Alt text:
"Some people say light is waves, and some say it's particles, so I bet light is some in-between thing that's both wave and particle depending on how you look at it. Am I right?" "YES, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE!"
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
1355 points (99.5% liked)
xkcd
8839 readers
102 users here now
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a middle ground kind of guy, I would like to pre-emptively state that a lot of us don't actually think the answer is always the middle ground between two stances. It's just that we're more likely to propose a middle ground solution because we evaluate the plausibility of both stances in a more balanced way (as opposed to existing-stance-holders who are prone to bias towards their own stance.) When the two seem roughly equal in plausibility (which happens fairly often, otherwise the argument would be more one-sided,) that's an indication to evaluate the middle ground as well.
Middle ground folks are often caricaturized as wanting to find the middle ground between an objectively sensible point A and a radically wrong point B, when the spectrum of opinions is sort of like [ - - - - - A - | - - - - - - B ]. In that caricature, we're looking for a middle ground at point C [ - - - - - A - | - - C - - - B ], when in actuality we're evaluating (and not automatically accepting) something two or three steps closer to A. In some such cases, A might already be the most sensible middle ground.
I'm actually not as neutral as I may seem. There are quite a few cases where I hold more extreme opinions, but as a general trend, I average somewhere around the middle.
I don't know. But if I die, tell me wife I said hello.
In an n-dimensional problem space, the probability of the truth lying anywhere on a line between point A and point B is infinitessimally small.
This is also true. I like to evaluate solutions outside the presented dichotomy in general, and that often means outside the line between them, but I didn't want to complicate my initial explanation that much.
It's just the same point xkcd made.
Middle of the ground people are mostly cowards too scared of conflict, or devoid of insight.
Maybe there's a middle ground between our two views.
Why are you so scared of conflict?
I'm not scared of conflict, I'm averse to needless conflict. I may get involved in a conflict for the purpose of breaking it up, or I may initiate a conflict for a good cause such as combating hatred and averting future conflicts - if I feel it'd be productive.
Great reply but... I was being facetious; making fun of the guy you were replying to 😁
I figured.
Why waste your time fighting when there's a solution everyone is happy with?
More likely a solution nobody is happy with but everyone can live with. Your point stands though.
Wow. You just succinctly explained the position I've held most of my life. Very well done!
Ok, but let's realize that you're not necessarily the one who's defining the spectrum of options; or put another way, there's not an objective spectrum of options.
For instance, in the case of Israel and Gaza, you could define the leftmost bracket as "give Israel to the Palestinians" or "the second-state solution" or just "a cease-fire," and likewise the rightmost bracket could be "let Israel keep the war going but let civilians out through Egypt" through "Israeli settlement of Gaza" all the way up to "glass Gaza." Depending on who's talking, and how extreme each person is in the discussion, the most humane solution might not be in the middle at all.
I'm not seeing a conflict here. The point I'm making is that the middle ground is not necessarily in the middle of any two given opinions, because the spectrum is wider than that. And also that the middle is not necessarily the best, just worth evaluating.
It's not a conflict. What I'm trying to say is that what people hear when you say you want to "evaluate the middle option" is entirely dependent upon the options presented in the argument, which is why the caricature is so common.
You're my hero. Thank you.
Middle implies middle. If you are leaning towards a side, then you're side-leaning. You can't have your cake and eat it too, centrist, that's what everyone makes fun of ya'll for.
It's "somewhere in the middle". You are putting to much emphasis on "middle" and not enough of "somewhere".
Somewhere in the middle means there's a middle and side-leaning, yes.
This is why people hate pedants. You're technically correct, it's just a useless distinction that only exists to make you feel better.
That's exactly how I feel about centrists. Curious.
Somewhere in the middle means it doesn't have to be dead center - it just has be between the two extremes and not exactly one of the extremes. To put it in numbers, somewhere in the middle between 0 and 1 is not just 0.5. It can also be 0.4. Or 0.7. Or 0.00000000001.
If i have a very plain boring hamburger. Bun cheese patty bun, are the cheese and patty in the middle? Middle doesnt always mean center, center doesnt always mean exactly in the center between 2 points either because thats why the term dead center exists
It's hilarious he had to make us a little drawing making up his own scale that fits this narrative.
It's an abstraction of a caricature I've seen. Point A was civil rights, point B was the KKK, and the middle ground guy was like "what if we only kill half of Black people?"