Going a little deeper and not contesting your conclusion, I'd like to point out "middle ground" is more a result of survivorship bias than a general maxim. The

Going a little deeper and not contesting your conclusion, I'd like to point out "middle ground" is more a result of survivorship bias than a general maxim. There are an infinity of choices we make daily that are completely binary, 100% extreme, both on the individual and social group level. They go unnoticed because there's nothing to gain by pontificating "Shall I go 100% in with 'I won't cut off my legs today', or find some middle ground that's not as extreme?" (apologies for the gross example, but articulating inarticulate choices is hard, by definition). Our cognitive capacity is limited, so naturally we've evolved to consider only the choices that matter. We look for the "middle ground" in only a tiny sliver of decisions. Which is obvious, but there's an interesting thought in there: To what degree is the presence of "middle ground" in our minds indicative of some potential gain, an arbitrage opportunity? Turning the causality around, can we assume the distinctions that bubble up to our conscious thought are useful hints at profit? There's something primal about spotting gradients: the only place where it makes sense to talk about a "middle".