Black-and-white thinking is one of the most common psychological responses to stress, conflict, and emotional strain.
At the same time, many people understand that phrases such as “everything is terrible,” “nothing will work out,” or “he always does this” rarely reflect reality in a literal sense.
And yet we hear these phrases all the time — or notice them in our own thoughts. This can happen even in relatively calm states, but most often black-and-white thinking in general, and such formulations in particular, emerge in emotionally charged situations.
Thoughts and words shaped in this way can burst out so forcefully that they are hard to restrain. Sometimes a person does not even notice that they are “coming out.” There is an urge to say them, because in a certain sense black-and-white thinking does bring a “benefit.”
What kind of “benefit”? That is what this article is about.
If we use the metaphor of an iceberg, black-and-white thinking has both a visible surface and a deeper, submerged part. “Benefit” exists on both levels, but in different ways. At its core lie the dynamics of psychic energy.
The Visible Level of Black-and-White Thinking. The Tip of the Iceberg
On the surface, black-and-white thinking looks like a convenient simplification.
For example, someone says about their manager: “He simply can’t communicate.” This formulation frees the person from the need to clarify, to speak about their needs, or to tolerate possible rejection or criticism. The situation is declared hopeless — to oneself and to others. Which means that doing anything no longer seems necessary or meaningful.
Since “the other is at fault,” this becomes a way to avoid confronting one’s own qualities that one does not want to recognize, as well as a way to avoid acknowledging one’s dependence on another person — someone on whom something genuinely depends in this situation.
At this level, black-and-white thinking economizes psychic energy. Maintaining the balance of an already established system (for example, quality of life or the nature of a relationship) requires less energy than building a new one. The psyche, as it were, chooses the least costly path.
A similar mechanism operates in relation to oneself. In statements such as “I’m incapable of anything,” “I’ll never be able to do this,” or “nothing works out for me,” the same totality is present. The “I” is experienced not as a person with both limitations and capacities, but as wholly inadequate.
This provides an inner justification: one does not have to try, to take risks, or to face doubt, possible mistakes, or disappointment. Here again, energy is conserved — through the refusal of movement and change.
In this, one can see an immediate “benefit”: emotional relief comes quickly, tension decreases, and the system stabilizes.
In the long term, however, this often leads to becoming stuck in repetitive situations, a sense of helplessness, chronic dissatisfaction with oneself, or disappointment in others.
What Lies Beneath the Surface of the Iceberg
At a deeper level, the “convenient simplification” of the iceberg’s tip turns out not to be so simple. It is connected to the organization of the psyche itself.
From a psychodynamic perspective, black-and-white thinking in an adult may:
a) reflect regression — a return to a childlike mode of object relations, that is, to an earlier way of perceiving people and events. Under intense emotional pressure, the psyche temporarily reverts to a mode in which it becomes impossible to hold contradictory feelings toward the same object (for example, a person or a situation) at the same time;
b) indicate insufficient development of more mature defenses that allow one to tolerate ambivalence — the simultaneous presence of conflicting feelings.
Regression, Ambivalence, and Psychic Organization
In the first case, emotional tension becomes too intense, and the psyche retreats to a simpler, polarized way of perceiving reality, in which an object is either entirely good or entirely bad.
Such regression helps prevent further escalation of tension and preserves the energy that would otherwise be required to hold opposing qualities in mind. This makes it possible to cope with tension, but at the cost of halting development.
In the second case, contradictory feelings cannot be perceived or integrated at all. They do not become the subject of simultaneous feeling and thinking and therefore are not processed. As a result, the energy generated by these feelings remains unbound — it does not take the form of thought or lived experience. Instead, it finds expression in emotional outbursts.
In both cases, the other person begins to be experienced as totally bad, frustrating, and threatening.
Not “he is not hearing me right now,” but “he cannot communicate at all.”
Not “this episode hurts,” but “it is always like this with him.”
Totality is the key word here. It reflects the very style of black-and-white thinking: an episode turns into infinity, a part into the whole, a feeling into a permanent state.
Affective Defense
In relation to a partially “bad” object, different responses are possible — for example, anger limited to a specific episode, or disappointment that does not destroy the relationship.
But in relation to a totally bad object, only affective defense remains.
The specific form this affective discharge takes is largely determined by the content of the psychological Shadow — those aspects of one’s own experience and inner life that are incompatible with one’s self-image and therefore are not admitted into consciousness, while nevertheless remaining part of the individual psyche.
In such cases, aggression may be experienced as justified, rupture as the only possible way to escape tension, and devaluation as necessary.
When the object becomes totally bad, there is no longer a need to take nuances into account, to remember previous experience, or to acknowledge one’s own dependence on that object.
This brings a “benefit” — brief relief, so intense and appealing that it is difficult to restrain the outburst. And yet, in the long run, this relief almost always comes at a cost — this time without quotation marks.
Every person passes through a phase of “total” perception in childhood. In normal development, we gradually learn to accept both the positive and contradictory qualities of the people around us — up to a certain limit. When the intensity of contradiction exceeds our capacity to tolerate it, regression may occur (variant a). When there are developmental difficulties of the kind described in variant b), black-and-white thinking may remain habitual even in calm situations.
Fight, Flight, or Freeze
Beyond developmental factors, there is an even older reason for our tendency toward black-and-white perception. It is linked to the fight-flight-freeze response.
In situations of threat, it is advantageous for the brain to perceive the source of danger as unequivocally bad, without reflecting on motives or complexity. Nuance interferes with rapid reaction. This mechanism is deeply rooted in survival and cannot be fully eliminated.
In contemporary life, however, real physical threats are usually absent. And this ancient mechanism, when triggered by “threats” such as conflict, criticism, or disapproval, can significantly complicate our lives.
What Can We Do?
We can mitigate the consequences of an episode by helping ourselves return to a more stable state. This requires developing a certain kind of inner dialogue, which I will discuss in other articles. Importantly, this work concerns only the tip of the iceberg and takes place after the “outburst” has already occurred. It is about damage control.
Raising one’s tolerance threshold in case (a), and developing more mature defenses in case (b), is possible through long-term psychotherapeutic work. And finally, we can try to be more tolerant — toward ourselves and toward others — when black-and-white perception takes over.