© Copyright 2023 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Press them hard enough, and most Republican officials—even the ones with MAGA hats in their closets and Mar-a-Lago selfies in their Twitter avatar—will privately admit that Donald Trump has become a problem. He’s presided over three abysmal election cycles since he took office, he is more unstable than ever, and yet he returned to the campaign trail this past weekend, declaring that he is “angry” and determined to win the  GOP presidential nomination again in 2024. Aside from his most blinkered loyalists, virtually everyone in the party agrees: It’s time to move on from Trump.

But ask them how they plan to do that, and the discussion quickly veers into the realm of hopeful hypotheticals. Maybe he’ll get indicted and his legal problems will overwhelm him. Maybe he’ll flame out early in the primaries, or just get bored with politics and wander away. Maybe the situation will resolve itself naturally: He’s old, after all—how many years can he have left?

This magical thinking pervaded my recent conversations with more than a dozen current and former elected GOP officials and party strategists. Faced with the prospect of another election cycle dominated by Trump and uncertain that he can actually be beaten in the primaries, many Republicans are quietly rooting for something to happen that will make him go away. And they would strongly prefer not to make it happen themselves.

“There is a desire for deus ex machina,” said one GOP consultant, who, like others I interviewed, requested anonymity to characterize private conversations taking place inside the party. “It’s like 2016 all over again, only more fatalistic.”

The scenarios Republicans find themselves fantasizing about range from the far-fetched to the morbid. In his recent book Thank You for Your Servitude, my colleague Mark Leibovich quoted a former Republican representative who bluntly summarized his party’s plan for dealing with Trump: “We’re just waiting for him to die.” As it turns out, this is not an uncommon sentiment. In my conversations with Republicans, I heard repeatedly that the least disruptive path to getting rid of Trump, grim as it sounds, might be to wait for his expiration.

Mark Leibovich: The most pathetic men in America

Their rationale was straightforward: The former president is 76 years old, overweight, appears to maintain the diet of a college freshman, and believes, contrary to all known science, that exercise is bad for you. Why risk alienating his supporters when nature will take its course sooner or later? Peter Meijer, a former Republican representative who left office this month, termed this strategy actuarial arbitrage.

“You have a lot of folks who are just wishing for [Trump’s] mortal demise,” Meijer told me. “I want to be clear: I’m not in that camp. But I’ve heard from a lot of people who will go onstage and put on the red hat, and then deliver me a call the next day and say, ‘I can’t wait until this guy dies.’ And it’s like, Good Lord.” (Trump’s mother died at 88 and his father at 93, so this strategy isn’t exactly foolproof.)

Some Republicans are clinging to the hope that Trump might finally be undone by his legal troubles. He is currently the subject of multiple criminal investigations, and his detractors dream of an indictment that would derail his campaign. But most of the people I talked with seemed resigned to the likelihood that an indictment would only boost him with the party’s base. Michael Cohen, who served for years as Trump’s personal attorney and now hosts a podcast atoning for that sin titled Mea Culpa, grudgingly told me that his former boss would easily weaponize any criminal charges brought against him. The deep-state Democrats are at it again—the campaign emails write themselves. “Donald will use the indictment to continue his fundraising grift,” Cohen told me.

David A. Graham: A guide to the possible forthcoming indictments of Donald Trump

Others imagine a coordinated donor revolt that sidelines Trump for good. The GOP consultant told me about a private dinner in New York City that he attended in the fall of 2021, when he saw a Republican billionaire deliver an impassioned speech about the need to keep Trump from returning to the Oval Office. The man said he would devote large sums of money to defeating the former president and urged his peers to join the cause. The others in the room—including several prominent donors and a handful of Republican senators—reacted enthusiastically that night. But when the consultant saw some of the same people a year later, their commitment had waned. The indignant donors, he said, had retreated to a cautious “wait and see” stance.

This plague of self-deception among party elites contains obvious echoes of Trump’s early rise to power. In the run-up to the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, a fractured field of feckless candidates spent time and money attacking one another, convinced that the front-runner would eventually collapse. It was widely believed within the political class that such a ridiculous figure could simply never win a major party nomination, much less the presidency. Of course, by the time Trump’s many doubters realized they were wrong, it was too late.

Terry Sullivan, who ran Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, told me that Trump’s rivals failed to beat him that year in large part because they were “always convinced that his self-inflicted demise was imminent.”

