Most people know that there are two sides to every issue: their side, and the wrong side. Authors (and people in general) who subscribe to the Golden Mean Fallacy have another outlook. They believe that there are in fact three sides: the side of the complete morons to the left of them, the side of the complete morons to the right of them, and their own side, which combines the good points of each in sublime harmony while avoiding all the bad. If one position is argued to be superior solely because it is in the middle, then this is the logical fallacy of Argument to Moderation.
The fallacy comes about by assuming that not only are extreme solutions never reasonable or correct, but the correct solution can always be found in the middle, e.g.: Bob wants to exterminate all the termites in the house. Alice doesn't want to exterminate them at all. Therefore, the correct course of action is to kill exactly half of the termites.
The Golden Mean Fallacy is turning both sides of an argument into Strawman Politicals and declaring that the only sensible approach is to take the middle road. There is a number of benefits to this - you avoid offending either side too much since they can each take comfort in the fact that their enemies get just as ridiculed as them, you get to come off as a sensible person who thinks for oneself and doesn't blindly follow any one party line, and you get twice as many people to insult and make fun of.
Another handy (and sneaky) thing with this method is that you don't actually have to be very moderate to use it. A Strawman Political is by definition hideously more extreme and unreasonable than any position in Real Lifenote Poe's Law notwithstanding, so there is nothing stopping you from presenting a horrific parody of one side of the issue, then presenting a horrific parody of the other side of the issue, and finally presenting your own actual opinions as a moderate option. It will look very sane and reasonable in comparison, even if in Real Life it would be considered quite extremist. In fact, you can take this one step further: present a horrific parody of your own opinions and the unmodified opinions of those who oppose you; now not only is your actual opinion the sane and reasonable compromise, but your political enemies are irrational extremists! Is it any wonder this fallacy is so popular in politics?
The technique is known among American political strategists as the Overton Window.
Note that this is different from the author just pointing out the flaws in both sides of an argument and never revealing where they themselves stand - this trope is when the author claims that there really is a path that is completely good, right, and perfect, simply because it's right smack in between the other two. And of course, sometimes an option somewhere in between two polar oppositions really is the better option; however, this doesn't mean that the middle option is always the best option, or that this better option will fall squarely in the exact middle without favouring one or the other of the opposites even slightly.
Of course, one of the hazards of this trope is that you'll end up angering both sides of the debate, who might be more interested in complaining about what they wanted but didn't get, without even acknowledging anything that they might have gained. Alternatively, an attempt to compromise too closely might result in a watered-down solution which fails to satisfy anyone or accomplish anything; sometimes, tough decisions do have to be made for good or ill. Finally, one of the sides may actually be completely right after all, and thus taking the middle road is as wrong as the opposing viewpoint.
On the flipside, some people may perform the inverse and weaponize this trope instead, decrying any equivalency or comparison whatsoever between their side and the other, or any consideration of the merits the opposing side might have. What better way to be black and white about it?
Probably the inverse of False Dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy that assumes only one of two propositions (usually placed in opposition to each other) is true, and ignores the possibility of a third option, a compromise, or a spectrum.
Compare Stupid Neutral. Contrast with Take a Third Option and Both Sides Have a Point. Named for Aristotle's concept of virtue, which presented the golden mean as the excellent ideal of behavior. (Obviously, he didn't consider it a fallacy. Aristotle's golden mean also often did lean slightly towards excess or deficiency, rather than being precisely in the middle, and varied from situation to situation.)
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
Martian Successor Nadesico: When the crew of the Nadesico realized that they couldn't negotiate with the Earth forces, they tried to appeal to the Jovians, only to realize that they were just as single-minded. This led to their stealing the Artifact, which allowed Boson Jumping, thus preventing Jupiter and Earth from fighting any longer for the time being.
Ex Machina: This comic is actually pretty fair, even charitable, in its representations of both sides of a political argument. It's the positioning of protagonist Mitchell Hundred as between both political parties that occasionally invokes this trope.
