Lerk's Law of Relative Extremism

[Lerkfish]

Lerk's Law of Relative Extremism

The further one travels to any political extreme, the more every other point appears to move in the opposite direction, even if it doesn't move or is completely balanced

Expanding the law: Only those points of view adjacent to you seem fair and balanced, ONLY because they are equally as skewed as your own viewpoint.
For example: if you have a balanced view on rights for widgets, then pro-widget right advocates would view you as anti-widget, and anti-widget advocates would view you as pro-widget rights. AND, to you, both view would seem extreme, but to themselves they each consider their view balanced.

If you are pretty much to the end of an extreme, then NOTHING is balanced except that which matches your own level. The closer you are to the moderate or balanced position, the easier it is for more moderate views of either end of the spectrum to seem reasonable to you, even if you disagree.

so, the term "bias" does not reflect the actual bias of the report, but the bias of the observer. Hence, the extreme right wing claim of "liberal media". Since to the extreme right wing, EVERYTHING else is liberal.

[JFN1]

1. Excellent!

Happy to recommend!

[The Magistrate]

2. Not a Bad Formulation, Sir

It certainly works in both directions, and explains a good deal of the grousing we find here concerning candidates and various Party factions.

[Lerkfish]

6. thanks

[Mythsaje]

3. Is that why I consider either extreme completely nucking futz? n/t

[mod mom]

4. This explains my alienation from "centrist" Dems. I am so far removed from

agreeing with them on free trade, corporate support and their position on wars, that I perceive them almost as I do the neocons (sometimes worse as they pretend to be on our side).

I'll be saving Lerk's Law for future reference.

[Lerkfish]

7. the middle is not necessarily the best.

for example, if you have torture at one extreme, and no torture at the other, the middle would be torturing only half the people.

simply because a position is in the middle of two extremes does not automatically make it the most reasonable.

[ElboRuum]

11. Inaccuracy of premise...

If A is "torture is always OK" and B is "torture is never OK", then C would be some position between "torture is mostly OK" to "torture is rarely OK". However, the fact that this is almost a clear moral absolute either-or would effectively destroy most if not all of the C positions except for those already close to the extremes.

[mod mom]

12. You are correct-and I have no intention on moving toward their goals of corporatism.

[CT_Progressive]

5. "Fallacy of Moderation"

Fallacy of Moderation

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.

This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.

It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.
Examples of Middle Ground

1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.

2. Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.

3. A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

[ElboRuum]

10. Fallacy?

Here's one:

is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

True, however no one suggested that "C" is the "correct" position. We all know that the "correct" position is the one a person holds.

[baby_mouse]

15. Er...

come again?

[ElboRuum]

23. Put another way...

The "correct" position cannot exist in an absolute sense since the correctness of a position is directly relative to how it differs from one's own. Thus the "correct" position IS one's own, with all others becoming less correct the farther afield those positions are from one's own.

The aphorism "somewhere between the extremes lies the truth" makes no statement as to where between the extremes that truth lies. Complicating matters further is the idea that the "truth" in many cases is unknown in any absolute sense, and in every case is unknown in the absolute sense where matters of opinion are concerned. Political viewpoints are matters of opinion first and foremost and those that would suggest otherwise are trying to sell you an ideology.

Once you admit that an issue has room for variance and nuance, you've created the continuum and opened the door for a "fuzzy" interpretation of what the "truth" of a matter is. Moreover, you've created this continuum revealing that there is no correct answer, just a myriad of variations of opinion collecting around some invisible point whose true location is a guess at best, fueled by personal belief systems as variegated as the opinions we hold.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Bornaginhooligan's Law of Political Moderates.

Bill O'Reilly calls himself a moderate.

Expanding the Law: Foxs News is Fair and Balanced.

[Whisp]

9. you are on some kind of roll here, Lerk. ! k&r.

;)

[Odin2005]

13. Odin's Law of wishful political thinking:

People on either extreme of the political spectrum will claim to have the majority of Americans behind them.

[Lerkfish]

14. ha! good one.

[Odin2005]

19. Thanks!

It popped into my head while reading your OP. I usually run into that phenomenon when talking politics with conservative friends or coworkers, I see it one and a while on DU as well.

[riverdeep]

16. Being extreme is not always wrong.

Imagine being anti-slavery in the 15th century. People would label you an extremist. A few centuries later and it's the middle ground. Now, being pro-slavery is, in most quarters, the extremist view.

Many of the reasonable, middle of the road views we hold today will be looked at with horror by our descendants. That is, if our safe, middle of the road views don't do us in before there are descendants.

[Lerkfish]

20. not arguing middle of the road is right.

the point of the law is only that you will view nearness to yourself on the spectrum as "right" and distance from you as more "wrong", no matter where you are on the spectrum

Its about perception of one's own position rather than rightness of any position.

[baby_mouse]

17. Weeeeelllll, yeah BUT

What's "extreme"? slippery ground here, yeah, Mr Fish?

Hm. Did you read my "truth is not in the middle" thread? I don't really entirely trust "balanced" positions. I don't deny that they can be valid, but I think sometimes they are adhered to for the sake of the *feeling* of balance against a *perception* of extremism, rather than through any sensible attempt at analysis, to establish veracity. I also think certain "moderate" positions can end up being just as monolithic and destructive as "extreme" ones.

I can't say whether or not I buy the idea that ANY political position is "extreme" (although I've paid lip service to the concept elsewhere, for communication's sake). I concede that some positions certain *seem* extreme, but one should really say, relative to what? I'm sure any number of otherwise perfectly ordinary, nice people thought abolishing segregation was extreme, at the time...

[bemildred]

18. The point is that ...

creating a hypothetical political spectrum,
and placing yourself in the middle of it,
is not a logical argument for your position.

It begs the question by assuming the outcome.
So it boils done to little more than "I am right".

[Breeze54]

21. *yawn*

Sorry, I know you're trying hard here but maybe ... to hard?

What are you smoking anyway? :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

22. Moderation vs. Reasonableness

It's true that the moderate position is not always correct. But the reasonable position is.