Why do we struggle with duality? Imagine this: you’re scrolling through social media, and every topic—from politics to parenting—feels like a battlefield. There’s no room for nuance. It’s either right or wrong, good or evil, black or white. This is polarization at work, a cognitive shortcut that simplifies the world but often at the cost of understanding its complexity. But what if we could see things differently? What if we could hold two seemingly contradictory truths at once? This ability—what we call embracing duality—isn’t just a philosophical exercise. It’s a strategic necessity in a world that demands adaptability and insight. Polarization vs. Duality: what’s the difference? It’s the difference between seeing competition as a fight to the death versus recognizing how competition and collaboration can coexist. Think about the yin and yang in Eastern philosophy—darkness and light, stillness and movement. One does not eliminate the other; they create balance. Many ancient traditions understood that opposing forces could be complementary, not contradictory. Western thought, however, has often leaned into binary thinking, exacerbated by the Enlightenment’s focus on rational categorization. Psychological research backs this up. Studies on cognitive rigidity (Gelfand et al., 2011) show that societies with more binary, rule-based thinking struggle with adaptability in times of uncertainty. On the other hand, individuals who embrace paradoxical thinking demonstrate higher creativity and resilience (Smith & Lewis, 2011). How does this play out in the real world? The challenges of embracing duality While duality offers numerous benefits, it is not without its challenges: Duality in different cultures Many cultures have long traditions of dualistic thinking that can offer valuable insights: Practical tools for embracing duality The limits of duality While duality offers many advantages, it’s important to recognize its limitations. In some contexts, an overly dualistic approach can lead to ineffective compromises or a lack of decisive action. For example, in crisis situations like a health emergency or war, quick and unilateral decisions might be necessary, without the luxury of considering all perspectives. Additionally, duality can be perceived as indecision or lack of clarity, especially in cultures that value strong, decisive leadership. In these cases, it’s important to strike a balance between open-mindedness and the need to take clear positions. Finally, duality requires significant cognitive and emotional effort, and not everyone is willing or able to sustain it. In highly polarized contexts like politics, embracing duality can be seen as a lack of commitment or conviction. Why is this crucial for Strategic Foresight? Strategic foresight isn’t about predicting a single future—it’s about navigating multiple possible futures. Leaders and organizations that embrace duality are better equipped to handle uncertainty because they can hold multiple perspectives at once. For example, the future of AI is often painted in extremes: either a utopia where AI solves all problems or a dystopia where it replaces humanity. The truth is likely somewhere in between. The companies and policymakers who recognize this are the ones who will shape AI’s trajectory instead of being blindsided by it. Studies on scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1995) show that organizations that engage in multi-perspective foresight are significantly better at responding to rapid changes. How can we develop the capacity to hold duality? The bottom line Polarization is easy. Duality is harder—but far more rewarding. The most successful individuals, leaders, and businesses aren’t those who pick a side and dig in. They’re the ones who can stand in the middle, embrace complexity, and use it to create better, more resilient strategies for the future. However, embracing duality is not without its challenges. It requires cognitive flexibility, emotional resilience, and a willingness to navigate uncertainty. By understanding its limits and integrating diverse cultural perspectives, we can develop a more nuanced and effective approach to duality. As we navigate an increasingly complex world, the ability to hold duality may be one of the most valuable skills we can cultivate. Whether in leadership, policymaking, or personal decision-making, the capacity to engage with nuance and contradiction isn’t just an intellectual exercise—it’s a pathway to greater insight, adaptability, and innovation.

