Golden Mean Fallacy: Difference between revisions

{{quote|If [[CNN]] did sports reporting, every game would be a tie.|Cenk Uygur, of ''[[The Young Turks]],'' in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MQ2a032OUE this] clip.}}

 

 

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.

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 Life]] <ref>[[Poe's Law]] notwithstanding</ref>, 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?

 

 

Note that this is different from the author just [[Accentuate the Negative|pointing out the flaws in both sides of an argument]] and [[Lost Aesop|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.

* The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who have infamously fashioned themselves as a [[Take a Third Option|third way]].

* The Republican Main Street Partnership and Republican Leadership Council, easily.

** 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).

*** 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.

*** 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.

*** It's generally a result of the "you shouldn't be biased towards either side" philosophy.

*** It's also because they usually have to deal with parents on both sides outright refusing to believe their kids would do such a thing in the first place and blame the other kid. Punishing both kids equally is the only way to keep them at bay.

* 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 [[Insistent Terminology|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 <ref>perpetually</ref> on sale for $60! Heck, that's less than the mean. Given the proliferation of this tactic, it seems to work.

* An any internet forum discussing [[Flame Bait|religion]], (and by "discussing", we of course mean [[Godwin's Law|arguing until someone gets compared to Hitler and the moderaters shut it down]]) there is very nearly always some [[Fox News Liberal|kind soul who tries to get the evolution v. creationism factions]] to meet in the middle and very nearly always says something along the lines of "Evolution is true, but God set it in motion". This never works.

*** Creationists and Atheists are still likely to see Theistic Evolution as an example of this trope. The atheists claim that to say that evolution is guided is to miss the point. Creationists say that to interpret the Bible (Or Torah or Koran) as speaking anyway other than literally is heresy. While theistic evolution is not always a case of the golden mean (Many theistic evolutionists simply see evolution as the process god used), opponents on each side see these people as trying to have it both ways.

* 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.

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

[[Category:Golden Mean Fallacy]]