What quantum mechanics can teach us about dealing with opposing points of view

One of the most exciting (and hard to explain) things about quantum computing is the idea of superposition, in which:

Any two (or more) quantum states can be added together (“superposed”) and the result will be another valid quantum state; and conversely, that every quantum state can be represented as a sum of two or more other distinct states.

In other words, whereas classical computing thinks in zeros and ones, where something either is or isn’t, quantum computing accepts the idea that something is and isn’t at the same time.

In practical terms, this means that instead of data being processed linearly (one bit at a time), quantum computing allows multiple streams of data to be processed simultaneously, using all possible states at all times. Quantum mechanics meets tech, resulting in processing power on massive steroids.

But this leap in processing power is not what I find interesting — it’s instead the idea of things being able to coexist in multiple (often contradictory) states. Which is what we’re often so bad at in marketing and advertising.

A good example of this comes from a report which I shared a while ago on Twitter — or as others would call it, a flat out passive-aggressive rant.

If you rise above the rant itself, the point is that there’s this consistent argument that [insert your discipline] is the sole saviour of whatever problem a company or brand has. In a way it makes sense — all agencies have their own agenda — but from an effectiveness point of view it’s just not true.

For example, around the world there’s been a consistent, decades-long debate about how advertising works. Social professionals will say it’s about conversation. SEO professionals will say it’s about hyper-targeted optimisation (sorry). ATL advertising execs will say it’s about branding. And so on. But I think the answer lies not elsewhere, but potentially in all of them (and a few others). To quote famed statistician George Box:

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Or to steal Paul Feldwick’s more direct take:

All theories of how advertising works have their uses — but individually all are dangerous if they are taken too literally as the truth.

To assume that a single model will crack this whole thing is to sell ourselves short — if things were that unidimensional, we’d probably already be out of a job because someone else figured it out and replicated it to perfection.

Of course, this doesn’t mean any model is worth following blindly — this is not an exercise of ‘everyone is a winner so everyone gets a prize’. In other words, if you still sell banners for a living, please, please, please do yourself a favour and get up to speed on how ‘effective’ they actually are (and say hi to ad blocking for me).

This is the exact opposite — by recognising the levels of effectiveness of different models (the ones that are effective), we’ll be in a better position to understand how they work together.

In summary, I think there’s a lesson to be learned from the complex and fascinating world of quantum mechanics. If there is a possibility that matter itself can co-exist in contradictory states, why shouldn’t we be able to juggle different (often contradictory) models to bring us closer to an answer that’s probably close enough to the truth?

Instead of reducing our practice to single variables and absolute (even if false) predictability, as an industry we’ll be better off if we choose to adhere to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

Hi! I’m Roberto, a freelance digital & content strategist based in London. In my free time I write, rant and occasionally have a point. Find out more about me at estreitinho.com and get in touch for any freelance gigs!