What do you think of people who always choose the middle ground?

Question

hmm..
as opposed to being all-or-nothing...

Answer 1

To choose the middle ground is to choose. The several respondents who've made snotty observations about 'middle-grounders' being unwilling to choose seem to have missed the point of the middle ground strategy. That strategy is to bet that the extreme positions are unsound, and that's very often the right way to bet.

Those who ALWAYS choose the middle ground MAY be timid, muddled, etc.--but they might only be just so intellectually and morally lazy as those 'commitment junkies' who take sides on every issue, however idiotic. Knee jerk Democrats (or knee jerk Republicans) come to mind here, but any doctrinaire slogan-spitting mentality will be able to supply examples of that commited style of non-thought from among its adherents.

The question, while aimed at (what we can call) the doctrinaire middle, applies as well to the doctrinaire at the poles of the spectrum. And what I think of the doctrinaire can't be printed where children might read it. I have little patience with those who don't try to understand and make reasonably clear decisions before choosing an action (or inaction).

By the way, 'the law of the excluded middle' is part of logic and it is very useful when working within a crisp, agreed universe of Aristotelian logic; but not every logical proposition always corresponds with a manifested reality, and Aristotle couldn't handle sorites worth a damn. Don't let yourself be bludgeoned by a logical stick. Watch out for the real stick.

Answer 2

All or nothing? For Hitler it was something like that. Those who choose peace choose war? It does not follow uncontradictory reasoning. Those who ARRIVE at a resolution for an internal conflict composed of two contradictory sides have learned something.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phbb.htm

The Phenomenology of Mind

— B —

Self Consciousness

B: Freedom of Self-Consciousness — Stoicism: Scepticism:

The Unhappy Consciousness


Φ 207. Hence the Unhappy Consciousness (1) the Alienated Soul which is the consciousness of self as a divided nature, a doubled and merely contradictory being.

Φ 208. This unhappy consciousness, divided and at variance within itself, must, because this contradiction of its essential nature is felt to be a single consciousness, always have in the one consciousness the other also; and thus must be straightway driven out of each in turn, when it thinks it has therein attained to the victory and rest of unity. Its true return into itself, or reconciliation with itself, will, however, display the notion of mind endowed with a life and existence of its own, because it implicitly involves the fact that, while being an undivided consciousness, it is a double-consciousness. It is itself the gazing of one self-consciousness into another, and itself is both, and the unity of both is also its own essence; but objectively and consciously it is not yet this essence itself — is not yet the unity of both.



http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phbb.htm

Answer 3

There are indeed two fundamental types of people in the world, and they are not good and evil, lawful or criminal, or hate-filled or loving: they are those that choose and those that can not.

The fence riders of the universe will find one day that neither side was the right side, it was most important to pick a side, rather than wait for a winner.

What makes them think the "winning" side will tolerate middle-ground snivelers that sat and pended their time while the decisive bled for a cause?

Answer 4

Depending on the "ground" in which you are referring, the middle is often a neutral place of low risk and safety. Some people are not risk takers, others seek a reward by approaching extremes and venturing beyond safety. It is wise, however, to assess the situation and have a back-up plan if fail is likely. It's personality thing and perhaps your subject is only "all or nothing" on ocassion. Immature people think in those terms.

Answer 5

Well, they are okay, I guess. On the other hand sometimes they annoy me. Then again, there are advantages to being moderate. I think most people are moderate - or should be. If most people were radical then wouldn't that become the new "middle ground"? Aristotle advocated moderation in all things as the best course in life. Does this help?

Answer 6

Sometimes it's okay not to take sides if you know that it will only result in more conflict and hate. As for those who always choose the middle ground and never want to commit to anything, they're just scared of taking chances and scared of the fact that someone might dislike them for what they did.

Answer 7

People who chose the middle ground, can never be relied upon to do the right thing...whatever that may be. They are too worried about pleasing everyone and not stepping on anyones toes. Give me someone with an opinion any day...I can work with that.

Answer 8

Those who take the risk of getting the high ground usually are victorious. Those on the middle ground are wishy washy and easily overrun. But then again, they're the one that last the longest.

Answer 9

I don't know - middle ground is sometimes the safest and sometimes the worst place to be. Seems to me that those are the people that can manage being diplomatic rather than completely pig-headed or obnoxious - and yet can't get any respect because no one knows the "real" them

Answer 10

I know this guy..he's like some kind of wimp or whatever. For some reason he wants to please everybody, and if he's not careful, he may say one thing to one guy and then something else to the opposing party, so he tries not to say much to anyone. It's like he's trying to be nice, but it just doesn't work in some situations...the weeny! Oh, sorry...that's me..hehe

Actually I think people like this (or me) are trying to keep the peace around them and just get along. There is already too much strife in this world.