false dilemma

situation X has only two possible options: A or B
option A is unacceptable
therefore we must choose option B

"you're either with us or against us"
missing options: neutral, partially supportive, conditionally supportive, uninvolved

"this safety measure won't prevent all accidents, so it's worthless"
missing option: reducing accidents even if not eliminating them completely

"if we can't precisely define 'middle class,' the concept is meaningless"
missing reality: concepts can be useful even with fuzzy boundaries

"we must act now or never solve this problem"
missing options: acting later with better information, gradual implementation

"we must choose between security and privacy"
missing options:
- balanced approaches that protect both
- different security methods that preserve privacy
- context-specific solutions
- technological solutions that enable both

"you're either pro-business or pro-worker"
missing options:
- policies that benefit both groups
- different types of businesses and workers
- situation-specific approaches
- long-term vs short-term trade-offs

"we either regulate this industry or let them run wild"
missing options:
- self-regulation with oversight
- targeted regulation of specific problems
- incentive-based approaches
- gradual phase-in of regulations

"we must choose between economic growth and environmental protection"
missing options:
- sustainable development approaches
- green technology creating economic opportunities
- efficiency improvements benefiting both
- mixed strategies balancing priorities

"you either quit your job or stay miserable forever"
missing options:
- finding a different job first
- negotiating better conditions
- changing roles within the company
- gradual career transition

"we either move to the suburbs or stay in this tiny apartment"
missing options:
- different neighborhoods in the city
- larger apartments in the same area
- temporary solutions while saving money
- compromise locations between city and suburbs

"we either expand rapidly or our competitors will crush us"
missing options:
- strategic partnerships
- focusing on profitability over growth
- selective expansion in key areas
- improving efficiency with current size

"we must either cut costs or raise prices"
missing options:
- improving efficiency
- adding value to justify current prices
- finding new revenue streams
- combination approaches

"we either embrace ai completely or fall behind technologically"
missing options:
- selective adoption based on use cases
- gradual implementation with safeguards
- developing different types of ai solutions
- balancing automation with human capabilities

claim: "we either raise taxes or cut services"
questions:
- can we improve efficiency?
- are there other revenue sources?
- can we prioritize some services over others?
- what about gradual changes vs dramatic ones?

claim: "you're either a patriot or a traitor"
analysis: are these really the only two categories for citizens?
reality: patriotism comes in many forms, including constructive criticism

claim: "we either ban all guns or accept mass shootings"
middle ground: various forms of gun regulation, safety measures, enforcement approaches

claim: "we must decide right now: project a or project b"
questions:
- can we gather more information first?
- are there hybrid approaches?
- what's the real deadline?
- can we test smaller versions of both?

legitimate: "the statement is either true or false"
context: classical logic with excluded middle principle

legitimate: "we either have enough budget or we don't"
context: when resources are genuinely limited and indivisible

legitimate: "the defendant is either guilty or not guilty"
context: legal systems requiring binary verdicts

legitimate: "you either meet the requirements or you don't"
context: when criteria are clearly defined and measurable

def detect_false_dilemma_patterns(text):
    either_or_patterns = [
        r"either .+ or .+",
        r"you're either .+ or .+",
        r"we must choose between .+ and .+",
        r"it's .+ or nothing",
        r"you can either .+ or .+"
    ]

    for pattern in either_or_patterns:
        if re.search(pattern, text, re.IGNORECASE):
            # check if genuinely binary or artificially limited
            if not verify_genuine_dichotomy(text):
                return "potential_false_dilemma"

    return "no_false_dilemma_detected"

def assess_option_complexity(domain, presented_options):
    # analyze whether domain typically has more options
    domain_complexity = get_domain_complexity(domain)
    option_count = count_presented_options(presented_options)

    if domain_complexity > option_count * 2:
        return "likely_oversimplification"

    return "appropriate_option_count"

def generate_missing_alternatives(either_or_statement):
    """identify potentially missing options"""

    option_a, option_b = extract_options(either_or_statement)
    domain = identify_domain(either_or_statement)

    # generate intermediate options
    middle_ground = generate_compromises(option_a, option_b)

    # generate orthogonal alternatives
    different_approaches = generate_alternative_frameworks(domain)

    # generate combination options
    hybrid_solutions = generate_combinations(option_a, option_b)

    return middle_ground + different_approaches + hybrid_solutions

def validate_dichotomy(statement, context):
    """check if either/or choice is genuinely constrained"""

    constraints = identify_constraints(context)

    # check resource constraints
    if has_resource_limits(constraints):
        if resources_are_binary(constraints):
            return "legitimate_dichotomy"

    # check logical constraints
    if has_logical_structure(constraints):
        if follows_excluded_middle(statement):
            return "legitimate_dichotomy"

    # check temporal constraints
    if has_time_pressure(constraints):
        if decision_is_truly_urgent(constraints):
            return "potentially_legitimate"

    return "likely_false_dilemma"

false dilemma: "we either ban social media for kids or accept the mental health crisis"
response: "there are other approaches: age verification, time limits, algorithm changes, digital literacy education, parental controls..."

