From the wave-particle duality of the fundamental particles to the dualism of the observer and the absolute in the vedas, nature and philosophy often present themselves in dualities. Such dualities appear everywhere: magnetic poles, the arrow of time, and right & wrong.
Yet, reality often resolves itself in triads.
Atoms are composed of three fundamental components; Vedic philosophy speaks of a trio of cosmic forces; space is defined by three dimensions; and all colors emerge from three primary hues.
In many dualistic systems, a third, neutral state brings the system to an equilibrium. This idea of an optimal path, of resolving tension between two extremes rather than choosing one over the other, often serves as a powerful mental model for life, politics, and economics.
In everyday life, our behaviours, choices, and routines often swing between excess and neglect, and both lead to suboptimal outcomes. Longevity and stability emerges from a third front: a pursuit of balance.
The same mental model applies in business. Across many B2C markets, there is typically a premium segment at one end and a low-cost alternative at the other. Significant value often emerges in the middle, in the affordable-premium category, where quality and accessibility are both optimised.
This idea of balance has implications in politics as well. A rigid alignment with either the right or the left often resembles tribalism more than thoughtful engagement. Mirroring the state of the society, politicians have become increasingly more performative, motivated less by reasoning and more by the need to signal loyalty to an increasingly more divided society.
Unfortunately, social Media has amplified this divide. While traditional media once had an economic incentive to appear neutral, the smartphone-driven attention economy rewards polarisation through algorithmic targeting and personalised narratives.
No ideology has a monopoly on truth. In many complex systems, better outcomes tend to emerge in the balance between Liberal and Conservative ideas, in between opposing viewpoints, and in the reconciliation of forces rather than the outright victory of one over the other.
One can hope that the political pendulum, currently swinging between extremes, eventually settles toward more balanced and centered ideas, as societies grow weary of perpetual polarisation and conflict.
The same principles apply in economic policies. Neither unfettered laissez-faire capitalism nor a fully state-controlled system produces consistently strong outcomes. The best model allows industries and innovations scale through capitalism, and regulates it through democratically built institutions that redistribute opportunity. The Nordic countries are a good example of this balance.
There are, of course, exceptions. In a court case, the truth does not lie in the middle: there’s always a right and a wrong. But it’s an example of a closed system, defined by clear rules and boundaries, like equations in Physics.
This way of thinking, of introducing a third element in between two extremes, tends to work in large, complex, unbounded systems: societies, policies, economies, and lifestyles. Too much of anything is harmful. More often than not, a good life, a solid political narrative, and a sustainable governance rest on a foundation of balance and harmony.