“There is an old quote that has been attributed to Lee Atwater: ‘When your enemy is in the process of drowning, throw him a brick,’” Sullivan told me. “None of Donald Trump’s opponents ever have the balls to throw him the damn brick. They just hope someone else will. Hope isn’t a winning strategy.”

For conservatives who want to prevent a similar fiasco in 2024, the emerging field of GOP presidential prospects might seem like cause to celebrate. After all, the healthiest way to rid their party of Trump would be to simply beat him. But a sprawling cast of challengers could just as easily end up splitting the anti-Trump electorate, as it did in 2016, and allow Trump to win primaries with a plurality of voters. It would also make coalescing around an alternative harder for party leaders.

One current Republican representative told me that although most of his colleagues might quietly hope for a new nominee, few would be willing to endorse a non-Trump candidate early enough in the primary calendar to make a difference. They would instead “keep their powder dry” and “see what those first states do.” For all of Trump’s supposedly diminished political clout, he remains a strong favorite in primary polls, where he leads his nearest rival by about 15 points. And few of the other top figures in the party—Ron DeSantis, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley—have demonstrated an ability to take on Trump directly and look stronger for it.

Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump after January 6 and went on to lose his 2022 primary to a far-right Trump loyalist, attributes Republican leaders’ current skittishness about confronting Trump to the party’s “ideological rootlessness.” The GOP’s defenestration of long-held conservative ideals in favor of an ad hoc personality cult left Republicans without a clear post-Trump identity. Combine that with what Meijer calls “the generalized cowardice of political figures writ large,” and you have a party in paralysis: “There’s no capacity [to say], ‘All right, let’s clean the slate and figure out what we stand for and build from there.’”

Read: What the GOP does to its own dissenters

Even if another Republican manages to capture the nomination, there’s no certain that Trump—who is not known for his grace in defeat—will go away. Last month, Trump caused a minor panic in GOP circles when he shared an article on Truth Social suggesting that he might run an independent spoiler campaign if his party refuses to back him in 2024. The Republicans I talked with said such a schism would be politically catastrophic for their party. No one had any ideas about how to prevent it.

Meanwhile, the most enduring of GOP delusions—that Trump will transform into an entirely different person—somehow persists.

When I asked Rob Portman about his party’s Trump problem, the recently retired Ohio senator confidently predicted that it would all sort itself out soon. The former president, he believed, would study the polling data, realize that other Republicans had a better shot at winning, and graciously bow out of 2024 contention.

“I think at the end of the day,” Portman told me, “he’s unlikely to want to put himself in that position when he could be more of a Republican senior statesman who talks about the policies that were enacted in his administration.”

I let out an involuntary laugh.

“Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part,” Portman conceded.

 Toronto, Ontario (CTV Network) -- In a pandemic, a sizable amount of flexibility is required.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has championed the need for out-of-the-box thinking on vaccine production and supplies to protect the world.

But when faced with that very situation, the WHO evoked a 2005 policy, and sentenced a promising made-in-Canada vaccine to a tragic death because of a minority link with a tobacco company.

"I think the WHO has gone totally off the rails," said David Sweanor, a lawyer, long-time anti-tobacco advocate and associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

"If the World Health Organization is standing in the way of vaccines to treat an epidemic, what does that do to their long-term credibility?"

A year ago, officials with the agency refused to endorse a vaccine made by Quebec-based Medicago. It used a plant related to tobacco as the "factory" to produce virus-like particles that taught the immune system to fend off the virus that causes COVID-19.

Health Canada approved the vaccine Covifenz in February of last year, after studies showed two doses were 71 per cent effective in protecting adults 18 to 64 against COVID-19 infection and disease. The vaccine was 70 per cent effective against Omicron.

The Medicago technology was also widely seen as having great potential for creating both vaccines and antibody treatments for other conditions, including cancers, arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

But the plants used in production are a cousin of the tobacco plant and were supplied by tobacco giant Phillip Morris, which was a minority (21 per cent) shareholder.

That came up against a nearly two-decades-old WHO policy of not engaging with tobacco companies – part of an international treaty that frowned on government partnerships and collaborations with such companies. Article 5.3 of the 44-page Framework Contravention on Tobacco Control requires all parties, when setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, to "act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law."

