Intellectual Anarchy 102
It is vital that we come to understand the practical value of different linguistic choices.

It is urgent that we come to recognize the application of different limits to our imagination.

We are accustomed to thinking in a particular way, even when we experience evidence that is incompatable with thinking that way.
The Parable of Max
A PERF member who wishes to remain anonymous once believed that he was unlovable. Let's call this anonymous PERF member Max. In high school, Max was a nerd. Other boys pushed him around, and girls ignored him. Max dealt with this by employing an emotionally valid logic to the situation. Nobody seemed to like him, so he concluded that nobody  could  like him. He concluded that he was unlovable.

Given his unhappy circumstances, that conclusion was emotionally valid. It made sense in the context of Max's high school experience. However, the most important aspect of the conclusion was that it was a choice he made for himself. Unfortunately, because of the compelling emotional validity of the choice, Max didn't realize the nature of the choice. He thought that his conclusion was the single definitve representation of objective reality. He believed in his choice to the extent that no other choice seemed possible.

After Max graduated from high school, he went to college. He noticed that the people in college were a lot like the people in high school... but there were differences. One particular difference was a girl -- let's call her Julie. She was in Max's chemistry class, and she was willing to talk to him sometimes. She even returned his phone calls. She even agreed to go out with him! Max was very happy about the way his life had changed. Almost before he knew it, he and Julie were involved in a wonderful relationship.

However, the old choice Max had made in high school remained with him. He had never examined it. He had never considered it. People's choices are sometimes so powerful that they can survive in emotional situations totally hostile to them. Max's conclusion that nobody could ever love him was a powerful emotional choice, and it survived, poisoning his relationship with Julie.

Whenever Julie was too busy to go out with him, Max felt devastated. Whenever Julie smiled at another man, Max felt bitterly jealous. Hardly a day went by without Max suspecting that Julie was on the verge of rejecting him. Deep down, his old choice remained intact, and on this deep level he did not believe that Julie could ever love him. No matter how sweet she was to him, no matter how much she claimed to enjoy the time they spent together, on a deep level he refused to believe her. He still wasn't aware that the refusal was a choice. He still didn't know what he was doing.

Max's constant insecurity took its toll on Julie, naturally enough. She truly cared for him. But she found it impossible to convince him of that.

Within six months they broke up.
Forced Patterns
It does sometimes work for us to ignore what limits we choose for our thinking. More often, it doesn't work, and we simply believe that it does.

It's difficult to criticize or doubt choices with intense emotional validity. Often the emotional validity of these choices comes from dichotomy-based thinking. Dichotomies are powerful linguistic tools because they have the logical force of the Law of Contradiction behind them.

Dichotomy-based thinking is effective at forcing "contrary evidence" into superficially reasonable, even compelling, patterns. It's almost always easier to criticize or doubt the evidence than this particular limit to imagination.

In the parable of Max, the dichotomy was lovable / non-lovable . Even if Max had been aware of the fact that his choice to perceive himself in terms of this dichotomy was an arbitrary choice, it would have been difficult for him to choose otherwise, because of the dichotomy's intrinsic appeal.

Language built around dichotomies is often used as a tool for manipulating contrary evidence. Max used his emotionally powerful dichotomy to distort the evidence that Julie cared for him. He forced his relationship with Julie into a pattern that was consistent with his belief that nobody could ever love him.

It's a linguistic trap. It's a thinking trap.