Middle Ground Fallacy is assuming the truth must lie between two extremes. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0472, within the Definition Fallacy family. The core principle: assuming the truth must lie between two extremes. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Assuming the truth must lie between two extremes.
Plain-English Definition
Assuming the truth must lie between two extremes.
Feynman Explanation
Splitting the baby works in nursery rhymes; rarely in strategy.
Core Principle
Assuming the truth must lie between two extremes.
Mechanisms
Assuming the truth must lie between two extremes.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Splitting the baby works in nursery rhymes; rarely in strategy.
Examples
- Compromise decisions that satisfy nobody and accomplish less.
- Strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.'
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
This is one of the elements leaders describe as a values gap. It is a payoff gap. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: assuming the truth must lie between two extremes. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: splitting the baby works in nursery rhymes; rarely in strategy. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.'. It is amplified whenever strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.'. Inside organizations that shows up as strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.'. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to make the desired behavior observable, remove whatever currently pays for its opposite, and attach the reward to the behavior rather than to the noisy outcome downstream of it. Design against it the way you would design against a known failure mode — assume it will appear, and price the exploit before someone finds it.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
Pending editorial review.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Assuming the conclusion in the premise.
The conclusion is hidden inside the premise.
What's true of the parts is assumed true of the whole.
Because there's no sharp line, no distinction exists.
Quietly redefining a term mid-argument.
What's true of the whole is assumed true of the parts.
Constraining the option set to bias the decision.
Insisting on a word's original meaning over its current one.
Treating two things as comparable when they're not.
Deriving 'is' from 'ought.'
Changing success criteria whenever the prior criteria are met.
Deriving 'ought' from 'is.'
Where Middle Ground Fallacy is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- EssayGoodhart's Law in the Real World
How measurable proxies capture judgment.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
Cognitive shortcuts turned into scorecards.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
Questions about Middle Ground Fallacy
- What is Middle Ground Fallacy?
- Middle Ground Fallacy is assuming the truth must lie between two extremes. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0472, within the Definition Fallacy family. The core principle: assuming the truth must lie between two extremes. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Middle Ground Fallacy?
- Strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.' The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0472).
- How is Middle Ground Fallacy exploited?
- Strategic mush manufactured by reflexive 'balance.'
- How do you design around Middle Ground Fallacy?
- Name the behavior you want in observable terms, remove what currently pays for the opposite, attach the reward to the behavior rather than a lagging proxy, and publish how you will detect gaming.
- Which behavioral dimension does Middle Ground Fallacy belong to?
- Middle Ground Fallacy is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Definition Fallacy", class "Logical Fallacy". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0472 and its evidence grade is B.