Instead of negotiating or discussing options, WHO officials issued a public rejection of Covifenz on March 25 last year.

"It's well known the WHO and the UN have a very strict policy regarding engagement with the tobacco and arms industry, so the process is put on hold. It's very likely it won't be accepted for emergency use listing," Mariangela Simao, a spokesperson for the WHO, said in a statement to CTV News Montreal at the time.

WHO IS TO BLAME? Without WHO's endorsement, few governments were willing to buy the vaccine. In fact, Canada was the only country that had formally approved the vaccine and agreed to purchase doses.

Medicago had been preparing to launch full-scale production. However, its parent company, Mitsubishi Chemical Group, announced last week Medicago was closing down. Officials cited changes to the COVID-19 "vaccine landscape" and lower global demand for COVID-19 vaccines.

But the blame sits in large part with the WHO, according to one infectious disease physician based in Montreal.

"It's too bad the WHO killed Medicago by not endorsing it because Phillip Morris owned some of it," wrote Dr. Todd Lee in a post on Twitter.

In a follow-up email to CTV News, Dr. Lee added, "I think the WHO decision not to endorse the vaccine likely crippled the ability of Medicago to secure the kind of large contracts needed for this product to be a success."

That decision in Geneva effectively started the company on a death spiral, with the closure leading to 600 job losses.

"What about all the other people who put ...time, effort, and money in to come up with an effective vaccine? … They're just collateral damage?" said Sweanor in an interview with CTV News.

A 'BLACK-AND-WHITE' DECISION "It was a very black-and-white kind of decision they made," said Tanya Watts, an immunologist and professor at the University of Toronto.

Mentioning the WHO framework meant to address worldwide consumption and production of cigarettes, she added, "This was a good use of tobacco."

Sweanor agrees, saying, "There's got to be a basis for why you oppose the company's cigarette companies, a very strong basis to get mad at them, regulate them, … But if they do something that is actually good, why would we oppose that?

Canada's federal government had agreed to buy up to 76 million doses of the drug, in addition to a $173-million investment to help build a plant in Quebec City. It would have been the first domestic vaccine production in Canada in decades.

Canadians like Nathan Majaraj, of Quebec, also put their bodies on the line to test out the vaccine.

"It was great," he told CTV News. "I was happy to get a new vaccine tested and it was interesting for me as a parent to tell my kids this is what I did. I was able to help."

Majaraj also disagrees with the WHO's decision to refuse to endorse the vaccine, noting the potential wider impact of the decision, beyond the pandemic.

"This now shuts off this avenue of (research and development) when we surely need more options for more vaccine manufacturing developments," he added. Medicago also had a novel flu vaccine and one against H5N1 avian influenza that successfully passed a Phase 2 trial, adding to the overall loss.

VACCINE EQUITY GOAL SET BACK Throughout the pandemic, the WHO had urgently been calling for expanded research and manufacturing of vaccines around the world. Doses of the Medicago COVID-19 shot had been earmarked for Africa, according to Health Canada.

One advantage Medicago's product had over some of the approved vaccines is that it doesn't have the same cold storage requirement as mRNA shots, and so "would have been more suitable for Africa and places like that," said Watts.

Because of the drug was not approved, another WHO goal -- promoting vaccine equity – was set back by the decision.

WHY DID CANADA BACK COVIFENZ? Another critique of the WHO's rejection comes from closer to home; some Canadians are now focusing on the lost investment by the federal government that may not be retrieved.

But that criticism isn't solely directed at the WHO.

Some blame Canada for backing a plant-based tobacco-funded vaccine in the first place.

An editorial in the British Medical Journal in 2020 warned that by collaborating with Philip Morris on its vaccine candidate, "the Government of Canada is demonstrating a complete disregard for its treaty obligations under the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control." The editorial accused the federal government of "turning a blind eye to the tobacco industry and the pandemic of eight million deaths annually that it is fuelling."

Canadian health groups, including the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, urged Ottawa, the province of Quebec and Medicago itself to replace Philip Morris as a stakeholder due to its tobacco business. The company cut ties with the tobacco maker late in 2022, but by then its fate was sealed.

In a statement to CTV News at the time of the WHO rejection, Health Canada said it stood by its investment in Medicago's vaccine and that the treaty agreement was not violated.

