#132 - Are You Self-Sabotaging?

Do you ever catch yourself thinking, “Either I have to do X, or Y terrible thing will happen”? Welcome to dichotomous thinking, one of the sneakiest forms of self-sabotage we fall into. In this episode, Allie and Emily unpack how binary thinking shows up in our industry (and in life), why it’s such a trap, and how to start climbing out of it.

Along the way, you’ll hear stories about superheroes and supervillains, cleavers vs. paring knives, and a very personal example with Copper that shows just how limiting “either/or” thinking can be—even for seasoned professionals. By the end, you’ll have tools to notice when you’re stuck in false dichotomies and strategies to find more creative, compassionate options for you, your clients, and your pets.

TLDL (too long, didn’t listen): 3 Key Takeaways 

1️⃣ Dichotomous Thinking = Sneaky Self-Sabotage – Believing you only have two options shuts down creativity, learning, and better solutions.

2️⃣ Spotting the Trap – Watch for “either/or” statements, zero-sum feelings, and the urge to prove someone 100% right or wrong.

3️⃣ Breaking Free – Get curious, ask better questions, bring in other perspectives, and remember: there are usually more than two ways forward.

For the full episode show notes, including the resources mentioned in this episode, go here.

More from Pet Harmony

Pet Parents: enrichment ideas and practical behavior tips
📸 Instagram & Facebook: @petharmonytraining

Pet Pros: relatable moments and support for your work with pets and their people
📸 Instagram & TikTok: @petharmonypro

📬 Sign up for our weekly newsletter: https://petharmonytraining.com/join/

Subscribe & Review

If this episode resonated with you, please take a moment to subscribe and review. It helps more pet parents and pros find us—and makes our tails wag every time. Thanks for being here! 💛

PETPro isn't just another course. It's a community, it's a framework, and it's a support system designed to help you implement what you've learned, not just learn more stuff. 

Registration is open now, so if this sounds like what you've been missing, head to https://petharmonytraining.com/petpro/ to submit your inquiry form.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Emily: Alright, next example of a false dichotomy. Either I'm certified or I have a degree, or I have 14 letters up at the end of my name, and that means I'm qualified to take on these cases or I'm not certified or degreed, and that means I'm not qualified to take on these cases.

That's another false dichotomy. You have more than two options. Friends, you can hone your skills. You can learn from mentors, you can shadow cases, you can join Pet Pro and you cannot have any certifications or degrees and be very, very good and very qualified.

And also you can have all the certifications, and so many degrees, and I would not hire you if my life depended on it. So, so, you have to think of it in terms of. What skills do I need to build? How can I reflect on what I've done and use that feedback and that self-reflection to adjust what I do moving forward?

How will these certifications or degrees help me further those skill sets? Will they. Do I need them? For some, some people the answer is yes. For some people the answer is no. It's almost like we're all individuals with our individual paths and individual goals, and therefore we need to make individual decisions about what our professional development path looks like.

That's the thing, right? So that's, that's another false dichotomy. Either I have all the letters and that means I'm qualified or I don't have any letters. And that means I'm not qualified. That's a false dichotomy. Friends, not true. BA fails The critical thinking test.

[00:01:37] Allie: Welcome to Enrichment for the Real World, the podcast devoted to improving the quality of life of pets and their people through enrichment. We are your hosts, Allie Bender...

[00:01:54] Emily: ...and I'm Emily Strong...

[00:01:56] Allie: ...and we are here to challenge and expand your view of what enrichment is, what enrichment can be and what enrichment can do for you and the animals in your lives. Let's get started.

Thank you for joining us for today's episode of Enrichment for the Real World, and I want to thank you for rating, reviewing, and subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts.

In this episode, you're going to hear Emily and I talk about the most insidious form of self-sabotage that you don't know you're doing.

Me not knowing who Superman's arch nemesis is. That's cool. Cleavers versus pairing knives. How to recognize when you're doing this form of self-sabotaging and what to do about it, and how knowledge and experience got in the way of diagnosing what was going on with copper. All right. Let's get into it. 

[00:02:43] Emily: So today we're gonna talk about dichotomous thinking, which is also called binary thinking or black and white thinking. And all of that is related to a logical fallacy called false dichotomies. And this is basically where you think there are only two possible explanations or outcomes or answers or options that are available to you.

So it's like if, if I do this. I'll lose out on this, but if I do this other thing, I'll lose out on the first thing either or type of situation. And here's my hot take. Dichotomous thinking is one of the most insidious forms of self-sabotage because I don't think anybody thinks of it as self-sabotage, which is what makes it insidious.

But if you're going through life with these self-limiting beliefs that you only have two options or there are only two possible explanations for why someone did what they did, or there are only two choices to be made or so on, so forth you end up cutting yourself off from so many options, possibilities, relationships, learning opportunities, all the good stuff.