false dilemma: "we must choose right now between option a and option b"
response: "what's preventing us from taking more time to explore other possibilities? are there really no other alternatives?"

false dilemma: "we either have complete free speech or total censorship"
response: "most democratic societies find middle ground with specific, limited restrictions like prohibitions on direct threats or fraud while protecting general expression"

false dilemma: "are you pro-business or pro-worker?"
reframe: "how can we create policies that support both economic growth and worker welfare?"

instead of: "we either raise prices or go bankrupt"
consider: cost reduction, efficiency improvements, new revenue streams, partial price increases, value additions

instead of: "we must choose between safety and freedom"
acknowledge: "this policy involves trade-offs between different values, and we need to find the right balance"

instead of: "you're either committed or you're not"
qualify: "this role requires significant commitment, though people can contribute in different ways"

instead of: "we must decide immediately: expand or stay small"
consider: "we should evaluate expansion carefully, including timing and different growth strategies"

individualistic: "you either stand up for yourself or get walked on"
collectivistic: "we need to find approaches that work for everyone"

hierarchical: "you either obey authority or create chaos"
egalitarian: "we can respect leadership while maintaining individual judgment"

risk-averse: "we either play it safe or risk disaster"
risk-tolerant: "we can take calculated risks while maintaining safeguards"

exercise 1: option generation
given a false dilemma, brainstorm 10 alternative approaches

exercise 2: real-world analysis
find false dilemmas in news articles, advertisements, political speeches

exercise 3: decision frameworks
teach structured decision-making that systematically considers multiple options

assignment: argue for a position while acknowledging legitimate alternatives
practice: defend a viewpoint without creating straw men of alternatives
discussion: find common ground between seemingly opposing positions

def comprehensive_decision_analysis(problem_statement):
    """avoid false dilemma by systematically exploring options"""

    # identify the problem domain
    domain = classify_problem(problem_statement)

    # generate comprehensive option space
    options = []
    options.extend(generate_standard_approaches(domain))
    options.extend(generate_hybrid_approaches(domain))
    options.extend(generate_creative_alternatives(domain))

    # evaluate each option across multiple criteria
    evaluations = []
    for option in options:
        evaluation = multi_criteria_evaluation(option, domain)
        evaluations.append((option, evaluation))

    # present ranked alternatives, not just binary choice
    return rank_and_present_options(evaluations)

def identify_negotiation_alternatives(positions):
    """find solutions beyond positional bargaining"""

    party_a_interests = extract_underlying_interests(positions['party_a'])
    party_b_interests = extract_underlying_interests(positions['party_b'])

    # find options that satisfy both parties
    win_win_options = generate_integrative_solutions(
        party_a_interests,
        party_b_interests
    )

    # expand the pie rather than just dividing it
    value_creation_options = identify_value_creation_opportunities(positions)

    return win_win_options + value_creation_options

def comprehensive_policy_analysis(policy_proposal):
    """evaluate policies across multiple dimensions"""

    # identify all stakeholder groups
    stakeholders = identify_stakeholders(policy_proposal)

    # generate policy variants
    variants = []
    variants.extend(generate_modified_versions(policy_proposal))
    variants.extend(generate_hybrid_approaches(policy_proposal))
    variants.extend(generate_alternative_frameworks(policy_proposal))

    # multi-stakeholder impact assessment
    impacts = {}
    for variant in variants:
        impacts[variant] = assess_stakeholder_impacts(variant, stakeholders)

    return comprehensive_policy_report(variants, impacts)

def nuanced_content_moderation(content):
    """avoid binary allow/remove decisions where possible"""

    if clearly_violates_rules(content):
        return "remove"

    if clearly_acceptable(content):
        return "allow"

    # for borderline cases, consider graduated responses
    alternatives = [
        "allow_with_warning",
        "allow_with_reduced_visibility",
        "allow_with_fact_check_label",
        "allow_with_age_restriction",
        "allow_with_context_note"
    ]

    best_alternative = select_appropriate_alternative(content, alternatives)
    return best_alternative

activity 1: advertisement analysis
find false dilemmas in marketing (buy now or miss out forever)
identify missing alternatives (wait for sales, buy different product, etc.)

activity 2: political speech analysis
identify either/or framings in political rhetoric
research actual policy alternatives and middle-ground positions

activity 3: personal decision mapping
take a personal decision framed as either/or
create comprehensive decision tree with multiple branches

activity 4: negotiation role-play
practice finding win-win solutions instead of win-lose thinking
learn integrative negotiation techniques

"we either spend $100,000 or $10,000 on this project"
anchoring effect: focuses attention on these amounts
missing: $25,000, $50,000, phased implementation, alternative approaches

"we either fight or flee"
availability: these responses are evolutionarily prominent
missing: negotiate, de-escalate, get help, change context

"we either accept my plan or face disaster"
confirmation: makes preferred option seem obviously correct
missing: other viable plans, hybrid approaches, modified versions