The Balance Principle

For any opinion, look for both extremes for and against it and then find the approximate middle ground.
This is most likely the most reasonable approach.

This is one of my core principles and the only one I determined for myself instead of reading about it before.
Too often, I see people arguing about "A" vs. "Z" without acknowledging that there is a whole alphabet in-between these two.

Microservices

In software development, one example would be microservice architectures.
While that topic is complex enough for multiple blog posts in itself, I only want to use it as a general example here!

There are the people who (yes, still) think that microservice architectures are the solution to almost all software problems; others say that they are basically always overengineering.
I believe that microservices can bring many benefits, but a full microservice architecture is very commonly a sign of over-engineering.
Especially, if it was started as one instead of evolving out of a monolithic architecture.

Pair Programming

Of course - as with any rule - there are always exceptions.
For me, Pair Programming would be one of them.
Over the years, I have become a strong advocate for pair-programming, and I would recommend using it as default instead of only on certain occasions because it just has too many benefits.
As an initial skeptic, I was first convinced over time by practical application, and later even reinforced by studies.
But I will go into that later in a separate article.

To Find the Middle Ground, Communication is Key

For most other principles, dogmas, rules, or anything else, I would try to find the sensible middle, by being as open-minded as possible.
The important thing here is to look reasonably at both extremes (and ideally the middle ground as well) and acknowledge the respective advantages and disatvantages.
It happens too quickly, that one will lean to their favorite side and mostly dismiss the other opinions.

I too often read articles in which ideas, methods, systems, and other things are completely torn apart and described as absolutely wrong.
This sometimes takes on religious characteristics when someone attacks a principle, a programming language, a framework, or an IDE.

Before dismissing another opinion, one should first try to understand it.
It's human nature to immediately go on the defensive when someone questions one's own opinion.
But usually, the other person's opinion is based on their experience, and they don't want to attack you, but just represent their own point of view.
Saying "that's not right" rarely leads to convincing the other person, no matter how many arguments follow.
First trying to understand the other person's standpoint, finding potential common ground, and then carefully determining where the actual truth lies, is significantly more difficult, but better in the long run and, in my opinion, also the best, if not the only way, to improve both oneself and one's environment.

What do the LLMs say about it?

Of course, I also asked the LLMs about my principle, as one does nowadays.
I asked it (in this case Gemini 2.5) if there are already any existing principles like this, since I thought that this idea is so simple as to no one ever thinking about it before.
I got sent to Wikipedia, which mentions this:

"The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency."
Golden mean (philosophy)

That is actually the reason why Icarus died. He did not stay in the golden middle between the ocean and the sky, causing the sun to melt the wax in his wings.
So I actually heard about this before but did not listen properly at that time. ¯\(ツ)/¯
There are apparently also other similar concepts, like "the middle way" in Buddhism, but I haven't found it written down as dumb as I have, so for now, I'll keep calling it my principle! 😊

One interesting thing that Gemini did was to add this warning to its response:

A Note of Caution:

While seeking balance is often wise, be mindful of the "fallacy of the middle ground" or "false balance." Sometimes, one extreme is actually much closer to the truth or the best approach than the other, and the "middle ground" might just be a mediocre or incorrect compromise. The value of your principle lies in examining the extremes to understand the landscape of possibilities, but the "most reasonable" point might not always be exactly equidistant between them. Critical evaluation is still needed.

I actually like this addition, and it matches the example I gave above.
I also want to point out that the exact middle is not the thing to strive for, but that the extremes are the ones to be found, analyzed, understood, and ideally avoided.

Now that I'm writing about it like this, I find the principle in Buddhism much more appealing.
Avoiding the extremes is probably really one of the most important points.
But you can do that best when you also understand them.
Because the two extremes may not carry the same weight, and the better you know both, the sooner you can determine the real center of gravity between them.

Comments