[00:03:45] Allie: And to be clear, this is not unique to just the animal welfare world. This is a common human experience. We see it all the time in all the different human e places. But since this is a podcast for and about the animal welfare world, we're going to focus on the ways dichotomous thinking can specifically impact pet professionals and pet parents, and ultimately the pets themselves.

[00:04:11] Emily: That's right because when humans make critical thinking errors, it's the animals who pay for it. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Okay. That was snarky. I didn't, I didn't need to be that snarky. It was not snarky. It was smarmy is what it was. That was a smarmy comment.

[00:04:28] Allie: It was smarmy, like just the, the intonation with it was like, oh man, who hurt you?

[00:04:35] Emily: It was pretty gross. It was pretty gross. I instantly regret my decisions. Okay, so we'll do better. We'll do better. All right. So let's, let's start with examples and then we'll move on to recognizing when you're caught in the dichotomous thinking trap and how to get out of it. So here are some examples.

I see this one a lot. Either I'm right about this and everything else, and I'm great at my job, or I'm wrong about this and that means I'm an absolute charlatan and I should just quit. Like, I think that's why a lot of people really struggle with receiving constructive criticism or feedback because if they messed up here, the belief, the sort of like.

Underlying belief system is, if I messed up here, that means I mess up everywhere and I'm a hot mess and I can't be a hot mess. Therefore, I need to be right about this. I think that happens a lot.

[00:05:22] Allie: I not just, I think I see it happen a lot as we are like working with. Our pet pro mentees on that journey of like being okay with, with receiving feedback that's not 100% stellar. And it's, it's honestly really beautiful to see that journey of going from being afraid of being wrong to, to like asking how can I do better and what am I missing? And that's where we see a ton of growth.

[00:05:52] Emily: Yeah, I super agree. I love watching people go on that journey in Pet Pro and, and to be fair to all of us, the reason that we fall for that false dichotomy is because I. Our society kind of sets us up for that, right? If you make a mistake and you don't get straight A's, you lose out on like real world career opportunities, right?

If you make a mistake in a high stakes business setting, you could get fired. So our society breeds this dichotomous mindset about learning and feedback. So it's unsurprising that it's so common and also it really hurts us. And learning how to get out of that is, is a really big deal for personal growth, professional growth, and being more effective, being able to, to do better, reduce harm, improve welfare and wellbeing.

All right, next example. Either you acknowledge that somebody made a mistake and caused harm, and that means you are picking sides against them. You are against them, or you deny that they made a mistake and caused harm. And that means you support them and are on their side. And I see this a lot, especially in the sort of like toxic, positivity dog trainer world.

But I recently had this experience with. Some people that like friend colleagues, it made me really sad where one of them brought up in um, in a safe space, some conflict that had happened between her and a colleague. And we talked about what she could do better and, and moving forward, how she could respond differently.

And then we also talked about the ways that the other person could respond better and what they could do differently. And someone else who was in that conversation felt very hurt by that because their perception was that I was taking sides against the person who wasn't there. And, that it was like shots fired towards that person.

And that just made me really sad because I was like the whole, the whole point of this community is to learn how to be able to reflect on what happened in the past and what mistakes we made and what we can do differently and how we can grow from that. And it's sad that you see this as me taking sides against.

The other person when it was actually just a frank discussion about what mistakes were made on both sides and what both parties could do differently moving forward. So, I think that's really sad because it doesn't just prevent us from growing. It also really strongly contributes to the campiness and our profession, and it, it really inhibits our ability to navigate conflict in a productive, healthy way. So I feel like this false, this expression of a false dichotomy is particularly harmful in terms of building a healthy community and how we interact with each other as a community. So, so I think that's my personal example that recently happened.

[00:08:51] Allie: I mean, I could have a million examples from our industry, but I think I'm going to choose less. A contentious example and look at superheroes and super villains because this is always where my mind goes when we talk about this of of either somebody is 100% good, they are right all the time, or they're 100% bad.

They're wrong all the time. That stems a lot from, honestly, to bring it back to how society sets us up for dichotomous thinking. We are taught that as kids of like, Superman is always good and I should have chosen a superhero who's villains I know. Lex Luther.

is always bad. Thank you. I don't know why I chose the superhero that I know the least of, but anywho. A Superman is always good. He's a hundred percent right. Lex Luther is always bad. He's a hundred percent wrong. And I think one of the interesting things and for those of you who are interested in how the media reflects, and I don't mean like news media, like creative media reflects what's happening in society.

I think one of the really interesting things that we've seen over the last, I don't know. Decade or two. I don't actually study this, I just, look at things and ponder about them. Is. The shift towards giving villains more of a backstory so that they're not 100% good or bad, right or wrong.

They're complex people. And also what we're seeing with like dark heroes of they are also not 100% good or bad, right or wrong. So I think it, I think our society is starting to understand a bit of people are not, good or bad. We're very complex creatures and also we fall back into that line of thinking, I think more often than not.