"The Government of Canada has studied the matter of its investment in Medicago carefully and considers that it is compliant with its treaty obligations related to tobacco control under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco," Health Canada spokesperson Mark Johnson said.

An element some critics of the government's backing of Medicago forget that the country was part of a desperate international scramble to secure whatever supplies t could get at the time, because Canada had no domestic vaccine production as the pandemic began.

"Put yourself back in early 2020," said Watts. "Everybody wanted vaccines and nobody knew which one was going to get through. I think (the government) was advised by scientists and they decided to hedge their bets and back several (vaccines) and I thought this was a very good candidate."

And despite its decision on the Canadian-made shot, the WHO has in the past called plant-based vaccines "a new and exciting possibility," according to the Washington Post, because they can be "produced cheaply in high amounts," and have a long shelf life.

CTV News requested a comment from the WHO. No response has been received.

Medicago had also received funding from the U.S. via a program called Defense Advance Research projects (DARPA), because producing vaccines in plants may be faster and easier than the old, standard approach of producing them using eggs, the Washington Post reported.

RESPONSE TO FUTURE VIRUSES IMPACTED Watts believes the decision to shut down a novel vaccine is a major blow to Canada's ability to protect its citizens going forward. "Inevitably another new infectious disease will emerge" said Watts, adding that Canada will likely have to rely on importing vaccines to tackle those viruses too since there is no large production facility in the country.

Sweanor agrees it jeopardizes Canada's ability to produce its vaccines in the future.

"Some of my (public health) colleagues have done something really stupid and counterproductive. People they don't even know are going to suffer and die because of this," he said.

The underlying policy, says Sweanor, is overdue for review because it discourages companies from diversifying from cigarettes.

His argument at the time was that backing such a vaccine would provide incentive to the companies targeted in the FCTC to sell less hazardous products.

World health officials said in a statement last March that the agency is reviewing its policy that stops any co-operation with companies that promote tobacco.

But any changes in its stance will come too late for Medicago. The technology and the jobs are gone, and the opportunities lost, to a policy that may not have served the public good.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

CTVNews.ca
ctvnews.caproducers@bellmedia.ca

The Lawyer has updated security and added new features that can't run on this version of Internet Explorer in accordance with Microsoft's end of life notice for Internet Explorer 11.

Our digital products are fully compatible with all modern internet browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge and more. You will need to access The Lawyer in one of these.

If this message continues to display, please check your system settings and change your default browser or contact your IT team.

usatoday.com cannot provide a good user experience to your browser. To use this site and continue to benefit from our journalism and site features, please upgrade to the latest version of Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.

• Chrome: https://www.google.com/chrome/
• Edge: https://www.microsoft.com/edge/
• Firefox: https://www.firefox.com/
• Safari: Update to latest version through the App Store

• Critical thinking in the workplace ensures objective and efficient problem-solving; it’s essential for your business’s success. 
• When teams employ critical thinking, they gain enhanced analytical competency, communication, emotional intelligence and general problem-solving skills. 
• Patiently teach critical thinking in the workplace until it becomes a second-nature skill for employees across your organization. 
• This article is for small business owners and managers who want to Strengthen critical thinking in their companies to enhance problem-solving and reduce costly mistakes. 

Many professionals hope to pursue careers they’re passionate about so they can find joy and meaning in their work. Caring deeply about your work is vital for engagement and productivity, but balancing emotions with critical thinking is essential in the workplace. 

When employees engage in critical thinking, they use an independent, reflective thought process to evaluate issues and solve problems based on knowledge and objective evidence. 

Critical thinking skills can guide your organization toward success, but to truly maximize the problem-solving benefits of critical thinking, it’s crucial to teach this skill to your entire team. We’ll explore critical thinking skills and how to teach them in the workplace to help your business Strengthen its decision-making and problem-solving. 

What is critical thinking?

Jen Lawrence, co-author of Engage the Fox: A Business Fable About Thinking Critically and Motivating Your Team, defines critical thinking as “the ability to solve problems effectively by systematically gathering information about an issue, generating further ideas involving a variety of perspectives, evaluating the information using logic, and making sure everyone involved is on board.”

This is a complex definition for a challenging concept. Though critical thinking might seem as straightforward as stepping back and using a formal thinking process instead of reacting instinctively to conflicts or problems, it is actually a much more challenging task.