Why do we struggle to imagine the future? The future—like taxes—is one of life’s few certainties. And yet, most people struggle to think about it in a meaningful way. Why? One reason is cognitive bias. Our brains evolved to prioritize immediate survival over long-term strategy. This creates what is known as short-termism—a tendency to focus on present concerns at the expense of long-term planning. For example, imagine a farmer in ancient times: their priority was ensuring they had enough food for the next season, not planning for changes in agriculture centuries ahead. This same instinct remains with us today, making it hard to think beyond the immediate future. Think about how many companies focus obsessively on quarterly earnings reports, often at the expense of long-term innovation or sustainability. For instance, a tech startup might prioritize quick user growth to please investors, while neglecting to build a scalable infrastructure that ensures its survival in five years. Another key bias is the lifespan bias, which makes us believe that the world will always function the way it does within our own lifetime. We assume that major societal structures—like education, government, or the economy—will remain largely unchanged, even though history shows us that radical shifts can and do happen.. even within our lifetime! Another problem is perspective limitation. A fish cannot describe water because it has never been outside of it. Similarly, we struggle to analyze our own era objectively. We assume the future will be a bigger, shinier version of today, with the same social, political, and economic rules—just with better technology. This is what’s called the present-forward fallacy, where we project current trends forward without considering deeper structural changes. But history tells a different story: societies evolve in ways we rarely predict. A dangerous myth: “The future belongs to the young” How often do we hear this? The future belongs to the young. It sounds empowering, but in reality, it’s a form of responsibility avoidance. When we say the future is for young people, we create two false narratives: The truth? The future belongs to everyone who will live in it. The decisions we make today, no matter our age or position, actively shape what’s coming. Future-building is an intergenerational responsibility, and no one is exempt from shaping it. Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Every generation believes it is experiencing “unprecedented uncertainty.” Consider the late 19th and early 20th centuries: industrialization, world wars, and economic depressions created a sense of immense upheaval. Yet, societies adapted, new technologies emerged, and global cooperation reshaped the world. Similarly, today’s uncertainties—AI, climate change, geopolitical shifts—are part of an ongoing cycle of transformation. Recognizing this historical pattern helps us navigate the future with perspective rather than fear. What’s different today? The illusion of increasing uncertainty. The world feels more chaotic not because things are worse, but because we are more aware of what’s happening—and because the pace of change has accelerated dramatically. The speed of information creates a sense of endless crisis. Events that would have once been local or slow-moving now spread rapidly, making us feel as though we are constantly on the edge of collapse. But here’s the key difference: change itself has become faster and more interconnected than ever before. Technological advancements, globalized economies, and digital communication mean that shifts that once took decades now happen in years—or even months. Yet, the fundamentals of human nature remain unchanged: we experience uncertainty, we adapt, and we move forward. Understanding this allows us to navigate change with clarity rather than panic. The key to taking back control: thinking in systems, not in silos The biggest mistake in futures-thinking is believing it’s an individual exercise. In reality, futures-thinking requires a systemic approach, considering how different elements interact within a larger ecosystem. For example, an individual entrepreneur might focus on how AI can optimize their business, but a systemic thinker would ask how AI impacts the labor market, ethics, and social structures as a whole. While personal decisions matter, they are always interconnected with broader forces. Without this awareness, we risk making short-sighted choices that fail to address long-term consequences. This means shifting from personal goals to systemic thinking: Embracing plural futures A true futurist thinks in pluralities, not singularities. There isn’t one predetermined future hurtling toward us—there are countless possible futures, each shaped by the decisions we make today. This plurality mindset liberates us from fatalism. Instead of asking, “What will happen?” we ask, “What could happen?” and “What should happen?” This shift transforms us from passive observers into active architects of tomorrow. By considering multiple scenarios—from best-case to worst-case and everything in between—we develop what futurists call strategic foresight. This isn’t about predicting accurately; it’s about expanding our imaginative capacity to prepare for various possibilities, thereby increasing our adaptability when change inevitably comes. Scaling success through strategic planning Those who think like futurists understand a fundamental truth: strategic planning scales your probability of success exponentially. While reactive thinkers lurch from crisis to crisis, strategic thinkers position themselves to capitalize on emerging opportunities. Consider how Amazon’s Jeff Bezos planned for e-commerce dominance in the 1990s when others saw the internet as a passing fad. Or how Singapore transformed from a resource-poor island into a global financial hub through decades of intentional planning. These weren’t lucky breaks—they were the results of strategic foresight. By anticipating multiple futures and planning accordingly, you don’t just increase your chances of success marginally—you scale them dramatically. The difference between reactive and proactive thinking isn’t linear; it’s exponential. Breaking free from the firefighting mentality In Brazil, there’s a saying: “Apagando incêndios” (putting out fires)—describing the endless cycle of crisis management that prevents strategic thinking. This perfectly captures how most individuals and organizations operate: constantly responding to emergencies rather than preventing them. This firefighting mentality keeps us trapped in survival mode. We exhaust ourselves addressing symptoms instead of underlying causes, never finding time to build the systems that would prevent fires in the first place. Breaking this cycle requires a mental shift from reaction to anticipation. While firefighting feels productive (the adrenaline rush of solving immediate problems provides instant gratification), it ultimately depletes our resources and narrows our vision. True