’s a banana and an apple.  I prefer the apple.

Three-dimensional:  I’m hungry.  There’s a banana and an apple.  I can make a fruit salad.

The one-dimensional example can be seen a primal impulse, the two-dimensional example as a restricted choice, and the three-dimensional example as a creative option.  The latter requires abstract thinking to consider possibilities which are not readily apparent.  The process is essentially mathematical like solving an algebraic problem having multiple possible solutions:

If A*B=C, and C=8 and both A and B are positive integers, then either A=1 and B=8, or A=2 and B=4, or A=4 and B=2, or A=8 and B=1.

In public discourses over topical issues, the two-dimensional limitation is often self-imposed.  We gravitate towards questions pitting diametrically opposed ideas against each other;  and, we are inclined towards simple, definitive, and broadly constructed answers.  In politics, the dichotomy is between conservatism and liberalism.  In economics, it is capitalism versus communism.  In religion, it is theism versus atheism.  In race, it is white versus black.  We align ourselves along these delineations, proclaim the righteousness of our choices, and demonize the contrasting side.  What we are doing by this, consciously or subconsciously, is attempting to control the narrative of the question by precluding any complexity and ambiguity in the answer.  The middle ground must be seized or sacrificed.  To the conservative, any deviation from right-wing ideological purity must be excised.  To the communist, any degree of private ownership is unacceptable.  To religious supporters and detractors alike, the minds of the uncommitted must be swayed.  To racial adversaries, tolerance of the other is an act of betrayal.

But, the clarity of such absolutism is typically delusion.  It is arbitrary and purposeful.  Little of our world can be so clearly distinguished unless empirically verifiable through science.  And, there’s another reason why we tend to limit ourselves to two-dimensional thinking.  It’s easy to be lazy.  Exhaustive, analytical thinking requires great time and effort – an expense we are predisposed to avoid unless we are deeply interested in the topic at hand.

Closed mindedness is analogous to wearing mental blinders, and being open minded is a trait to be admired, not chastised.  For two-dimensional thinkers, the strength of their subjective opinions are often directly proportional to their objective doubt.  The political liberal is usually caught off-guard by conservative opponents because she misperceives the negative aspects of human nature.  The capitalist rails against egalitarianism because he refuses to acknowledge the tragic costs of greed.  The Christian fundamentalist and atheist endlessly and pointlessly argue over the existence of God because neither can accept what they do not empirically know about the cosmos.  The white supremacist and black reactionary are locked in an ongoing death struggle because they both cannot see their shared humanity.

Be like Spock, and not like Khan.  Figure out how to make a fruit salad.