In Pursuit of Balance

Is it just me or does it seem like we are running away from each other towards opposite ends of the spectrum? Maintaining your weight by eating a balanced diet? Not good enough. You either eat anything you want or you fast! While both natural and unnatural forces nudge us towards ‘either-or’ thinking, I want to propose a different frame: we always benefit from a ‘balance of both’ ends.

I find the ‘either-or’ frame problematic for a couple reasons. First, this perspective forces us to choose between ‘a’ and ‘b:’ between being either a rational or emotional being, between being conservative (Republican) or a liberal (Democrat.) These are false choices that do not leave any room for the wisdom and learnings to be gleaned from the other side. Second, the either-or frame assumes ‘a’ and ‘b’ are opposing forces where the benefit of one comes at the expense of the other. The ‘either-or’ frame is incomplete at best and potentially even drives us towards danger.

Why do we so often engage in either-or thinking? For starters, it appears that our tribal nature predisposes us towards the extremes. In his “law of group polarization,” the legal scholar Cass Sunstein says that when a group of like-minded folks get together, everybody in the group tends to grow more extreme. This behavior can be seen in sporting events. Whereas individuals are not likely express their displeasure towards the refs, a crowd of fans is much more likely to aim profanities towards them. Our tribal tendencies are then further amplified by the social media forums through which we are choosing to gather and communicate.

A more accurate frame is that opposites are complementary forces of which we need a ‘balance of both’ when making decisions and taking actions. Many of us have long been taught that good decisions are made when the reins are exclusively in the hands of our rational mind, while we successfully ignore our emotions. This belief is challenged by emerging findings in psychology that your feelings, however subtle, precede and accompany your thoughts. The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes, “human rationality requires emotional sophistication.” Your rational mind is not your decision-making CEO; it is actually closer to a PR function for your feelings. This understanding helps inform that a clear-eyed examination of our feelings benefits our conceptual decision making.

The benefits of this ‘balance of both’ frame for wholeness appears to be everywhere. Good winemakers reflexively know that balance is everything. A ripe wine without acidity is undrinkable. So is an acidic wine without ripeness. Similarly, meaningful change rarely seems to come from unilaterally tearing the house down – rather it comes from first understanding the norms and traditions already in place. Science has led to incredible growth for humankind but has provided few answers with regards to articulating meaning and purpose – spirituality has more often filled this void.  

So how can we shift our frame from ‘either-or’ to a ‘balance of both?’ An obvious place to start would be to always look for a diversity of perspectives when making a decision. Seek counsel from folks you genuinely, honestly cannot anticipate what they will tell you. Another good building block in making the shift would be to adopt the author Shirzad Charmine’s ‘10% rule’ where you assume that your adversary is always at least 10% right. This rule acknowledges that nobody is ever 100% wrong. Get curious about what is right about the other perspective and use the learnings to strengthen your position. So when you are next posed with choosing between the red pill and the blue pill, think about taking a bite of both.