Critical thinking’s ultimate goal is ensuring you have the best answer to a problem with maximum buy-in from all parties involved – an outcome that will ultimately save your business time, money and stress.

Why is critical thinking essential in the workplace?

A World Economic Forum report revealed that critical thinking is one of the most in-demand career skills employers seek when trying to attract and retain the best employees – and employers believe critical thinking skills will become even more necessary in the coming years. 

Critical thinking in the workplace guarantees objective and efficient problem-solving, ultimately reducing costly errors and ensuring that your organization’s resources are used wisely. Team members employing critical thinking can connect ideas, spot errors and inconsistencies, and make the best decisions most often. 

Employees with critical thinking are also more likely to accomplish the following:

• Analyzing information
• Thinking outside the box
• Coming up with creative solutions to sudden problems
• Devising thought-through, systematic plans
• Requiring less supervision

Did you know?: Critical thinkers are sure about the reasoning behind their decisions, allowing them to communicate with employees clearly. This level of communication enhances employee engagement.

What are critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking is a soft skill that comprises multiple interpersonal and analytical abilities and attributes. Here are some essential critical thinking skills that can support workforce success.

• Observation: Employees with critical thinking can easily sense and identify an existing problem – and even predict potential issues – based on their experience and sharp perception. They’re willing to embrace multiple points of view and look at the big picture. 
• Analytical thinking: Analytical thinkers collect data from multiple sources, reject bias, and ask thoughtful questions. When approaching a problem, they gather and double-check facts, assess independent research, and sift through information to determine what’s accurate and what can help resolve the problem. 
• Open-mindedness: Employees who demonstrate critical thinking are open-minded – not afraid to consider opinions and information that differ from their beliefs and assumptions. They listen to colleagues; they can let go of personal biases and recognize that a problem’s solution can come from unexpected sources. 
• Problem-solving attitude: Critical thinkers possess a positive attitude toward problem-solving and look for optimal solutions to issues they’ve identified and analyzed. They are usually proactive and willing to offer suggestions based on all the information they receive. [Related article: How to Develop a Positive Attitude in the Workplace]
• Communication: When managers make a decision, they must share it with the rest of the team and other stakeholders. Critical thinkers demonstrate excellent communication skills and can provide supporting arguments and evidence that substantiate the decision to ensure the entire team is on the same page. 

What are the benefits of critical thinking in the workplace?

Many workplaces operate at a frantic tempo that reinforces hasty thinking and rushed business decisions, resulting in costly mistakes and blunders. When employees are trained in critical thinking, they learn to slow the pace and gather crucial information before making decisions. 

Along with reducing costly errors, critical thinking in the workplace brings the following benefits: 

• Critical thinking improves communication. When employees think more clearly and aren’t swayed by emotion, they communicate better. “If you can think more clearly and better articulate your positions, you can better engage in discussions and make a much more meaningful contribution in your job,” said David Welton, managing partner at Grove Critical Thinking.
• Critical thinking boosts emotional intelligence. It might seem counterintuitive to associate analytical rationality with emotional intelligence. However, team members who possess critical thinking skills are less prone to rash, emotion-driven decisions. Instead, they take time to analyze the situation and make the most informed decision while being mindful and respectful of the emotional and ethical implications. 
• Critical thinking encourages creativity. Critical thinkers are open to new ideas and perspectives and accumulate a significant amount of information when facing decisions. Because of this, they’re more likely to come up with creative solutions. They are also curious and don’t shy away from asking open-ended questions. 
• Critical thinking saves time and money. By encouraging critical thinking in the workplace, you minimize the need for supervision, catch potential problems early, promote independence and initiative, and free managers to focus on other duties. All this helps your company save valuable time and resources. 

Did you know?: Critical thinking skills are essential for dealing with difficult customers because they help your team make informed decisions while managing stressful situations.

How do you teach critical thinking in the workplace?

