The error of thinking in dichotomies

D. Conor Seyle and Matthew L. Newman, writing in the September 2006 American Psychologist, use maps and cartograms from researchers at the University of Michigan to underscore a crucial demographic point about the fabled Red State/Blue State dichotomy: the dichotomy, while very much a factor in American electoral politics, really does not exist in any other sense.  Viewed from within the winner-take-all electoral college, the 2004 Presidential General Election turned out as illustrated by this map:
The map, popular with most news sources in the days and months after the election appears to show broad Republican support across much of the country.  However, for this to be literally true, it would mean that all areas of the United States would have to be roughly equal in population, something that is certainly not the case.  Using a cartogram--a way of correcting for unequal populations--Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi and Mark Newman at Michigan contend that the map more accurately looks like this:

These authors suggest that a map blending red and blue into purple makes more sense and moves us away from a crucial thinking error: assuming that everyone in red states think alike and differently from everyone in blue states.  In reality, a substantial number of people in all states hold fast to both ideologies, and even more seem to blend parts of one with the other (for example, conservative religious faith with Democratic politics).  Drawn from this perspective, the map might appear as follows:
My point here is not so much about electoral politics, but about the way we all make the same error in thinking about our stakeholders and customers.  By lumping people together as "parents," "neighbors," or "faculty," we begin thinking that they are a homogeneous grouping rather than full of rich individual variations.  And it is in appreciating these variations that we either reach or miss our market.
Note:  The images above are available online through a Creative Commons license.