In today’s world, where reading comprehension is declining, and deep analysis is becoming rarer, I’ve noticed an interesting trend: people love using the phrase “apples to oranges” to dismiss comparisons they don’t fully understand.
But more often than not, the things they claim are incomparable actually share the same underlying principles, they just aren’t willing (or able) to recognize the deeper logic behind them.
This isn’t just an issue of stubbornness; it’s a reflection of a larger problem with how we process information. A lack of critical thinking, an overreliance on surface-level qualitative data, and an aversion to feeling “wrong” all contribute to this intellectual blind spot.
And when people can’t (or won’t) analyze both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of a situation, they end up dismissing valid points with “That’s apples to oranges,” when in reality, it’s a perfectly logical comparison.
The Flawed Logic Behind “Apples to Oranges”
I’ve noticed that when people use the apples to oranges analogy, it’s often because they struggle to think beyond the surface of a discussion. For example, if two situations operate under the same principle but differ in how the qualitative data is presented, many people immediately reject the comparison.
Let’s say we’re talking about belief. Someone who is deeply religious might dismiss another person’s belief in, say, the universe or manifestation as illogical or crazy. But when you point out that their own faith in the Bible follows the same fundamental principle, belief without tangible proof, they might respond with, “That’s apples to oranges.”
But it’s not. The qualitative details (what they believe in) are different, but the underlying mechanism, having faith in something unseen, is the same. The comparison holds because the principle at play is identical. The real issue is that many people don’t want to acknowledge that similarity because it forces them to question their own biases.
A true apples-to-oranges comparison would be if one side were discussing belief, and the other was discussing empirical scientific evidence. Now, we’d be dealing with two fundamentally different approaches, one based on faith, the other on measurable, repeatable data.
But when both situations involve belief, dismissing them as incomparable is simply avoiding the conversation.
The Role of Declining Reading Comprehension
This ties directly into a broader issue: declining reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Studies show that many Americans struggle with deep reading and analytical thinking, making them more likely to rely on surface-level judgments rather than deeper evaluation.
And this isn’t just about education, it’s about how people process information in general. A person might take a politician’s statement at face value, “I will not cut Social Security”, without analyzing their actions.
If that same politician supports policies that effectively weaken Social Security, the quantitative data contradicts their qualitative claim. But because many people don’t (or can’t) connect the two, they believe what’s said rather than what’s actually being done.
This inability to distinguish between surface-level rhetoric and deeper quantitative reality is exactly why people misuse apples to oranges. They look at the words rather than the patterns, at the presentation rather than the impact. And that makes it easier for them to dismiss logical arguments they don’t want to engage with.
Psychology’s Role in Critical Thinking (and Why It Should Be Taken More Seriously)
This is where psychology comes in. If anything, psychology should be taken as seriously as any other science because it explains human behavior, including why we reject logic in favor of emotional comfort.
People like to think of themselves as rational, but the truth is, we often act against our own best interests. Rather than assimilating new information, we accommodate it to fit our existing worldview. And that’s because self-preservation, both emotional and intellectual, is a powerful force.
Think about it: being wrong hurts. It shakes our identity, forces us to reevaluate our beliefs, and, worst of all, exposes us to shame. And shame is one of the most painful emotions humans experience.
So instead of admitting a mistake, people double down. They dismiss uncomfortable ideas. They shut down conversations. And they throw out phrases like “That’s apples to oranges” as an easy escape from self-reflection.
Some people do this maliciously, deliberately avoiding accountability. But most do it unconsciously as a defense mechanism. They don’t want to shut down intellectual discussions, they just don’t have the tools to process the information in a way that doesn’t feel threatening.
How This All Ties Back to Apples to Oranges
When you put all of this together, declining critical thinking, surface-level reading comprehension, emotional self-preservation, it becomes clear why people misuse apples to oranges.
It’s not that the comparison is actually flawed. It’s that they don’t have the cognitive tools (or the emotional resilience) to engage with the deeper logic behind it.
If you take a step back, most comparisons that get dismissed as apples to oranges are actually more like different types of apples. They might look different on the outside, but they’re still part of the same category, operating under the same fundamental principles.
The only real apples to oranges comparisons are ones where the underlying data points or principles are completely different, like comparing belief to empirical science, or personal opinions to objective facts.
But most of the time? When people say, “That’s apples to oranges,” what they really mean is, “I don’t want to think about this any deeper.” And that’s the real issue.
Final Thoughts
The misuse of apples to oranges isn’t just an annoying habit, it’s a symptom of a larger problem. When people struggle with critical thinking, reading comprehension, and intellectual humility, they default to dismissing arguments rather than engaging with them.
Psychology should be taken more seriously as a science because it helps us understand why humans resist change, why we cling to comfortable narratives, and why we struggle with logical analysis. If we don’t address these issues, we’re going to keep seeing people reject valid discussions simply because they don’t feel right.
So next time someone throws out “That’s apples to oranges,” ask them: “Okay, but why? What principle makes them fundamentally different?” If they can’t answer, then the real problem isn’t the comparison, it’s their unwillingness to engage with the conversation.
And that’s something we need to start talking about.
The Broke College Student 
Leave a comment