Films — Animated
Team America World Police epitomizes this as far the Americans are concerned. Conservatives are "dicks" who are so aggressive that they cause as much harm as good, while liberals are "pussies" who are too wimpy to get anything done in the first place, but sometimes have to stop the "dicks" from going too far. Unlike South Park, which often has a character find the golden mean, the film contrasts both opposing viewpoints with "assholes" (like terrorists or the movie's Big Bad, Kim Jong-Il) who make the "dicks" necessary.
In Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter, the title character considers conservatives to be bigoted troglodytes who want to exterminate vampires for being different, and liberals to be air-headed idealists who think that vampires are harmless fluffy fanged bunnies and forget that they are dangerous and not entirely human. Since Anita is a complete Canon Sue, her views are entirely accurate.
Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. His strawman extremes are atheism and the Roman Catholic Church; his "middle ground" is still religious, rather than agnostic.
The Star Wars Expanded Universe novel Isard's Revenge deals with this. The New Republic has made claims about an ex-Imperial warlord; the warlord has publicly made claims that are the exact opposite. Rogue Squadron, watching the news, note glumly that most people will probably assume the truth is in the middle somewhere.
"It's called the gray fallacy. One person says white, another says black, and outside observers assume gray is the truth. The assumption of gray is sloppy, lazy thinking. The fact that one person is diametrically opposed to the truth does not then skew reality so the truth is no longer the truth."
Embodied by the Triple Demons of Compromise from The Phantom Tollbooth. One's tall and thin, one's short and fat, and the third is exactly like the other two. They are endlessly traveling in circles because the first says left, the second says right, and the third agrees with both of them. They always settle their differences by doing what none of them really want, leaving them in a permanently foul mood.
In G. K. Chesterton's Magic, the Duke is prone to such flights of fancy as donating to both sides of the issue.
SMITH. [Turning eagerly to the_ DOCTOR.] But this is rather splendid. The Duke's given £50 to the new public-house. HASTINGS. The Duke is very liberal.[Collects papers.]] DOCTOR. [Examining his cheque.] Very. But this is rather curious. He has also given £50 to the league for opposing the new public-house.
In The Dilbert Principle, the chapter "How to Get Your Way" suggests using the "Final Suggestion Maneuver" to get the last word in business meetings. The technique involves staying uninvolved throughout the entire meeting as conflicting suggestions are made, then chiming in at the last minute by disguising your suggestion as a composite of everyone else's. The theory behind this maneuver is that everyone will be so desperate to leave that they'll rush to accept your suggestion without questioning it.
From a political standpoint her position is blatantly obvious, though, her language being extremely middle-class conservative.
In the third book, Lupin tells an anecdote about a boggart that came across two people at once; one was most afraid of flesh-eating slugs and the other was most afraid of headless corpses. The boggart, possibly attempting to combine "slug" and "headless", turned into half a slug, which, as Lupin points out, is not nearly as scary.
women each claim to be a boy's mother. Solomon cannot tell who is lying, so he declares that he will cut the baby in half and give each woman her 'share.' The boy's true mother gives up her claim so that the child lives, which reveals who truly loved him. Subverted in that Solomon never intended this as a legitimate solution but only a trap to catch out the liar, leading to the phrase "splitting the baby" when someone destroys the subject of a dispute rather than assign it to one party.
Neatly illustrated by Samuel Johnson in The History of Rasselas. Rasselas falls prey to this fallacy, and is called on it by his sister Nekayah (quoting their friend, the poet Imlac):
"'Nature sets her gifts on the right hand and on the left.' Those conditions which flatter hope and attract desire are so constituted that as we approach one we recede from another. There are goods so opposed that we cannot seize both, but by too much prudence may pass between them at too great a distance to reach either."
Pontius Pilate's attempts not to execute Jesus but not incite a riot. He failed.
Law & Order sometimes falls into this, with the creators admitting that their show has likely pissed off people on both sides of the aisle at some point. One notable example would be "Talking Points," which opened with someone firing on an Ann Coulter stand-in who was painted as a bigoted harridan... but then the shooter turned out to be a stem cell research advocate who was afraid that his endeavors were being poisoned by her rhetoric.