[00:10:55] Emily: Yeah, it's one of the many things I love about Crucial Conversations is that it, it makes you aware of your own, like the stories that you're telling yourself about, like who's the villain of the story and who's the hero of the story. Story. And, and so I think that it helps with the sort of practical application of these concepts of like getting out of these dichotomous mindsets.

Because it does, it calls you out. The book lovingly calls you out about like, are you the, the hero in your story and is the other person the villain in your story? If so, maybe you're missing some complexity to this situation and we need to reevaluate the stories that we're telling ourselves.

So, i, it's, that's a, a really common expression of a false dichotomy that, that can really get in our way. All right, next example. This research paper is either right or wrong, and if it's right, I need to treat it as gospel and it proves everything that I believe and I'm gonna shove it in everybody's face because I am, I use science, and science is backing my play or.

This research paper is wrong, and I can completely tear it down and ignore everything it says, and the researchers are dumb and they just made a bunch of mistakes, and it's bad science and nobody has to listen to it because it's just wrong, right? That's not how research works. I need y'all to know right now that Allie is just dying.

She's just laughing so hard because. I'm assuming, because you've heard me rant about this so many times and how like everybody could benefit from scientific literacy. Is that why you're dying right now?

[00:12:26] Allie: I'm dying for so many reasons. One, you told me before we hit record it, that you do not have cleavers and, and you just brought out a cleaver and

[00:12:37] Emily: Oh, okay. I need to explain this to y'all because, all right, so sidebar, we're gonna take a break from dichotomous thinking to explain what Allie just said. So, within Pet Harmony we talk about how Spoon Theory was a great, great, helpful thing, but it's an incomplete. Metaphor because really you have an entire silverware drawer and you can be outta spoons, but still have plenty of forks and butter knives and whatever.

And so before we started recording, we were talking about how we're out of butter knives. And I was like, I have a pairing knife left. And Ali was like, I just have cleavers. And I was like, I don't think I'm gonna need a cleaver for this episode, but I've got a pairing knife. I don't have butter knives. Leo left, but I do have a pairing knife left.

And I just put down that paring knife and picked up a cleaver. Apparently, so that's why Ali's talking about Cleavers because we have moved from spoon theory to silverware drawer theory when we talk about our capacity and bandwidth. But yeah, I mean it's, it's really frustrating to me that people have found a way to turn science into yet another religion and get dogmatic about it when the whole point of science.

Is to not be dogmatic. The whole point is objective, systematic analysis of data and letting the data, like following where the data leads and people still find a way to turn it into a religion. And it's just so frustrating to me personally. Much love, much love, no hate. I get it. Being a human is really hard and, and science can be really confusing and complicated and there's a lot of politics involved because anytime you have humans, you have politics and I get it. And also. I, this is a, this is an expression of false dichotomies that makes my head hurt on a regular basis.

So we don't have to think of research that way we can view the research, we can view the methodology, we can see what the research actually shows, and we can be very. Responsible in understanding how what this piece of research has discovered does and does not apply to what we're doing, what additional research is needed, how we might re replicate this test and see if under different conditions we get different results. All of those things we can do because science is not religion for a reason.

Friends, all right. Oh, Alia. What was the other reason you said that was one reason you were dying? What's the other reason you're dying?

[00:15:10] Allie: I am just, it was such a perfect encapsulation of so many social media fights I've seen in our industry. It just, ugh. It's almost like you study behavior for a living.

[00:15:24] Emily: Almost, I used to call what I do, science-based training and I stop and my, my point in, in calling myself a science-based trainer. Was that I use evidence, I pay attention to the research, all of that stuff. And then science-based training became its own religion. And I was like, dang it, I can't use that term anymore.

Now I have to, now I have to change what I call what I do. So now I call what I do, enrichment based training and I'm, I'm probably gonna stick with that until people ruin it. Another cleaver came out. My bad. Alright, let's move on. Let's move on. Apparently that I'm extra spicy about that example. Alright, next example of a false dichotomy. Either I'm certified or I have a degree, or I have 14 letters up at the end of my name, and that means I'm qualified to take on these cases or I'm not certified or degreed, and that means I'm not qualified to take on these cases.

That's another false dichotomy. You have more than two options. Friends, you can hone your skills. You can learn from mentors, you can shadow cases, you can join Pet Pro and you cannot have any certifications or degrees and be very, very good and very qualified.

And also you can have all the certifications, and so many degrees, and I would not hire you if my life depended on it. So, so, you have to think of it in terms of. What skills do I need to build? How can I reflect on what I've done and use that feedback and that self-reflection to adjust what I do moving forward?

