Discussion thread #2: Your best examples of the "leaden mean"?
Hello, dear readers! I had a lot of fun unpacking the term “psychological safety” with you in our first discussion thread, so today I want to get your input on another term that’s been percolating in my head—only this time it’s a term of my own invention.
Recently I was telling a friend about my halfhearted efforts to teach my toddler Russian (which happens to be my native language, and about which I’ve been even more than the usual amount of ambivalent in recent years). In telling the story, I realized I would’ve been better off either taking the more serious “only Russian with mommy” approach or just letting go of the whole campaign, rather than the maximally costly and minimally effective “middle ground” I’d landed on.
And then my friend and I started recalling other instances in our lives where we’d gotten the raw end of our own bargain by trying to “strike a balance” between 2 potentially legitimate paths. Like those awkward “hybrid” meetings where half of you are IRL and half are on Zoom; or when you want to move in together but neither of you wants to give up their place, so you keep half your stuff at their place and they keep half their stuff at your place and no one ends up feeling fully at home anywhere. Or like the final torturous months of my enrollment in the Tufts / New England Conservatory dual degree program as an undergrad, wherein I half-assed my vocal performance studies on one end of town while treading water in my psychology and philosophy classes on the other end.1
This phenomenon, we both agreed, is common and damaging enough to warrant its own name. Contra the many cases where it’s appropriate and helpful to strive for the “golden mean”, this is a distinct type of case—which may even look similar at first blush—where the “mean” is the worst possible solution. Usually it involves trying to reconcile two equally valid but mutually irreconcilable approaches, whether because we genuinely (but falsely) believe they can be reconciled, or we’re still conflicted between them, or we’re simply afraid of commitment.
I propose we call it “the leaden mean.”
What do you think?
Does this framing help describe or clarify what’s happening in these kinds of situations, beyond existing conceptualizations in terms of “indecision” or “false compromise” or “having your cake and eating it too,” etc?
Any examples of the “leaden mean” you’d be willing to share from your own life?
Thoughts on what might make us especially vulnerable to these types of compromises, or how to predict whether a given compromise will turn out to be a “golden mean” or a “toxic” one?
As before, feel free to riff on these questions, or to stray from them entirely. The goal is to connect and exchange ideas with like-minded people, so all comments in that spirit are welcome!
I ultimately chose the psychology and philosophy classes, in case that’s not obvious. But I did it in a more embarrassingly delayed and round-about way than I care to admit.
...I like the idea. Not identical but reminded me of a saying that you can't cross a 20 foot chasm with 2X10 foot jumps.
Thank you for the question :)
I've had to deal with a knee-ligament injury which forced out of playing football (soccer). More recently I tried freestyling and was getting moderately comfortable and better at it. However, a few months later, while trying to perform a trick I clumsily fell down and hurt the same knee.
Couldn't walk straight for 4 weeks.
I've watched and played football since I was 5 years old, and choosing to not play the sport and pick another, the decision to make was more overcast than sunny.
I don't know about a silver lining, but decisions like this if made by ascribing different shades of grey (British English) to each alternative, is a good way to go about it, I think.
I can choose to continue playing football and risk injury. If I get injured I don't know the severity of it, and that to me seems like a darker shade of grey.
I can choose a different sport, a non-contact one like running and work towards running long distance, and I've always been a fan of OCR and Trail running. But these sports are also risky as I can get my knee-injured again, and this decision although not completely dark in it's shade of grey is one that still instills doubt.
So, I am going to choose cycling and swimming as sports that are safer and are lower in risk in comparison to other sports. This decision seems a little lighter in it's shade of grey.
I loved playing football because it made me stop feeling self-conscious.
And if I choose running or any sport that can increase the risk of injury, I would be self-conscious and stop enjoying the sport.
So choosing a sport like cycling or swimming enables me to have an opportunity to get better at it and experience that feeling of losing myself in it, while knowing that my knee in comparison to other forms of sports is much safer in this.
I'll still miss playing football, but I think this is one way to miss it less and not sulk anymore.