Misquoting: Dangerously simplifying Complexity?

It’s been a while since I last posted to this Substack. There are many reasons for that, but the one I want to talk about today is fear—specifically, the fear of being misquoted.

Continuing to explore my many stories about complex systems. See this first post for an introduction

It’s been a while since I last posted to this Substack. There are many reasons for that, but the one I want to talk about today is fear—specifically, the fear of being misquoted.

At first glance, misquoting might seem like a minor issue, hardly something worth fearing. But I want to argue that, in the context of complex systems, misquoting isn’t just inconvenient—it can actually be dangerous.

Let me explain.

When we’re dealing with simple systems in a straightforward world, simple statements often work well. It’s relatively easy to label things as true or false, and most people tend to agree on the facts. But when we shift into the realm of complex systems, simple statements start to fall apart. They might contain some truth, but they also leave out critical context. Getting closer to the truth in these cases requires nuance: qualifiers, context, and careful framing. And that’s exactly what gets stripped away when someone is misquoted.

So how dangerous can that be? Isn’t removing a few “maybes,” “sometimes,” or “in certain cases” just a way to make communication clearer? Sure—when we’re talking about simple systems. But when it comes to complex systems, this drive to simplify is actually a distortion of reality. It’s a demand that the universe always give us a clear, simple answer. That it picks a side.

And that’s where the real danger lies. The first step toward conflict—toward war, even—is to simplify a complex situation. Reduce it to “us vs. them,” “right vs. wrong.” I see it every day in the headlines: complicated issues boiled down to yes-or-no soundbites. The world becomes a place where everyone is expected to take a side. And it’s much easier to fight someone when you believe they’re completely wrong. It’s much harder when you acknowledge that they might have a point.

Let’s look at two current examples: the Middle East and immigration policy. These are emotionally charged, politically divisive topics—and many readers likely have strong opinions on them. But from my perspective as an outsider, the history of the Middle East is deeply complex. Over thousands of years, many groups have lived in, moved through, and laid claim to the same pieces of land. The “right answer” to who belongs where depends heavily on when you decide to start the clock.

I’m not saying that recognizing your opponent’s perspective will magically solve such deep-rooted issues. But I do believe that acknowledging complexity can reduce the intensity of conflict. It takes some of the heat out of the argument.

Immigration is another issue where we see a powerful tendency to reduce things to sides. Polls routinely ask whether people are “for” or “against” immigration—as if that’s a meaningful binary. But to me, that kind of question is far too simplistic. Real policies involve trade-offs, local context, and multiple layers of impact. Framing the issue in simple terms doesn’t help us address it effectively.

Of course, we all rely on simplifications. Even my division of systems into “simple” and “complex” is itself a simplification. And historically, we’ve made incredible progress by searching for simple, repeatable rules. But like any powerful idea, simplicity has its limits. After solving many of the world’s simple problems, we’re increasingly left with the complicated ones. And unfortunately, we’re still trying to fix them with the same simple tools.

One of the most damaging educational trends I’ve seen in my lifetime is the rise of the multiple-choice exam. These tests weren’t common when I was a student—except in IQ tests, which is another story. Multiple-choice tests have their place, but they also subtly teach us that every question has one correct answer, and all others are wrong. That might work in some cases, but not all. The central theme of this Substack is that life, especially in complex systems, rarely offers such tidy truths.

Disclosure: I have been using ChatGPT for some time for proof reading. But this is the first post where I have used the system to rewrite the piece for clarity, and got a result I think an improvement. I expect to continue to explore that collaboration in my future posts.

See the first post for an introduction to this series. See the home page for previous posts on the topic. Of particular relevance is this one on Denying Complexity. For more about the author, see the About page.