How will these certifications or degrees help me further those skill sets? Will they. Do I need them? For some, some people the answer is yes. For some people the answer is no. It's almost like we're all individuals with our individual paths and individual goals, and therefore we need to make individual decisions about what our professional development path looks like.

That's the thing, right? So that's, that's another false dichotomy. Either I have all the letters and that means I'm qualified or I don't have any letters. And that means I'm not qualified. That's a false dichotomy. Friends, not true. BA fails The critical thinking test. 

[00:17:40] Allie: I I, need to call. Myself before I can utilize the space to say things.

[00:17:47] Emily: Was that another cleaver? Did I, did I 

forget to pick up my paring knife? 

[00:17:51] Allie: No, I just, no, you, you, you went to um, there was, there was like a chef knife that popped in for a second and that caused me to, to perish, pun intended. And, no. Okay. I, I don't have a good segue for this, so I'm just going to spew my thoughts because that's, that's where I'm at. Yeah, I, I think one of the examples that I have of this is a personal example, so y'all, I have a bachelor's degree in animal science. Fun fact. And. People would ask me, clients and other professionals, it doesn't really matter who, people would ask me, what, what kind of degree do you have? What essentially give me proof that, that you are qualified to do this work. And I would say, I have a degree in animal science.

And people would just accept that, accept that that meant that I could help their dog's behavior. And y'all, you know what my degree in animal science has given me. I know a lot about cows less. Now I need to brush up. I forgot one of the chambers of the, the name of one of the chambers of the stomach. And that was just like abysmal to me that I forgot that information.

I knew it for so long. I know so much about cows, y'all, I've forgotten so much about cows. I had to purposely choose companion animals and piecemeal my degree to include human psychology courses to get anything about behavior. So I purposely tried to get behavior stuff and also my degree actually just means I know a lot about cows.

So that is my personal example, is. Don't think I'm fancy 'cause I have a degree in animal science. But really I think a lot of this comes from a, a personal confidence and that, certifications, especially in our industry, are also used as a crutch for, I am not confident in myself. And we see that happen very frequently in our industry.

And I have theories as to why. And also that's not relevant to today's topic. And so people think that unless I have these letters. It means I'm a charlatan. I'm not qualified, and that's just very, very untrue. The last thing that popped into my head, Emily, as you were talking, is that age old doctor Quip of Cs get degrees, and there are many people who have advanced degrees that also, I would question if they are qualified to do what they're doing because CS get degrees at the end of the day.

[00:20:38] Emily: Yeah, I mean, this is not the time and place for me to go on my big soapbox about the role of academia in education and how people can have dichotomous. Views of academia as either it's the, the one true only way, or conversely people are like, academia is everything that's wrong with society, ivory tower, blah, blah, blah.

That's a good example of a dichotomy. Like it's not either or it, I am not gonna go on that soapbox today, but how it's relevant to this conversation is that I think a lot of people get advanced degrees in the behavior sciences because they think they need them to be good at their job. And to be honest, y'all, I have met very, very few people who have gotten an advanced degree who were not already trainers beforehand, who I actually trust their skill sets and would refer to them.

Because the skills that are focused on in an academic setting are not, the skills that are focused on are not the skills that I think a behavior consultant should cultivate to, to be really, really good at their job. I think it has value and also I don't think it has the value that people think it has.

And that's part of that false dichotomy of either it has all the value and it's the only way to do it, or it doesn't have value at all and I don't need it. And academia is dumb and neither of those things are true. So we just accidentally stumbled upon another example of a false dichotomy by talking about this.

But okay, we can move on. I will put my cleaver away. Pulling out my paring knife again, and we'll get back to it. All right, next one that I've heard so much, so much. If I don't dominate my dog, they'll dominate me. And it's like not neither of those. That's a false dichotomy. Did you know that there's a third option of nobody dominates?

Nobody. Like we're not dominating that domination is not. A thing that's not the relationship dynamic that we're building here. So that's a, I think a lot of people, a lot of clients that I've had hated the dominant space training techniques that they were taught, but they thought they were necessary because if they didn't dominate their dog, their dog would dominate them.

And the almost universal relief. That my clients experienced when I explained to them that dominance is irrelevant to their relationship with their dog and they no longer have to dominate them or try to dominate them, I should say. Is is really moving it to me like it was really emotional to me to see how many people.

Massive relief that they didn't have to dominate their dog, but they did it not because they didn't care about their dog, not because they didn't have empathy for their dog, not because they weren't aware of how it was damaging their relationship. They did it because they believed in this false dichotomy.

[00:23:30] Allie: Yeah. And we, and we see that not just with. The thought of, if I don't dominate my dog, they'll dominate me. I see it also on the other side of the spectrum of I have to give up my own needs and desires in order to meet my dog's needs and. So it can go both ways. And also neither, neither way is true. It's in the middle of there's a way that we can meet everybody's needs.

And that's exactly what we do with the, the Pet Harmony Enrichment Framework is how do we come up with a solution that meets the dog's needs, the human's needs? If there's a cat in the house, how do we meet their needs? How do we meet this? Red aired slider behind me who somehow is being quiet during a podcast recording episode, which is super cool.

How do we meet his needs while meeting my needs? Like all of the above. And so I think, like you said, Emily, that is one of the, that is one of my absolute favorite realizations that clients have when I'm working with them is, oh, there's a way that all of us can win. It doesn't have to be me versus my pet.

[00:24:44] Emily: Yeah, training is not a zero sum game. It's not like there has to be a winner and a loser. It's a non-zero sum game. It is possible for everybody to win, and not only is it possible, like that's the goal, that's the whole point. Otherwise, why have companion animals if you can't have companionship with them, if you can't have a healthy, supportive relationship with them?

That's the whole point of companion animals. So, but yeah, I, I love that you brought up that the opposite can be true, where people are like, I don't want to use a verse of training and therefore. I can't have any boundaries with my pet. I can't have I have to be totally permissive of everything they do.

I can't train them at all. Training is manipulation. I need to just let them be run wild and be the wild beast that they are. That's, it's not good for anybody. It's not even good for them. It's not safe for them. It doesn't give them the life skills they need to navigate our human world. They need to have skills, but we can teach those skills in a supportive, collaborative way.

Right. All right, next one. Either I use this aversive tool and keep my dog and everyone else safe, or I use a less aversive tool and my dog and everyone else will be unsafe. I, I've seen this one so many times. I just saw it yesterday. I was looking for a, a trainer that I met at a show. And I was looking for their website online and I stumbled on somebody else's, some other trainer's website who had a similar name and, and they were like, I use ecos because I want dogs who are safe and obedient.

And I just felt really sad for them. I was like, you know how I've been do, I've been doing this for a very, very long time and I've never. Needed to use aversive techniques to achieve both safety and responsiveness. I don't call it obedience because obedience implies lack of agency that I don't support, that I don't align with.

But I think the kernel of truth in the belief that animals need to be obedient is that they need to be responsive, especially in a situation that's that's a safety issue. And so I choose to use the, the word responsive instead of obedient, but I just felt very sad that they think that the only way they can keep their pets safe and also keep them responsive is by using an an eco.

And we have a whole episode on ecos. We go into the nuances of it. I'm aware that you can use an eco without it being aversive, but the rhetoric behind that statement was justifying. The aversive use of that tool to keep, because it was the only way to keep their dog safe and responsive, and that's simply not true.

I've, I've never in my entire career needed to use an aversive strategy to, to teach the skills that my animals needed to be safe and responsive. So that is another one. And just like we talked about with the dominance thing, a lot of clients use those aversive tools because of that false dichotomy because they think that's the only way to make sure that their animals stay safe and responsive.

And when, again, just like with the dominance thing, when so many of my clients learned that that wasn't true, that that was a false dichotomy, that there are other options that can keep their pet safe and responsive. The overwhelming majority of the time the clients just felt enormous relief at that realization, at that discovery, right.

[00:28:13] Allie: I have nothing to add.

[00:28:14] Emily: Alright, last one. I'm intentionally pulling out my cleaver because y'all, this one. Makes me stabby. Here's a false dichotomy. Either you use this procedure by this trainer who I hero worship and think is the best trainer who does the best methods, or you're not our plus because you're not using this one trainer's method.

It's their way or it's the highway. And any other procedure is not r plus enough for, for me. I don't have any nice things to say about this. It's objectively false. If anybody bothers to learn other ways of doing things, they would find out that there are lots and lots of ways to there are many paths up the mountain.

There are lots of ways that you can, be petitive and collaborative and give your learners lots and lots of agency. There's not only one trainer out there who, who achieves those results. So stop it. I'm just gonna use response blocking here. I'm just gonna say, stop it. I, I don't have a nicer way to say that.

Stop fighting on the internet about which trainer has the best procedures. Just stop it. You're just objectively wrong. One of the reasons that we go so hard on the D descriptive rather than the prescriptive approach is because we are better behavior professionals when we learn multiple paths up the mountain, so that if one particular path isn't ideal for either the dog or the human, or the context or the environment, you have other ways to reach the top of the mountain.

So, yep. I was just response blocky. I am not sorry. I do not apologize. That was my cleaver. Stop it. It's a false dichotomy. Learn how to approach behavior descriptively and you will first of all enjoy your profession much more. And secondly, you'll be more effective and empathetic and compassionate. Yeah, and enriching. You may not make fun of me, Allie. I give you permission.

[00:30:17] Allie: I, I don't, I. I don't even know how to in this moment to make fun of you. Just to say that we have a couple of episodes that talk about is it actually positive reinforcement or not? What does that actually mean? Because a lot of the arguments that I see on the internet are not even using that term correctly, and everybody's talking past one another because they're not, they're not.

