The truth as a matter of fact is quite a different matter than the process of coming to know the truth. I do not know what an "extreme" is with respect to the t

The truth as a matter of fact is quite a different matter than the process of coming to know the truth. I do not know what an "extreme" is with respect to the truth as a matter of fact, but where belief about what is true is concerned, this can mean, e.g., to hold as true an error that reduces reality in some way. Given that, it may be that, in retrospect, a person who has swung through extreme positions on some particular point has gained a certain depth of understanding and perspective, discovering the strengths and weaknesses of these positions over time. He may find himself facing aporia that he is unable to resolve (which is what Lonsdale seems to have in mind when he says we should be able to handle cognitive dissonance). However, the holding of extreme positions, i.e., errors, is not the end goal even if the end goal is not practically attainable. It is at best an intermediate state. If there is some truth to each position, it is not because reality is composed of contradictions (which is Hegelian), but because each position contains a kernel of truth that is exaggerated, misattributed, etc. The hard word of extracting, verifying and reconciling these kernels of truth lies ahead. Second, that "oppositions" in organizations can produce good results is really a matter of practical prudence following on the recognition that each of us may have different strengths and weaknesses, that each of us has a limited perspective or perspectives on reality and that because of our character flaws, we may take things to extremes. So, to draw on Lonsdale's example, let's say we have a bureaucrat driven by an excess fear and desire to eliminate risk and an entrepreneur who is wreckless, rash and impulsive. When both kinds of person are pitted against each other at parity, the ensuing conflict can have a moderating effect on average. It's hardly a perfect situation, of course. The perfect man would be one in whom these two extremes of excess caution and wrecklessness are not merely "averaged" into some arbitrary and bland compromise via some "mechanical or thoughtless procedure". Rather, "finding the mean in any given situation [...] requires a full and detailed acquaintance with the circumstances" [0]. It requires the comprehension of the good and how the bureaucratic and entrepreneurial can best contribute to it in the given situation and acting in comformity with this comprehension. This virtue is called courage. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#DocMea https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#DocMea