Death of Nuance (Translation in Progress)

Most of the conversations I observe lately seem to be between beings living in different worlds, seeing totally opposite realities. The right idolizing money, the left ignoring the economy. The pro-LLM crowd talking as if God were among us, and the anti-LLM crowd ignoring any advantage they might have; and so it goes in every conversation.

Then, when speaking in more detail with the participants, none of them really believe in the extreme positions. But why, then, are all conversations so polarized? And why does there seem to be so much hate in those discussions?

Subtlety doesn't pay dividends

A toot from Mitchel Hashimoto, recounting the difficulty of arguing with his tech colleagues about LLMs, led me to the following reflection: being so surrounded by information, so overwhelmed by content, we cannot pay attention to anything unless it stands out. And the best way to stand out is with strong emotions. And increasingly powerful emotions are needed, almost like a drug. That is why the reporter talks about the other as an enemy, or the influencer says that the bread we have always eaten is poison, or the politician characterizes the poor as demons.

For those who know something about the attention economy, this is nothing new. If there is an abundance of information, attention is scarce. But this last fact has the consequence that subtlety, which requires a lot of focus, begins to disappear from the content we consume. News, streams, influencers, and all content creators need to look for more polarizing things that do not allow for nuance or balanced analysis.

Being surrounded by that all day influences how we think and process information. And that media mania carries over into daily dialogue, work, and friendships.

That is why figures like Donald Trump and Milei gain popularity. They imitate and amplify that discourse that constantly surrounds us, moving progressively to the most extreme versions of their positions, because as a society we reward them with more attention and, therefore, political power.

But why do I want nuance?

I have asked myself this question a lot. What do we lose by simplifying? Isn't it enough to know if something is good or bad?

The answer has too many nuances for a blog post, but I will try to summarize it. Subtleties matter because they are the only path to a true understanding of things. Is alcohol good or bad? It depends on the dose, on whether it helps us relax with friends. Capitalism? It helped generate the current society, with its many virtues and its great deficiencies. Love? It is beautiful if we find a good balance, or it can consume us if we don't find an equilibrium.

If we only stick to good or bad, we lose all possibility of improvement. Not only of what we are analyzing, but also of our capacity to analyze itself. Because that is how subtlety is: recursive, fractal, infinite.

A note on groups

I couldn't write this without adding a tangent in some sense. Most of the mentions have been about specific things (politics, people, technologies). But I also see a lack of nuance regarding groups. Just because one belongs to a group, its members do not magically gain certain characteristics. I have often noticed this with the LGBTQ+ community. As if being trans or gay automatically made us heroes or villains. One can be trans and be a horrible person, regardless of that identity.

I mention it because it affects all groups: men, women, gays, trans, disabilities, incels, etc. Labels help us communicate, to understand each other. If we use them to reduce the other, they lose all value.

And now what?

Returning to the subject at hand, I am looking not to stay in the problem, but also to propose solutions, to tell stories of redemption.

If subtlety is dead, what do we do? As human beings, we are quite powerful in conceptual necromancy, so I propose reviving it. How? By ignoring superficial conversations, questioning simplification and generalization, adding nuances whenever possible. We must invite subtleties, not only in conversations but in thinking and feeling.

This also requires an additional effort to endure the opposite nuance. And not just endure it: empathize with that position, repeatedly, seeking each time to expand a little more, no matter how absurd they may seem to us. The goal is not to understand the other absolutely, but to expand oneself.

We must empathize even with those opinions that threaten who we are: sexism, transphobia, racism, and a long etcetera. Not to justify, validate, or destroy them. We must do it to one day dismantle those absolutisms.

A note of caution

Even when I celebrate nuances, it is imperative to set limits. Understanding a topic and its nuances does not mean allowing its existence. Personal experiences with transphobia force me to mention this. As much as I make efforts to understand these positions that desire my destruction, I do my best not to leave them even a gram of oxygen in my environment.

Final thoughts

Even when I propose subtlety as something to seek, I wonder if we will have time for it. Every day there are millions of things that seem so important that, if we dedicated hours of analysis to each one, we would do nothing else.

I suppose the exercise of subtlety has in itself a nuance of when to apply it and when not to. I suppose it could not be any other way.