Argument to Moderation / Golden Mean Fallacy
Updated 2026-08-02
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
An informal fallacy also called the golden mean fallacy. It treats the position between two extremes as correct simply because it is between them, rather than on the basis of evidence. When one side is right and the other wrong, the compromise inherits the error; when both are wrong, it is wrong as well. The fallacy exploits the tendency to equate compromise with fairness, substituting spatial centering for logical justification.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Weigh the sides: evaluate the evidence for each position before considering any midpoint - Reject position as proof: require the compromise to argue for itself rather than borrowing credibility from balance - Separate process from conclusion: distinguish a fair procedure from a correct answer
Anchor fast decisions
Being located between two claims is a positional property with no bearing on truth, but it is easily confused with impartiality, which carries positive associations. Accepting the midpoint therefore feels like good judgment while bypassing the evidential question entirely. The error is most damaging where the two sides differ in evidential support, since averaging then imports the weaker side's error.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- zh.wikipedia.orghttps://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A8%B4%E8%AB%B8%E4%B8%AD%E5%BA%B8verified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS