The Golden Mean Fallacy
From Criticalthought
This fallacy assumes that to be correct, one must be 'balanced'. Like many errors this idea originates in a good idea that is overextended. The good idea of keeping oneself open minded by considering 'all sides' of a question is overextended into a general, unexamined assumption that it follows that one's position in any argument ought fall midway between the extremes. But once one has sufficient data to hold to an answer rationally, simply 'avoiding a side' no longer makes sense and merely avoiding extremes does not guarantee correctness. At some point, it makes sense to say "OK, I support the idea of heavier than air flight", no matter how rational the previous position of "I'm unsure about this" once was.
You see the folly of the Golden Mean fallacy employed during discussions of matters without any clear answer. Who is right: the republicans or democrats? The liberals or the conservatives? The atheists or the theists? At these times it becomes especially alluring to hold to the middle position, the moderate position, the 'agnostic' position (as the term is consistently misused.)
The allure is easy to see, look at what it grants the holder of the position, without the need to actually think any more on the matter:
"I'm in the safest place, most likely to be right (seeing as comprises are often the only viable result in these cases). "I'm the rational one" "I'm the emotionally stable one" (after all, to withhold from deciding when things are unclear is wise) "I'm not a partisan hack, a fundamentalist or a fanatic." "Most people agree with me." (Particularly those ignorant of the matter under discussion, but this part is forgotten)
The idea is alluring for yet one more reason and this is most likely the most important reason of all: If you can place yourself between Barack Obama and John McCain as the more rational, emotionally stable, and more likely to be correct person, then,you're smarter than the president. And if you can pull this all off with a mere cognitive shortcut - without even having to put one neuron to work on actually grasping the particulars of the debate, then so much the better.
Partisans in a debate can be seen as fans of a team: facts matter, but how they are interpreted is highly influenced by the colors of one's jersey. Even when a team changes members, or the methods for obtaining victory, the fans still root. To an outsider, it appears hypocritical - what one cheers for today, is criticized tomorrow, when utilized by one's opponents. But the holders of the Golden Mean fallacy are in no different than the partisans... their desire to 'stand above the fray' be 'more mature, more rational, more even handed, etc." is simply membership on another 'team'. It still grants the same emotional satisfactions granted to the partisans.
To be above the fray is to take no notice of it, not to instead rely upon it as one's means for attaining a sense of superiority.
