Just a working hypothesis.. might be able to share as a fully written
piece later on. But here are the main points.
1. For most issues, there are two opposing arguments, and entities
opposite to each other advancing their argument.
2. The opposing sides, repelled by each other, tend to go to the
farthest extremes of the spectrum. One on this side, the other on that
3. They usually see things as this-or-that, not recognizing that there
is a whole spectrum of possibilities between them.
4. So to everyone coming along, they see them as either being on their
side, or on the other side.
5. Both sides are too extreme in their positions, which is why the
issue at hand has till date never been solved. Both have gotten
different aspects right and different aspects wrong. But each sees
themselves as being completely right and the other as being completely
6. Given this context, if and when a real solution to the issue does
emerged, odds are that it will not originate from any of the opposing
sides. Instead, it will emerge somewhere in the spectrum between the
7. And because the already established opposing sides cannot
comprehend anything happening in the middle, when they see the
solution for the first time, each side will think that this is coming
from the other side.
8. People who were on the fence and not completely sure of being on
one extreme bastion or another : these are the people from whom the
solution will emerge. And when it does, they will gravitate to it, in
the process earning the title of "deserter" from their peers who are
in one of the extreme bastions.
9. Hence, a defining characteristic of a real solution, or alternative
: it will manage to piss off both sides of the divide at the exact