They have more to learn. Look, I found a paring knife. So we will put that in the show notes. We have a couple of episodes on, is it even r plus? Because there are a lot of things that I've seen that claim to be r plus and in practice sometimes aren't. And so we can just drop the dichotomous thinking that if I give treats it's positive reinforcement.

[00:31:13] Emily: Yeah, I think, I think really the, the, the. Motivation behind the cleaver is, I really would love it if our profession stopped fighting on the internet. That's really just all I want outta life is like, yo, this is not a good use of your energy. I got a Facebook, it was the best thing that ever happened to me because the thing about Facebook is even when I would try to agree with and support people, they would still get defensive and mad and I was like, this ist good.

This like practice of arguing with each other has made it so that we can't even. See when we're being supported and agreed with. So like I just want everybody to stop fighting on the internet and y'all have agency. You can do whatever you want, but like. Most of the time internet arguments have at least one, usually multiple logical fallacies and cognitive biases going on at the same time, I have seen almost no internet arguments that were actually epistemologically sound.

So just don't, don't spend your energy arguing on the internet. That's my advice. You can take it or leave it. All right. Moving on. How to recognize that you may be. Falling for a false dichotomy. Number one, if you are having either or feelings, that's your sign. If you're like, either I have to do this or this will happen, that's your sign that it's a false dichotomy.

If you think there are only two options, almost, almost always, you are under the influence of a false dichotomy. Do you have anything to add, ally?

[00:32:49] Allie: And I'll say that sometimes I don't recognize it when I'm thinking about it or feeling about it. I only recognize it when I'm talking aloud about it and I'm like, well, I can do this or I can do this. And that word of or, or either whichever is really my. Red flag trigger there of like, hold up. You said that there's only two options here and you know that there is almost never two options only.

[00:33:23] Emily: Yeah. Yeah. And, and to be fair, the, the next component of this is that sometimes there really are legitimately only two options. Having only two options is slightly different than a false dichotomy. In that, a false dichotomy typically feels like a zero sum game. Like either I, I, I pick choice A and I lose out on something, or I pick choice B and I lose out on the, the choice a benefit.

So typically, not always, but a false dichotomy usually has that a zero sum game aspect of like, you're gonna. You're gonna lose something, somebody's gonna come out on top, somebody's gonna lose that kind of thing. There, but that said, I would say regardless, sometimes there really are only two options.

And a, a really good example of that from my own life recently is that in the first few months that Miley was living with me in my home, the only two options she had while I was working are either staying in the office with me and doing foraging toys, but not getting to run around a lot or being outside and getting to run around a lot, but more of a safety risk.

I had less control over what she was doing. I wasn't sure what needs were being met outside. And those legitimately were my two options because it wasn't safe and she didn't have the skills yet to spend any time in the rest of the house. And she and Copper were not safer on each other, unattended. 'Cause copper was guarding from her. And he would guard really weird, unpredictable times for me. Like I, I didn't understand what set him off. But. We built her skill sets and we worked on the relationship between copper and Miley, and now that's no longer the case. Now she has lots of options. I usually leave my office door open.

She can freely move between the office and the rest of the house. She can now tell me when she wants to go outside instead of me just having to put her outside without her having much of a choice about it. So now she has lots of freedom and agency and lots of options. And so in that moment, I only had two choices, but I still didn't, I still wasn't operating under a false dichotomy because I was aware that we could work, we could do things to make more options available.

Right. So the overwhelming majority of the time if you think you've only got two choices, especially if those two choices are pitted against each other you're operating under a false dichotomy. And in the cases like Miley's situation above, there can be an additional fallacy at play called inductive overreach.

And that's where you think that because. This like limitation of options is true in this moment. It's always going to be true. And so I think that's one of the biggest culprits behind this belief that because I had to use this aversive technique this one time, therefore this dog always needs aversive techniques.

I think that an inductive, overreach logical fallacy is the culprit there. Because in reality, you did the best you could with the knowledge and skills you had at the time. You had to use that aversive technique because you didn't know any other solution. And so in that moment. That technique was the best way you could keep your dog safe and responsive.

But if you and your dog learn additional skills, that won't always be necessary. It's not that your dog needs more aversive techniques than other dogs, it's that that was what you needed to do at the time with the limitations of skills and knowledge that you and your dog had. And that's not always going to be true.

So I think in this context, the false dichotomy, fallacy and the inductive overreach fallacy can feed into each other and really contribute to that feeling of like, I truly only have two choices here. Either I use this aversive technique and I have a safe and responsive dog, or I don't use it and my dog is unsafe and unresponsive.

So, I just wanted to bring that up because sometimes you do only have two options, but usually that's an indication that you and or your pet have opportunities for, for further skill development.