At the end of the episode "Illegal," McCoy has finished preparing a report on whether or not a violent incident between police and protesters constituted a "police riot." He concludes that, after reading it, "both sides will be angry with me." His deputy replies, "You probably got it right, then."
The West Wing, unusually for a political show, subverts this. Since it's about the President, there's plenty of compromise, but not because it's better; it's just what can get passed by an opposing Congress. And it's not unheard-of for one side to win. The merits of moderation were a matter of some heated debate in one episode:
Josh: If we had a bench full of moderates in '54, Separate But Equal would still be on the books, and this place would still have two sets of drinking fountains.
Toby: Moderate means temperate, it means responsible. It means thoughtful.
Josh: It means cautious. It means unimaginative.
Toby: It means being more concerned about making decisions than about making history.
Josh: Is that really the greatest tragedy in the world, that we nominated somebody who made an impression instead of some second-rate crowd pleaser?
Toby: The ability... The ability to see both sides of an argument is not the hallmark of an inferior intellect.
Josh: What about the vast arenas of debate a moderate won't even address? A mind like Lang? Let them pick a conservative with a mind like Justice Brady had. You can hate his position, but he was a visionary. He blew the whole thing open. He changed the whole argument...
They manage, with some finagling, to get one liberal judge and one conservative judge to balance each other out, as opposed to the one moderate judge that they were arguing over. This allows for both positions to be represented while not having to settle for "moderation."
In an episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie, Mercy's Muslim community was divided (again): the more liberal members of the congregation wanted men and women to pray together in the same room, while the more conservative members insisted that a wall be erected between the men and women's prayer spaces. Amaar, the imam, erected a wall that stretched halfway across the room, so the conservative-minded men could pray in front of it with the conservative-minded women behind it, while the liberal congregants would pray on the wall-less side of the room. Neither faction was pleased (but it was a typical Canadian solution).
In Babylon 5, the Vorlons has a saying claiming "Understanding is a three-edged sword". Sheridan finally vocalizes the meaning behind it in season 4 when he's telling off the Vorlons and the Shadows before kicking them out of the galaxy. Understanding has three sides: Your side, their side, and the truth.
Also in Babylon 5, Brother Theo (a Catholic monk) chastises Sheridan for having no clearly defined religious beliefs. Sheridan invokes this trope by saying he's "eclectic, open-minded." Brother Theo, who isn't buying it, says that Sheridan is "rudderless, adrift in a sea of ecclesiastical possibilities." Interestingly for this trope, but par for the course for B5, neither side is presented as being "right."
House presents most attempts at compromise as examples of this fallacy. In keeping with the series's position on the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism, it seems that we are usually meant to agree with him. This is subverted in an important instance, though, when Stacy defies House's wishes and takes a third option while he's in a coma following his enfarction, saving his leg and probably his life as well.
This was part of Jon Stewart's show-ending rant on Crossfire. The show was infamous for bringing on people of supremely dichotomous views, whom the hosts would then egg on into an argument. The thinking was that the producers were presenting the views of the mainstream public on an issue by bringing on their loudest extremists, with the public view somewhere between them.
In Yes, Prime Minister, Sir Humphrey is trying (without much success) to find an argument against a plan for banning cigarette advertising and punitive taxes on tobacco. Eventually he's reduced to "The government should not take sides." Hacker spots the fallacy at once: "You mean, impartial as between the fire engine and the fire?"
In QI, when Alan Davies talked about giving honey to bees that have been hurt in order to help them recover, Dara O'Briain responded that he would prefer to just squash it. Rob Brydon followed up with his compromise plan - drown the bee in honey.
In The Office, this is Michael Scott's idea of a compromise. When Oscar protested that Angela's baby posters were offensive to him, his idea of a compromise was to have the poster made into a shirt Oscar would wear everyday so Angela could see it but Oscar couldn't. Do we even need a spoiler tag here to hide the fact that neither of them liked the idea? No. No we don't.