Experts agree that critical thinking is a teachable skill. Both Lawrence and Welton recommend exploring critical thinking training programs and methods to Strengthen your workplace’s critical thinking proficiency. Here’s a breakdown of how to teach critical thinking in the workplace: 

1. Identify problem areas. Executives and managers should assess workplace areas most lacking in critical thinking. If mistakes are consistently made, determine whether the issue is a lack of critical thinking or an inherent issue with a team or process. After identifying areas that lack critical thinking, research the type of training best suited to your organization. 
2. Start small. Employees newly embracing critical thinking might have trouble tackling large issues immediately. Instead, present them with smaller challenges. “Start practicing critical thinking as a skill with smaller problems as examples, and then work your way up to larger problems,” Lawrence said.
3. Act preemptively. Teaching and implementing critical thinking training and methodology takes time and patience. Lawrence emphasized that critical thinking skills are best acquired during a time of calm. It might feel urgent to seek critical thinking during a crisis, but critical thinking is a challenging skill to learn amid panic and stress. Critical thinking training is best done preemptively so that when a crisis hits, employees will be prepared and critical thinking will come naturally.
4. Allow sufficient time. From a managerial perspective, giving employees extra time on projects or problems might feel stressful in the middle of deadlines and executive pressures. But if you want those working for you to engage in critical thinking processes, it’s imperative to deliver them ample time. Allowing employees sufficient time to work through their critical thinking process can save the company time and money in the long run.

How do you identify successful critical thinking?

Successful critical thinking happens during a crisis, not after.

Lawrence provided an example involving restaurants and waitstaff: If a customer has a bad experience at a restaurant, a server using critical thinking skills will be more likely to figure out a solution to save the interaction, such as offering a free appetizer or discount. “This can save the hard-earned customer relationship you spent a lot of marketing dollars to create,” Lawrence said. This concept is applicable across many business and organizational structures. 

You should also be aware of signs of a lack of critical thinking. Lawrence pointed out that companies that change strategy rapidly, moving from one thing to the next, are likely not engaging in critical thinking. This is also the case at companies that seem to have good ideas but have trouble executing them.

As with many issues in business, company leadership determines how the rest of the organization acts. If leaders have excellent ideas but don’t follow critical thinking processes, their team will not buy into those ideas, and the company will suffer. This is why critical thinking skills often accompany positive communication skills.

“Critical thinking doesn’t just help you arrive at the best answer, but at a solution most people embrace,” Lawrence said. Modeling critical thinking at the top will help the skill trickle down to the rest of the organization, no matter your company’s type or size.

Tip: To get your employees thinking critically, conduct employee surveys with well-designed questions to help them identify issues and solutions.

Critical thinking is the key to your business success

When critical thinking is actively implemented in an organization, mistakes are minimized, and operations run more seamlessly. 

With training, time and patience, critical thinking can become a second-nature skill for employees at all levels of experience and seniority. The money, time and conflict you’ll save in the long run are worth the extra effort of implementing critical thinking in your workplace.

Rebecka Green contributed to the writing and reporting in this article. Source interviews were conducted for a previous version of this article.

DO YOU FIND yourself thinking in extremes or absolutes? For example, you view everyone you know as good or bad, and every decision you make as all or nothing, and there’s no in-between. If so, you might be in a

Also known as polarized thinking, all-or-nothing thinking, or dichotomous thinking, black-and-white thinking refers to a habit of thinking in polar opposites without accepting any possibility of a gray area, according to the American Psychological Association (APA).

“The way we think is so personal and shaped by our unique lived experiences,” explains Anisha Patel-Dunn, D.O., a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at LifeStance Health. “However, polarized thinking is often an unhealthy coping mechanism that can negatively impact our mental health.”

Black-and-white thinking is sometimes a symptom of a personality disorder, like narcissism or borderline personality disorder, as well as eating disorders, depression, or anxiety, according to APA.

Many people engage in black-and-white thinking even when they don’t have a mental health diagnosis. It can have a major impact on your relationships, your ability to succeed, and other aspects of your life, says Christopher Hansen, LPC, Ph.D., a licensed professional counselor and clinical supervisor at Thriveworks in San Antonio.

“Thinking that is so rigid and unrealistic can't help but impact overall life quality,” he says. “People with severe cognitive distortions have a very hard time communicating with society, and many go undiagnosed and treated, which is sad because the treatment is very effective.”

If you find yourself constantly thinking in absolutes, mental health experts explain how it might be affecting you and how you can change your thinking.

Black-and-white thinking refers to a rigid mindset, Hansen says. “It doesn’t allow the person the latitude to see nuances in situations or life in general.”

In other words, you don’t consider gray areas or middle ground.