[00:37:52] Allie: And I would argue that you did have more than two options. You just didn't have. More than two viable options. And I think that's one of the differences here is that you had thought through, well, I could get a dog walker, I could take her to daycare, I could do this, this, this, and this. And you said, Nope.

For reasons. None of those are viable options that I should or could actually choose versus you thinking, no, truly it is only this or this, and there was no other option that came to mind as you were deciding.

[00:38:30] Emily: That's a really good point. That I did have other options. I knew that creating was an option. I did not want to do CR because I would like to give her as much agency as possible, and if a crate isn't necessary, I'm not going to choose that option. I could have used a dog walker. That's not how I wanted to use my funds, because I am capable of meeting my own dog's needs.

I have the schedule that affords it. So you're, that is a really good point, is that I didn't start with two options. I. I narrowed down to two options after looking at multiple options. So yes, that is, thank you for articulating that because you're right. That's the other reason that it wasn't a false dichotomy is I ended up with two options, but that's not where I started.

Good point, Allie, you're awesome. I appreciate you.

[00:39:13] Allie: Thanks. I appreciate you.

[00:39:15] Emily: So what to do about it. Once you've identified that maybe you're operating under a false dichotomy there are three steps that we recommend taking to get yourself out of that, of that state to break free of the logical fallacy. Step one, get curious. Ask yourself, are these my only two options?

Are these the only two explanations? Whatever, whatever the context is, is it true? How do I know that it's true that this is, these are the only two explanations or options or outcomes or whatever, right? And then I would tack onto that because we wanna remember that inductive overreach fallacy. If you really do conclude after careful thought and discussion with trusted peers.

There are these only two options. Then the next question to ask is, even if they are now, does that always have to be the case? And then again, go down that line of questioning with a genuine desire to discover, right? You're not just asking yourself the question so you can say you, you tried you're genuinely trying to discover what's, what's possible, what's out there.

Step two, ask questions. When someone tells me that something that conflicts with my current understanding, instead of assuming that they're wrong or that we must be enemies my, my arch nemesis, the person who disagrees with me I get curious about the differences in our selection biases. In other words, what are the conditions under which my experiences are true and what are the conditions under which theirs are true?

Am I missing a piece of information? Are they missing a piece of information? Are we both missing pieces of information? Are there dialectics that we're both missing? And that has happened to me so many times where somebody will make a statement that is in direct opposition with my experience. And so I'll ask them more about the context of their experience and the statement that they made.

And I have yet to fail to find. The dialectics, the, the, the differences in context that explains why we have a disparity in perception. And often that means one of our both of us are missing information, right? It doesn't mean that we're, it doesn't always mean that we're both right. It just means that, that we have different information and we are gonna be more effective if we bring our information together and have this shared pool of information so we can identify what's missing, what we need to add for all the P puzzle pieces to fit together.

Right. And then step three, be aware of, I'm bringing up another logical fallacy. The auto epistemic logical fallacy. I've brought it up a few times in this podcast. That is where we are limited by the, our own knowledge, the confines of our own knowledge, where we think that everything there is to discover.

We have already discovered it, right? So be aware of that auto epistemic logical fallacy and how it gets in our way. So often the reason that we've fallen for a false dichotomy is because we lack information, ideas, and or experience that someone else might have. So a lot of times when people say, I've tried everything, that's usually an example of an auto epistemic fallacy.

You've tried everything that you currently know to try. Or if I hadn't done this, this outcome would've happened, right? Because you only had, that was the only option that you had to solve this problem, and you didn't have the knowledge or the experience to try other things to solve that problem in a better way.

So, when we're aware of that auto epistemic logical fallacy and that there might be more knowledge out there outside of ourselves then it's easier to reach out to other people and learn from them. So if you're aware that you're operating under the constraints of your own knowledge and you're willing to reach out to other people who have other knowledge.

You will usually find a solution that you had not thought of. I'm going to give you a really good example of this that just happened. So, copper a few weeks ago, I have no concept of time just suddenly went down in the back end. He has paraparesis the, I'm not gonna go into the whole story, it's a really long story, but for lots of reasons I won't go into, we thought he had spinal cancer.

And, there were very good reasons. All of the vets who were working on his case and me who has spent 23 years in the veterinary field, we all felt pretty confident that he had spinal cancer because of all of these things that happen. Again, I'm not gonna go into the whole story. My partner who doesn't know anything about the veterinary field, he's never worked in the veterinary field.

He's not a part of it. I've always been the one doing the veterinary care for our pets. So he hasn't had a lot of opportunities. He was listening to us talking and something that we were saying made him curious and we. The vet, the veterinarians, and I, we thought we had the answer that, by the way, is a cognitive bias called a prema premature closure of inquiry.

We think we have the answer, so we don't go out looking for other answers. But because Chuck didn't know what we knew, because he had less knowledge than we had, he actually went out and asked the internet. He asked ai, he asked chat, GBT, what would cause this thing under these situations, under these circumstances.

