<p>It has been argued that dichotomies are an undeniable reality of the universe, and dualism has become a method for understanding multifaceted phenomena in various sciences, including geography. However, many geographers criticize dualism and dichotomizing, believing that it does not enhance our understanding of the world and prompts us to overlook profound differences. Dualism focuses on division and emphasizes opposition and contradiction, which has negatively impacted economic theories and the initial definition of economic man by economists in particular. It has also had an adverse effect on harvesting resources and the conquest of natural environments, which has led to resource instability. This study, conducted using the “descriptive content analysis” method, aimed to investigate the presence of dualisms/dichotomies in geography and its intellectual consequences. The findings reveal that, contrary to popular belief, duals in geography are not necessarily opposites, and some duals can have relations on multiple levels. One of the key results of this study is the categorization of duals based on three perspectives: relations, applications, and position. Regarding the first perspective, the types of relationships between duals have been presented as contrasting, opposing, complementary, and formally related. Additionally, the concept of “substitute” dual, a type of relation not previously mentioned by researchers, was added to the types of links between geographical duals. The investigation into the “application of duals” —the second perspective —showed that highlighting the importance or insignificance of one side of a dual compared to another is a major objective of dualists. Emphasizing the superior position of certain individuals or entities in the “Duals and dualism” movement has been carried out by adopting the third perspective, which is a key contribution of this study.</p>