Seemingly, people in general have very little quantitative differentiation skills. This means that they have little-to-no sense of or appreciation for scales, levels, or degrees. They can only see the polar ends, and draw radically over-generalized conclusions about anyone or anything that they perceive as tending towards a polar-end. Basically, the standard mind works as such. You divide any given subject into two opposing extremes. You then define those extremes. You then label everything you see in relation to that subject as one of the two terms you have came up with, to describe the polar ends. You then have a long chain of associative connections with those words, that you automatically project onto that which you have associated with the extreme. This is one of the problems in government now, for instance. The government can point to something we 'need,' or at least we have been convinced to believe that we need, and that makes it a blank check to spend unlimited money in that area. People agree that we need a particular thing, but when you try to explain that even if something is needed, that doesn't justify massive never-ending money towards it, the message is not registered. People have no concept of scales, and can only see it in terms of supporting it, which then means unlimited money can be put towards it, or being against it, which means abolishing it. It is as if I spent a million dollars a day on food. You then criticized me, saying I was being wasteful, and I said "I need food! What, you're saying I shouldn't eat??" This is a humorous and perhaps extreme example, but the principle holds. Observe people, as they discuss and debate. Observe how passionately they defend one polar-end of an issue, and attack the other, and hardly seem to acknowledge the existence of a whole range of scales in-between their over-generalized and extreme polar ends.
Interesting. In your first paragraph, I think I very well understand what you're saying. This approach has different categorical names depending on how the concepts are introduced, invoked or assumed. Often call false dilemmas, false dichomoties, binarism, black-and-white thinking, or (my favourite); bivalent logic. This type of diametric thinking is not always flawed. Depending on the stipulative definitions being used in a conversation, such an approach might be considered self-evident. Which brings me into my next point. When people do this, they're often unaware of it, or unaware of a spectrum. This is often due to the underlying assumption which all of us make when we approach nearly any hypothetical or practical problem. We have a tendency in any culture, to essentialize entities in our world. It is part of the human developmental psychology. A great example in the conventional Euro-American approach to gender system. When we come to topics as complex and multifaceted as politics.... these essentializations and assumptions are only amplified in magnitudes. We get to the point where our fundamental approaches different from person to person. Perceptual incongruencies may be intrinsically built into how we individually perceive a cultural environment. Perhaps this is were conflict derives from at a basic level. Even if that's true, it should be important to note that these essentializations and assumption are integral components of social identity. So... I am a little afronted at your notion of a "standard mind", implying there are "superior minds". This is... with a healthy dose of irony, an essentialization of intelligence. You other them and place and position yourself away. When one is being bivalent it's "you" and "they". Perhaps it should be "us" and "we". Assumptions change over time. People learn from their experiences. Their political affiliations change. They are vulnerable to knowledge and evidence. It can be truly frustrating sometimes, but misanthropy will get you nowhere.
Has been one of our species more negative or chaotic qualities... you would only think at first. Little do we remind ourselves that if it wasn't for this strong, secure, group mentality in which groups act on confidence, our ancestors would have probably died before they reproduced. Thousands of years ago no one person was smart enough to do anything as efficient as possible solely alone. Impossible for many. Group mentalities mattered as they still do today. Something only becomes a group mentality when its easily visible and instills the biggest amount of confidence in a body of thinkers. When the conclusion of a group mentality seems extreme, it is usually done for reasons of security, or to instill other aspects of discipline. The stricter or more extreme a rule gets, the more possibility for stability and security in the society enacting that rule. (Sometimes, and sometimes not) The safer yet less fun or free life may be. Only certain people are ready to take risks and go against the crowd. Most people are too preoccupied to think critically and especially fight battles to better themselves and their surrounding environment. I understand what you are saying, and its a wonderful and logical post that I was delighted to read. However those grey areas that you want to see actualized will be too specific and almost dictator-like if they are followed to the utmost extent. They may inhibit possibilities of free choice in certain circumstances. Or rather than doing that, will allow whatever society to go around or do whatever possible to just meet the requirements of following laws or procedure. Its about discipline, people will find newer and newer ways to do wrong. I do agree that there are quite a few things in which a rational, in-depth and un-extreme solution is necessary. This is what societies throughout history have done. Life was much harder the farther back you go in time. Pertaining to the strictness and depthness of their laws and how closely those laws were associated with and connected to the people obeying them, these laws were necessary to keep unstable foundations standing (or on its knees). Americans are passed this point of instability I guess, but if Americans don't develope discipline, how long will it last? In America you have people left and right shouting that we can't legislate morality and control people's freedom, but you do that in a sense with these strictly in depth laws that are closely related to things. The more complex a law is, the more it is involved in the psyche of those experiencing the law. The easier it is to break the law. The law may establish too much strictness and may have to be changed in the future if its premised on HOW people commit crimes rather than when they actually commit them.
I noticed this in many political debates myself. For example, every time I say employers underpay their employees and people should be paid more fairly, I hear the response "Well that wouldn't work, you can't just go and pay everyone $100,000 a year and still make a profit". No you cannot. But you also cannot work for $20,000 a year and support yourself. And what's worse is those working for $20,000 a year do so every day, with little to no vacation, with long hours to work and hard work to do during those hours. But they're just lazy citizens who can't afford to buy their own business anyhow, right?
What pisses me off, is the minimum wage legislation that was brought in here to ensure workers received 'decent' pay. The idea is sound. And to be fair, it did stop a number of employers getting away with poverty wages. But the number of employers who see this as the wage they want to pay, rather than the very legal minimum before it is ILLEGAL, is ridiculous. What does it say to your staff if you're only prepared to pay the minimum you can get away with before you're prosecuted? Doesn't engender much in the way of loyalty, pride, care, and you can't say anything because the employer knows he can find 20 more just like you. Besides, they often expect you to work your arse off, take responsibility, as if it's your business, when you're only there to live; you do not live to work. Not usually in these jobs anyway. A fair wage for a proper job. People need to feel pride in what they do. Feel like they have value, and are valued, not easily discarded. One could argue that even needing a minimum wage at all reveals so much about the greed and selfishness of many who run a business. Not all are as greedy - but still, come on.