🦋 Are You Being Manipulated by a False Choice?

In partnership with

In my teenage years in the 90s, I was a pro-democracy activist fighting the dictatorship in Serbia. We looked to nations like Germany, the United States, and France as models of the society we wanted to build.

Then, in 1999, NATO countries bombed Serbia for 78 days to stop the regime's escalation of the Kosovo war. Like many, I hid in a basement, scared and confused. How could I reconcile being bombed by the very societies I admired? The bombs were officially targeting the regime I also fought against, but they threatened my life, my family's life, and worsened the lives of countless ordinary people.

That experience forced me to hold two opposing truths at once: I could admire these societies for their democratic values and feel betrayed and threatened by their military actions. I learned to see both their admirable qualities and their imperfections, and to offer criticism even where I felt alignment. I learned to live in the "both/and."

We continue this month's theme of exploring Systems Thinking. Today, we focus on embracing paradox to escape polarization & become a wiser, more effective leader who can solve complex problems 👇

⚖️ The False Choice

Pick a side—now.

Speed or quality? Candor or harmony? Discipline or creativity?

If your gut just leaped to one, you've felt the pull of the binary. We are conditioned to see these as a tug-of-war, where one side must win and the other must lose.

But in life, in complex systems, opposite truths are often simultaneously valid. True leadership isn't about picking the 'right' side of a false choice. It's the art of refusing the false choice. Leaders who thrive in complexity use the tension between these poles as fuel for better design. They see a tightrope walker, not a tug-of-war—someone who uses tension from both sides to stay balanced and move forward.

🧠 Why We Crave The Binary Trap?

Under stress, our brains crave certainty. Ambiguity feels dangerous, so we default to simple, fast labels: good/bad, right/wrong, with us/against us.

This reflex is a gift to authoritarians and polarizers. They thrive on "black and white" thinking. They offer simple narratives with clear villains and heroes because it's an easy way to consolidate power. Algorithms then amplify this "clarity theater," rewarding outrage and pushing extreme takes that confirm our tribe and drown out nuance.

This binary habit fuels polarization. We stop seeing opponents as complex humans and start seeing them as categories, which makes escalation feel logical. It also turns us into easy targets for misinformation. Simplistic narratives travel faster, and bad actors exploit our need for certainty by offering confident-sounding, simplistic answers.

The antidote is developing our both/and muscle: the capacity to tolerate ambiguity, seek disconfirming evidence, and always ask, "What's the truth in the other pole?"

👥 It’s Both Emotional & Cognitive Work

If you want to achieve great things, solve big problems, and reach your full potential, you'll have to work on adaptive and systemic challenges—the kind defined by ambiguity, paradox, and competing goals & values—meaning you'll have to lead change; and remember, people aren't afraid of change, they're afraid of the losses change might bring to them. Paradoxes don't just strain processes—they spike anxiety, identity, and status. If you ignore that, people entrench; if you name it, options open. Make the emotional map explicit ("What do we fear losing if we choose X? What do we gain with Y?"), surface hidden norms ("we don't share bad news in meetings"), and hidden incentives (promotions tied to speed, not safety).

🤝 Embrace The Paradox!

"Both/And" is not indecision. It's the craft of integrative leadership: exploring competing values/goals, naming real risks on each side, enabling sides to escape black & white thinking, and designing moves that enable mutual learning.

It's possible to admire a person or institution and critique them. To oppose a policy and collaborate with its sponsors on another issue. This demands empathy and curiosity—but also discipline: generate multiple interpretations before acting, so you don't confuse your first story with the only story.

🎯 What Can You Do?

You need to anchor yourself in your values! For example, in the face of current global polarization, I am anchored in my values of human rights, non-violence, and pro-democracy. This allows me to recognize the parts that need to be condemned and the parts that need support and can be worked with in each individual, organizational, or societal conflict.

Anchoring in my values helps me escape tribalism and lean into my own ethical compass to determine where I can make a difference.

Here are some questions I ask myself:

• What are my three core principles that I will use to evaluate this situation?

• What are other plausible interpretations for why this is happening? (Always try to consider multiple interpretations of events)

• If I put myself in the context of each side (considering how they were brought up, educated, treated, etc.), how would I turn out? How does that explain their behavior? (This is not about justification, but understanding)

• What else do I need to learn? Who do I need to talk to to gain a multi-sided perspective?

💪 Why Is It Worth Doing?

This is hard work, but it pays off. Research links a paradox mindset to higher creativity, resilience, and performance under constraint. Studies on integrative complexity find that leaders who can articulate and synthesize competing values negotiate better outcomes and avoid needless escalation.

Best of all, this is a trainable skill, not a fixed trait. You can get better at it. By embracing paradox, you become the leader who can see the whole picture, diagnose the real problem, and liberate your team from the tyranny of "either/or"—helping everyone move forward, together.

🔍 Action Item: Find The 'Other' Truth

This week, identify one person, team, or group you're in conflict with (or just strongly disagree with).

Your reflex will be to build your case against them. Disrupt that reflex.

Instead, make it your mission to articulate their position as generously as they would. Don't just steel-man their argument; try to find the heart of it.

Ask yourself:

1. What core value are they trying to protect?

2. What loss do they fear?

3. What is the 5-10% (or 50%) truth in their "pole" that I am currently ignoring?

You don't have to agree with them. The goal isn't surrender. The goal is to see the whole problem. You cannot design an adaptive/systemic solution until you first see the valid 'good' that both sides are fighting for.

The easy path is picking a side. The leadership path is holding the tension. Your team, your organization, and our world desperately need leaders brave enough to see the whole, complex picture ✊

The Gold standard for AI news

AI keeps coming up at work, but you still don't get it?

That's exactly why 1M+ professionals working at Google, Meta, and OpenAI read Superhuman AI daily.

Here's what you get:

• Daily AI news that matters for your career - Filtered from 1000s of sources so you know what affects your industry.

• Step-by-step tutorials you can use immediately - Real prompts and workflows that solve actual business problems.

• New AI tools tested and reviewed - We try everything to deliver tools that drive real results.

• All in just 3 minutes a day

Join 1M+ pros