And from that research he found that copper may have had an atypical response to Ella. So copper's been on Ella for two years and, it usually if the dogs have side effects of rela, they don't have it two years into using it. And also his side effects happened.

He went down in the back end 10 days after the injection. And again, usually if they're gonna have a reaction, they have it within 24 to 48 hours of the injection, not 10 days later. So we had all missed it because we thought we knew things or we don't do know things. We actually know a lot of things about veterinary medicine, right.

Collectively, his veterinary team and myself, we've got a quite a bit of knowledge and experience, but it was, it was exactly our knowledge and experience. Made us vulnerable to that premature closure of inquiry where because Chuck lacked that knowledge and experience, he was still curious and he went out there and he find an found another explanation, and his explanation ended up being the right one.

Copper does not have spinal cancer. It was a side effect of Ella, and we would not have discovered that, or it would've taken us much longer to discover that if we hadn't included Chuck in the conversation. He hadn't been curious. So it was his lack of knowledge that actually led us to new discovery because we who had a lot of knowledge had were under the influence of that cognitive bias, and Chuck didn't.

So it is really important to include multiple people, multiple perspectives, multiple knowledge sets when trying to solve a problem because. Somebody might come in with a fresh solution if they're coming in from outside of your echo chamber, outside of your circle, right? So that's a really good example of how that OTT epistemic logical fallacy, combined with the premature closure closure of inquiry, cognitive bias actually set us back.

And it was by including somebody who had no knowledge and experience in the field that we actually found the solution.

[00:47:17] Allie: That's a fun fact and I'm glad Copper doesn't have spinal cancer. I didn't know of that update. The last thing that I'll say of the what to do about it. I just recently read a really interesting article and y'all, I don't remember where I found it or who it was by, or what publication it was in.

So first of all, grain of Salt because I can't cite my sources right now. But also it's not going to be in the show notes 'cause I, I don't know. Where this was, I could maybe find it again. And also I'm probably not gonna be able to but the article was saying that it is that people who experienced authoritative parenting, teaching, mentoring, coaching.

As children are more likely to grow up with that dichotomous thinking and that black or white thinking, and that made a lot of sense to me and also has been congruent with a lot of the people that I know in my life if we're just looking at anecdotal evidence. So if you're prone to that type of thinking and you recognize that you're prone to that type of thinking, this might be a great opportunity to work with a mental health practitioner to talk through about how your early childhood experiences are now impacting your thought processes as an adult.

So to recap today's episode, one of the most insidious forms of self-sabotage is dichotomous thinking, also known as binary thinking or black and white thinking. However you wanna think about your thinking. That's, that's, those are what it's called. We went through a bunch of different examples, some with butter knives and some with cleavers, and that's just where we're at, folks, because bandwidth is a real thing.

But Anyw, who, let's get to the more important part, which is how to recognize that you are falling into this logical fallacy. The first is if you're having either or feelings or saying the words. Either or when you are talking about options, that's a sign.

sometimes there may legitimately be only two options, but it's more likely that if you are not using dichotomous thinking, there are plenty of options that you thought through, but you only found two viable options for this particular scenario. Instead of starting with two options, there's a little bit of a difference there.

And then sometimes there's an additional fallacy at play called inductive overreach where because it might be temporarily true that you only have two options. Therefore, you believe that it will always be that you only have two options. Things change over time and that's a good thing.

Sometimes, much of the times. It depends. So what can you do about this? First, get curious. Ask yourself if those are really the only two options. The next is to ask questions especially if you are hearing something that conflicts with your current understanding. Again, get curious, ask questions. A lot of times people are just talking past each other.

Be aware of the auto epistemic logical fallacy and how it gets in your way. And also seek help from a mental health practitioner if you find that you're prone to this type of thinking. There are things that you can do to help with.

 I hope you enjoy today's episode and if there's someone in your life who also needs to hear this, be sure to text it to them right now. If you're a pet parent looking for more tips on enrichment, behavior modification, and finding harmony with your pet, you can find us on Facebook and Instagram at Pet Harmony training. If you're a behavior or training professional dedicated to enrichment for yourself, your clients, and their pets, check us out on TikTok and Instagram at Pet Harmony Pro.

As always, links to everything we discussed in this episode are in the show notes. Thank you to Ellen Yoakum for editing this episode and making us sound good. Our intro music is from Penguin Music on Pixa Bay. Please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. That helps more pet lovers and professionals find us so they can bring enrichment into their world too.

Thank you for listening, and here's to harmony.

Here's a little bonus enrichment tip to thank you for listening to this episode. This was a heavy one, so I'm gonna give you a lighter enrichment tip. If your dog is having hind end weakness like Copper or Oso, I recommend the Help 'em up harness to provide aid in their mobility, and of course, I recommend training them on it before you need it.