Speaking in Absolutes

[Mellowmarsh]

Speaking in absolutes involves using words like 

always, never, everyone, or no one to make a point, which oversimplifies complex situations and can be inaccurate. Examples include "You always leave your dirty clothes on the floor" or "That's the only way to solve this problem," as there are almost always exceptions to the rule. 

Examples of speaking in absolutes

Instead of: "You always forget to lock the door."

Try: "You often forget to lock the door."

Instead of: "No one likes that new policy."

Try: "Very few people like that new policy."

Instead of: "This is the only way to do it."

Try: "This is one of the best ways to do it."

Instead of: "I would never do that."

Try: "I would rarely do that."

Instead of: "Everyone wants to be rich and famous."

Try: "Most people want to be rich and famous."

Instead of: "Everything goes wrong when you are in charge."

Try: "Many things go wrong when you are in charge."

Instead of: "You can never be too careful."

Try: "You should usually be very careful."

Instead of: "This is always the result."

Try: "This is the result most of the time." 
 

 

Why people might speak in absolutes

Desire for simple answers: They may want a simple, yes-or-no response rather than a nuanced one.

To be perceived as correct: Some may use absolutes to appear more knowledgeable or certain.

To make decisions: It can be a way to feel more in control or to shut down debate.

Preconceived notions: They may be ignoring facts at hand with a predetermined response. 

The pitfalls of speaking in absolutes

Inaccuracy: It often oversimplifies complex situations, leading to factual errors.

Rigidity: It leaves little room for exceptions or different perspectives, which can make a speaker seem inflexible.

Miscommunication: It can lead to misunderstandings and conflict because it ignores nuance. 

Example

A relative thinker might say, "In my experience, that approach is usually effective," while an absolute-thinking relative might say, "That approach always works". 

 

 

[Aaron p]

 

 

[kavaris]

Give a more specific example, as you might be on to something, but its difficult to see what we're working towards without knowing the down side of absolutes, like its more efficient to say "the problem was resolved", then "the problem had x amount of issues: a, b, c, d, and then we subsequently solved them...", like what i think you were trying to say, and correct me if im wrong... is that there are relative and absolute ways to communicate, and because we dont normally communicate in a way that highlights those (or rather, we dont raise awareness in communication), then we take for granted the power of that aspect—so it might be the method itself of communicating and unearthing those areas of absolute and relative that we want to magnify... or it could be the former and not the latter still.

[Someone here]

I feel like a kid in first grade being schooled reading this .

[Mellowmarsh]

That which appears to speak in absolutes never spoke.

Sound heard as words is the sound of silent death.

 

Every sound heard as word is relative to the observer. Relative ideas about the absolute is absurd.

[Xonas Pitfall]

Also, it's extremely persuasive and good for clickbait. People love certainty, simplicity, and guarantees. Absolutes are amazing for delivering that effect, even if false.

You can look at YouTube thumbnails or titles that garner a lot of attention: ' THE ONE THING MISSING FOR YOUR SUCCESS,' 'ONLY THE TOP 1% KNOW THIS,' 'ALL MEN DO THIS,' 'ALL WOMEN ARE...,' 'ALL SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE KNOW THIS ONE SECRET,' 'THE BEST METHOD TO WIN.'" "THIS IS WHY YOU'RE STILL FAILING" "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE YOUR DREAMS" "THE TRUTH ABOUT SUCCESS THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW" "EVERYONE IS DOING THIS EXCEPT YOU"

In a world where chaos and infinity are the truth, the ego thrives on any sense of certainty and control.

Edited 3 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Reciprocality]

Its the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy

It arises when we treat the law of excluded middle that deals with whole propositions as being either true or false and instead treat every subject of a proposition as constituting either of two oppositely defined properties.

This is a substantial fallacy because proposing that something is false is without further qualification (or by itself) neutral with regard to what is true.

 

To mitigate this kind of thinking is hard, because the reason we commit that fallacy is the very pattern recognition and conceptual grouping that serves us so well, so much so that the nuance we hold so highly is developmentally conditioned on and thinkable through the focus on those false dichotomies, that contextualise and situate them with the clarity necessary to do so.