The notion of compromise often receives praise as a virtuous middle ground, a means for rationally resolving conflicts and maintaining harmony. It is the balanced solution where everyone gets a little of what they want, and no one leaves entirely dissatisfied. Yet, the allure of compromise as a “fair” and peaceful resolution is nowhere grounded in reality.

While compromise might avoid immediate confrontation, it seldom yields the best possible outcome. Consider a scenario where two individuals have opposing viewpoints. The typical route is for them to compromise, meeting each other halfway. This results in a blended solution that neither party fully endorses. The problem arises when this middle-ground solution inevitably fails, as it was never anyone’s first choice for what would work. When that happens, both sides often revert to their original positions, claiming they were right all along. In the end, the compromise has not advanced the situation; it has merely confirmed that the halfway point was not the answer—something both parties suspected from the outset.

A compromise between two conflicting theories is essentially a third, distinct theory still in conflict with the original two. It obscures the underlying explanations that at least one party initially considered good, preventing them from being criticized and discarded. Moreover, it is entirely possible that none of the theories may be correct. Viewing choice and decision-making merely as a process of picking from pre-existing options based on a set formula overlooks a crucial aspect: the ability to innovate and generate new alternatives.

The myth of the compromise is pervasive and dangerous. Ideas are not equal. It is pointless to combine a good explanation with a theory that lacks explanatory power to form a consensus. A good explanation is hard to vary. Mixing it arbitrarily with a rival explanation typically diminishes its explanatory power. So, often, the result of meeting two good explanations halfway is worse than either of them separately.

Thus, we have seen that a compromise seldom serves as the panacea people often claim it to be. By definition, a compromise is something neither party desires. Rigorously testing conflicting theories against each other or creatively conjecturing an entirely new theory is much more effective than merely averaging existing ones.

Further Reading

Chapter 13: Choices in The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch

Follow me on X: @arjunkhemani

Click here to support my work.