In one strip of The Boondocks, George W. Bush says (paraphrased from memory), "On one hand, Colin Powell supports affirmative action. On the other hand, Condoleezza Rice favors the death penalty for anyone who teaches a black person to read. So I figure that keeping black people out of college is good enough." (You have to expect this sort of thing from the comic.)
In one strip of Get Fuzzy, Bucky built a robot designed to be the most moderate Presidential candidate ever, with a hodgepodge of backgrounds, friendly demeanor, and spouting quotes like "my father shared your job and/or ethnicity!" However, Rob breaks the robot when he asks it the first controversial issue he can think of, "Don't you need to raise taxes to pay for the war?", causing it to explode from a Logic Bomb.
Ruthlessly mocked in a Dilbert strip. Dilbert asks his boss whether a project's budget should be $100,000 or $25,000. The Boss cited the wisdom of "Wise King Salmon" by "splitting the difference" and giving him $50,000. Dilbert concludes: "Fish are stupid."
Dungeons & Dragons: The True Neutral alignment, which started out as people who are dedicated to maintaining balance, to the point that they'll switch sides in the middle of battle. Druids had this alignment the most. True Neutral changed to what Absolute Neutral (or just "Neutral") used to be: people with no strong convictions toward any side of good or evil and law or chaos. Creatures without intelligence and people with profound apathy would have this alignment. Fourth Edition calls this "Unaligned."
In The Elder Scrolls series, The Redguards of Hammerfell have traditionally divided themselves into two sociopolitical groups: The Crowns, decended from Redguard nobility, hold Yokudan tradition in high regard and dislike foreigners, while the Forebears, descended from the warriors who conquered Hammerfell, are more comfortable with incorporating aspects of Breton and Imperial culture into their way of life. A third political movement, the Lhotunics, emerged after the Warp in the West, who espouse both the cosmopolitan values of the Forebears and the sense of tradition and respect for the past of the Crowns, and are generally held in contempt by both sides.
Shin Megami Tensei: Played with. The majority of games deal with the constant struggle between Law (God, selflessness, obedience, logic, observing social norms) versus Chaos (Lucifer, personal freedom, thinking for yourself, emotions, doing what you feel like). Both sides have their strong points, but both also can (and do) devolve into extremism when taken too far. While the overall impact of choosing either varies from the fall and defilement of mankind to altering the ending's ratio of Bitter and Sweet, neither is portrayed as overall positive. Far more often, the games present Neutral (siding with humanity and relying on context instead of principle to decide actions) as the best choice. That said, there are often more than three endings (usually featuring different flavors of Neutral), and even when there aren't, Neutral usually isn't so much The Perfect Solution as the Lesser of Three Evils. Humans Are Bastards, sure, but the alternatives are worse.
The portrayal of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the Ace Attorney series is this. Prosecutors such as Manfred von Karma or pre-Character Development Miles Edgeworth are shown as being ruthless people who look down on the defendants as scum who are guilty until proven innocent and deserve to be locked up forever. Defense attorneys such as Robert Hammond and Kristoph Gavin are selfish and don't truly believe in the innocence of their client, only interested in benefiting themselves. Meanwhile, attorneys like Mia Fey, Phoenix Wright, Gregory Edgeworth, Klavier Gavin, and post-Character Development Miles Edgeworth are only interested in figuring out the truth, and are willing to make sacrifices and go the extra mile to find it out (in the case of Edgeworth and Klavier, this even means collaborating with their rival defense attorneys).
Bio Shock Infinite hits this trope hard in some game players eyes. Elizabeth and Booker seem like a sane middle ground while the other 2 factions are depicted as opposite extremes.
It also unintentionally illustrates how the Golden Mean Fallacy is frequently abused by people who are too lazy or cowardly to defend their own ideas. Say, for example, if you can just make everyone think that "their" beliefs are inherently wrong (like, say, equating an opposing viewpoint to blending kittens), you don't have to explain why yours are right.
Also parodied in thisxkcd cartoon. And directly called out in this one.