Dichotomous, or black-and-white, thinking is a cognitive distortion. It prevents you from seeing things for how they usually are, which is nuanced, complex, and always changing, according to APA.

For example, Hansen says dichotomous thinkers might believe they’ll get a speeding ticket if they go one mile over the speed limit, while others realize other factors are at play or that there’s probably some leeway.

“The black-and-white thinker tends to follow rules to the letter,” he explains.

Signs of Black-and-White Thinking

You might be a black-and-white thinker if you catch yourself using these terms often:

• Always
• Never
• Perfect
• Terrible
• Good
• Bad

Everyone says these things sometimes, of course. But, when you notice that these absolute words come up frequently in your thoughts and conversations, you might be too rigid in your thinking.

Another sign is viewing people or situations in your life as perfect or flawed, saint or sinner, or good or bad, according to Psychology Today.

Who Black-and-White Thinking Affects

Black-and-white thinking is often a learned habit that’s influenced by a mental health condition, trauma, or other factors, Dr. Patel-Dunn says.

“Just as with any unhealthy coping technique, if it becomes a habit we repeatedly turn to in response to stress, we begin to develop a pattern,” she says. “Without awareness of these thought distortions or understanding the strategies we can use to change them, we may feel like we’re stuck in a loop of these automatic thoughts.”

Dichotomous thinking contributes to anxiety and depressive disorders. It’s also a characteristic of narcissistic or borderline personality disorder, research shows, and eating disorders, where someone might consider certain foods good or bad.

People aren’t always aware of their distorted thinking or that it’s affecting their lives, however, Hansen adds. “Through our upbringing, experiences, relationships, and life in general, the way we think becomes ingrained.”

How Black-and-White Thinking Affects Relationships

Communication is at the heart of relationships of all types. When someone is set in black-and-white thinking, there’s no happy medium when dealing with conflict or other situations, only right or wrong, Hansen says.

“So you can imagine that compromise is very difficult for someone with this type of thinking, and there is never any leeway in most things as it causes them anxiety, depression, anger, and overall angst,” he adds.

This way of thinking might also interfere with someone’s ability to see a situation objectively, so they might overreact or respond inappropriately to stressful or triggering events, Dr. Patel-Dunn says.

Someone might quit a job, end a relationship, or suddenly start viewing someone who was once a friend as a bad person, for instance.

Why It Interferes With Success

Dichotomous thinking is an unhealthy coping strategy, similar to substance abuse or overexercising, Dr. Patel-Dunn says. This can take a toll on your mental well-being.

“When we’re not mentally feeling our best, it can be incredibly challenging to live our lives to the fullest and enjoy the things we’re most passionate about,” she says.

When you have limiting or polarizing views about yourself, like that you’re good or bad at certain things or define your career too narrowly, it can inhibit your ability to accomplish your goals. Research also links black-and-white thinking to perfectionism, which is driven by a fear of failure and often causes emotional distress.

At work, dichotomous thinkers might view their jobs and abilities in a rigid way. This might cause issues with co-workers, who might view dichotomous thinkers as negative, not team players, or not forward-thinking, Hansen says.

How You Can Break Out of Black-and-White Thinking

It can be challenging to change distorted thinking on your own, since you might not even realize you’re doing it.

“One thing people can do on their own is practice catching themselves anytime they feel a mental or physical symptom and then see if they can identify the thought that is causing the anxiety,” Hansen says.

You might need to work with a mental health professional, especially if dichotomous thinking is interfering with your day-to-day functioning, Dr. Patel-Dunn says.

Cognitive behavioral therapy can help you learn to question automatic thoughts by recognizing that not all thoughts are true and understanding the root of certain thinking to work through thought distortions, she explains.

“It may feel challenging at first, but our brains can rewire through what's known as neuroplasticity,” Dr. Patel-Dunn says. “You can train your brain to think differently by practicing new habits repeatedly.”

Basically, you’ll learn to replace negative thoughts with more realistic and healthy ones, Hansen adds. After a couple of months, the new way of thinking becomes your norm.

“Help for cognitive distortions such as black-and-white thinking are very effective and generally available,” he says.

Erica Sweeney is a writer who mostly covers health, wellness and careers. She has written for The New York Times, HuffPost, Teen Vogue, Parade, Money, Business Insider and many more.