In ''Sinfest', Slicky tried an apple from the Tree of Knowledge and couldn't handle it. Slicky dived into Lethe and forgot everything. So he tried to combine them into "Forbidden Fruit and Lethe Water Power Drink".
In The Order of the Stick, Haley, Belkar and Celia are trying to get past a checkpoint controlled by hobgoblins. Belkar wants to massacre all the checkpoint guards, but Celia convinces Haley that it's better if they sneak through the checkpoint while keeping all the hobgoblins alive. Belkar decides to kill one of the hobgoblins anyway, then argues that killing one is a reasonable compromise between killing them all and sparing them.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts.
The Simpsons does this a lot. Admittedly, it might be mostly because they live in such a Crapsack World that any idea, plan or policy is almost by definition horrendously flawed, but the writers still want to offer some kind of uplifting moral at the end of the episode.
See the quotes page from a Treehouse of Horror episode in which Kang and Kodos run for president disguised as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.
The episode where Lisa goes vegetarian tries to pull this at the last minute.
Arguably lampshaded in the episode in which Homer gets his jaw wired shut. In the middle of a long story about the old days, Grandpa says: "...after that, things got pretty quiet until FDR challenged Superman to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the stories say. The truth lies somewhere in between..."
And then there's the debacle with the children of Springfield trying to figure out why all the adults had disappeared from the streets after Grampa started selling his aphrodisiac:
Millhouse: Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.
South Park uses this trope a lot to deliver its message. Strawman Politicals from both sides clash and make the problem worse, until someone delivers a final speech concluding that neither side is correct. For example, we shouldn't support the Boy Scouts' decision to exclude membership to gays, but we also shouldn't ban the organization because they should be free to exclude people in their own company. Sometimes, the solutions have been highly unconvincing compromises presented as perfect for everyone, giving rise to complaints that the makers try to force the trope. Through the show's many seasons, however, they have lampshaded and subverted the common formula a number of times.
Futurama made fun of this at the end of one episode, where Bender states the moral he learned:
"I'll never be too good or too evil ever again, I'll just be me."
"Do you think you could be a little less evil?"
"I don't know, Leela. Do you think you could survive a 600-foot fall?"
Some people consider this a problem with modern journalism: to appear "objective", many reporters and commentators will interview both sides of an issue and avoid as much as possible indicating that one side is demonstrably in error.
Okrent's Law: The quest for balance creates imbalance because sometimes things are true.
Some modern day reporters avert the trope by being blatantly biased.
In Livy's writings, the Samnites manage to trap a Roman army in a narrow pass, but since the relations between the two people was tense, but not yet at war, their commander vacillated about what to do. One of his advisors said he should let them go, and try to win friends with the Roman people. Another one said that they should wipe out this army and try their best to crush Rome while it was reeling from the blow. He eventually settles on humiliating the Roman army, accepting surrender and token tribute from them, and then letting them go home. The result? The Romans get pissed, but are still at more or less full strength, and come back with a vengeance, stomping him hard.
That same man may also have been the ancestor of Pontius Pilate, who might be the most famous (attempted) user of this trope in history.
Congressman John Tanner (D-TN) on his fellow Blue Dog Democrats: "We're too liberal in our home areas and too conservative in Washington. I mean, we get it on both sides, and which means I think we're doing something right."
One of the theories about the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I was that it was compromised by this principle. The treaty was harsh enough to upset the Germans but not harsh enough to stop them from retaliating.
Hitler *broke* these rules! And more important, the Allies allowed him to do so - while they didn't with the good democrats of Weimar Germany! Case of Idiot Ball or what?
Not really. Historical opinion is still divided on whether or not appeasement was a wise policy - certainly, buying time at Munich let the UK and France step-up re-armament to a level that they would find it easier to fight Germany with.
The Allies were also increasingly lenient and relaxed with the post-war treaty conditions throughout the 1920s, during which time Weimar Germany was, on the surface at least, one of the most successful and prosperous countries in Europe. It was only after the Great Depression hit everyone hard that the Allies started calling in their debts and enforcing them more strictly, which exposed the cracks that have been largely papered over.
A part of the treaty was that Germany could not possess an army of more than 100k infantry, which would be suicidal to go to war with. The problem with the treaty is more likely to have been that it leaned too hard towards the French standpoint (squash ze Germans!) while not having the support in the US or GB to be followed through in later years. A good example of the disaster the treaty was is that the attempted alleviation of the harsh terms, the League of Nations (precursor to the UN), failed to secure membership of the US and Soviets. Since Germany was barred from entering, this meant that almost half of the great powers were not part of the League, making it a useless formality at best.
Germany joined the League of Nations in 1926, the Soviet Union (founded in 1922) in 1934. From the French POV the problem with the Versailles settlement was that it was left incomplete because the defense treaties with the UK and the US that were supposed to guarantee French security did not come about after the US Congress failed to ratify the Versailles Treaty (which from the French POV leaned too much to the American, or more specifically President Wilson's standpoint) and the entrance of the US into the League of Nations. This gave the British government the pretext it needed not to enter into a permanent defensive alliance with France either, and that in turn caused French policy towards Germany to be much more confrontational because until the mid-1920s it was felt they had to use their transient military superiority to improve a situation largely determined by the much larger population and industrial strength of Germany.
Perhaps the best interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles is that it was a toss-up between British pragmatism, American idealism and French revanchism, and ended up trying to be all three and failing at each one. David Lloyd George lampshaded this, saying that being seated between Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau at the treaty conference was like sitting between Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte.
This suggests that presenting two incompatible yet internally-consistent positions is an example of the fallacy. Simply not expressing a preference is necessary for journalistic and academic objectivity. Let readers come to their own conclusions and take their critical rebuttal elsewhere.
The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who have infamously fashioned themselves as a third way.
The Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Leadership Council, easily.
This can be exploited for marketing purposes with what is known as Goldilocks pricing. Suppose you have two products, Product A is the basic version which gives just the essentials for a low price, and Product B has all the bells and whistles but is more expensive. Many people will see this and decide that A does all they need, and so there is no point in paying extra for B. On the other hand, bring out Product C which is slightly better than Product B but with another price hike, and suddenly B becomes much more tempting, as it offers most of what you get from C but at a lower price. The classic example of this is Economy, Business, and First Class seating on airlines.
The general subversion with this is when there's not enough difference between the three, causing one of them to eventually drop away. (Good examples would be the end of Third Class Mail and Train services in the UK)
Averted by Aristotle, even though he is often looked to as the source of the fallacy. Though he does argue that each virtue is a mean between two extremes, he remarks that it would be stupid to infer that therefore we should seek moderation in all things: for instance, virtue itself is something which one should seek in the extreme. It doesn't make sense to strive to be "just virtuous enough" (see the above Futurama reference).
Just virtuous enough what though? Virtuous enough to live your life? and how extreme? Giving all of your money to the first homeless person you see on the street could be considered to be virtuous, just like donating all of your organs while you still live, but would you? have you? but I'd bet most of my possessions that nobody on this site takes virtue to any extreme, because as well as helping others, we should be able to live our own lives for our own pursuits.
Eudaemonia, the Greek word classically translated as "good" (i.e. the goal of the philosophy) is in most modern versions translated as "flourishing". So actions that cause your character to develop into something more sustainable in and synergistic with the 'environment' of your civilization are 'virtuous', and those that degrade your welfare or cause your character to develop in a way that degrades your relationship with your environment are the opposite. So for your example, giving the homeless man enough that he does not have to resort to crime, but not enough that your own welfare is harmed or that he is encouraged to stop seeking employment would be the ideal quantity of charity. Aristotle's golden mean wasn't a "mean" in the strict add-two-endpoints, divide-by-two sense, it was more like "optimum", and while he encouraged looking between extremes for the optimum as a starting point he did not state that that is _necessarily_ where the optimum lies. He would, however, say that if you are finding the optimum at a far extreme then you've probably picked the wrong variable to base your moral judgement on.
Apologies if that sounded pompous or self-righteous, but that was one of the most thought-provoking posts I have read in a long time.
That's sort of the point of Aristotle's eudaemonia and his idea of what virtue is. Aristotle would note that a compromise between selflessness and selfishness might be enlightened self-interest or generosity. The idea of "virtue" from Aristotle is different, ironically, from what we would consider "virtue" after centuries of Christian concepts got put into the mix. Aristotle is defining virtue as "what is good", so that what is listed above would all not be virtue.
One specific example Aristotle also gave in stating that not everything is good if done in moderation is adultery: adultery is not good just because you do it neither too much nor too little. It's a vice regardless of how much you do it, so just don't do it at all.
Clearly Aristotle was fiddling the wrong ladies.
The idea that teachers should deal with school bullies by staying neutral is an example. Many schools treat bullying as though it were a mutual conflict where both students are equally wrong, rather than one student abusing another. Of course, without evidence, even if it seems clear one kid most likely started it, teachers are usually expected not to be biased towards either party, especially once parents get involved.
The general principle is usually expressed, as probably everyone has heard, "It takes two people to start a fight/argument". Approximately 90% of the time someone says this, it's because they don't want to go to the trouble of finding out if one of those two people was right. Or it's because they can't figure out that it actually only takes 1 person to start a fight, it just takes 2 people to make it a fair fight rather than a merciless beat-down.
They also try punishing both people equally sometimes. eg, Kid A hits Kid B, Kid B shoves him away, brawl ensues. 99% chance kid B is punished just as bad even when they see it was self-defense.
The Compromise of 1850 in the United States was an attempt at this, as it was designed to avert an impending crisis over slavery by giving both sides some of what they wanted. The result was the compromise simply kicked the can down the road ten years. The following decade caused the battle lines on both sides of the issue to harden considerably, and practically guaranteed that the issue would be solved with guns, not words.
The events surrounding the "Border War", intended to be a compromise between pro- and antislavery settlers when Kansas became a state, wound up killing many.
Generally, U.S. politics immediately prior to the Civil War revolved around this trope. Most presidents of the 1850s struggled desperately to find some way the free states and slave states could peacefully coexist with each other, which required seeing the pro-slavery and anti-slavery positions as being of equal value. Even worse, this kind of thinking tended to default in favor of the South, since someone caring only about peace would see anti-slavery people stirring the pot and pro-slavery people in favor of maintaining the status quo.
This is apparently how Stalin won debates before he became undisputed ruler of the Soviet Union. He would ask for the two opposing sides of an issue, then say he belonged to a sensible middle, undermining both rivals.
Whenever Canadian policymakers refer to a "uniquely Canadian" or "made in Canada" solution to a problem (which they do all the freaking time), it essentially means somewhere between a U.S. and EU approach, even if one approach or the other might very well be preferable.
Sales. You think it's worth $30, they say it's worth $100, but it's note perpetually on sale for $60! That's less than the mean. Given the proliferation of this tactic, it seems to work.
At least in the US, the same item cannot stay perpetually on sale usually due to legislation aimed at protecting consumers from this sort of practice. Loop Hole Abuse kicks in when the store rotates a few models which are virtually indistinguishable to the consumer. Imagine three nearly identical $500 USD snowblowers, one with an "Ice-Cracker Blade," one with an "EZ Pull Starter," and one with "Power Traction Mode." One is always on sale, and they're both next to the $250 USD No Frills model and the $800 USD Deluxe model. That's how this trope is used, in conjunction with the Goldilocks pricing strategy mentioned above.
Of course, the same item can sell at roughly the same price almost all the time if the store simply "changes" the sale. Many department and big-box stores will offer an additional 10-20 percent off the sale price (40%) if you shop with the store's card (because they make a huge profit off of your debt). The next week, the same item is on sale for 50 percent off with no additional discount. Both deals sound good, but which is better?*
To determine the final price when taking "an extra ___ percent off," you can't add percentages. "Extra 15 percent + 40 percent sale" does not equal 55%. Rather, an item selling at 100 USD - 40% = 60 dollars; 15% off of 60 USD = 51, for a grand total of 49% off. The price of the item differs by one dollar. This becomes substantially more difficult to do mentally, of course, if the item is, say, 17.49, but it's not impossible; however, stores are depending on your not checking the week-to-week math during a sale.
It's called theistic evolution, and it isn't necessarily this trope - belief in evolution is not related to religious belief. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (with his, y'know, 2.1 billion followers) both support evolution. Theistic evolution is not so much an attempt to reconcile both factions but an updating of religious positions that takes into account advances in science. Some Creationists and Atheists see this as a Golden Means Fallacy, however.
Whether or not theistic evolution is an example of the Golden Mean Fallacy, it's a popular opinion in the United States, held by between 30 and 40% of the population (less than creationism, but more than nontheistic evolution).
Historian Gaddis Smith observed that during the Cold War, when strategists were called upon to provide the president with a list of options for a crisis situation, they'd usually provide five options. Option #1 would be "capitulate", option #5 would be "nuclear war". The strategist's actual proposal would be option #3.
The KGB did something similar with their intelligence predictions, formulating three predictions: Best Case, Middle Case, Worst Case. The Middle Case was always the one presented, supplemented with data from the Best and Worse cases.
During the Constitutional Convention, two of the compromises were essentially this. First was the Great Compromise, which took the Virginia Plan (allocate votes based on population) and the New Jersey Plan (each state gets the same number of votes) and put them together. No one really thought that was a good idea, but since the issue had become a deadlock, they accepted it and today it is seen as a perfectly reasonable way of doing things. The second compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise (slaves count as three-fifths of a person), was a more literal application of this trope and is often considered the founder's greatest failure. It has since been redacted by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Why greatest failure? If anything, it kept the slave states from refusing to sign the Constitution. The slave states weren't going to give up their slaves readily(even though many of the Founding Fathers, including the slaveowners, expressed a desire to get rid of it) and they also wanted to have their slaves counted toward the population vote for representation in the House. Non-slave states, however, were rightfully outraged because the slave states wanted to both have their cake and eat it: They didn't want to give up their slaves because those slaves were "property", but they also wanted their slaves counted in censuses to boost their state's representation in Congress. The Founders at the convention, meanwhile, knew that they had to get the slave states to join the union otherwise they'd risk having fought the Revolution for nothing.
Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech argued that anyone who saw the United States and Soviet Union as moral equals was using this fallacy: "I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." Notably, when re-election time came along, his tone became much more conciliatory, suggesting that swing voters at least, weren't quite so certain of the dichotomy.
As mentioned in the quote CNN has been accused of taking this trope and running with it.
Lots of countries, such as England, America, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. have a proverb that is some variation of, "If two people quarrel, both are wrong." Many readers of this page might recognize the more familiar, "It takes two to tango." Sometimes this proverb makes sense (a lot of times, to be fair), but other times, one person has clearly done something unethical or irrational (a police officer who arrests the wrong man for a murder, for example, or a child who throws a softball through someone else's window and breaks it); if you claim both parties are wrong in those cases, then even if you're arguing for something in the middle you are actually punishing the one person who didn't tango, by making it wrong for him/her to protest in addition to the pain already inflicted on him/her. Of course, be careful when arguing that particular point, since usually the proverb about quarreling is correct.
One of the principles in Buddhism is the Middle Way, which is a principle that one should always take the path between the two extremes. Of course, they apply it to more esoteric things than most examples here, but one example was the middle between self-indulgence and asceticism.
Satirized by none other than the great Groucho Marx, who was visiting an exclusive beach resort. When he inquired about buying a membership, he was informed that the property was "No Semites Allowed." To which the jewish comedian replied: "My son is only half Jewish, does that mean he gets to wade in halfway?"
Because of two vocal factions reacting to the Boy Scouts Of America's ban on gay members, the group proposed to allow gay youth but not gay leaders. One side wants no gay members; the other points out that gay children grow up.