Compromising has a pleasant connotation in most people’s mind. When compromises are reached, we assume parties with differing opinions made concessions and settled in the middle. It is the civil and selfless way to resolve disagreements. We applaud and pursue it. But should we? Few talk about the unhealthy side effect that develops in environments where compromise reigns. The problem with routine compromise is that people naturally evolve toward advocating extreme positions. You learn that a decision or outcome will always settle out somewhere in the middle of the two positions argued. To adapt and compete, each side advocates a more and more extreme position to ensure the compromise either remains in the middle or more closely aligns with the desired outcome. It is a game we learn to play and play well, but it is subtlety destructive. Consider everyday politics. Politicians and parties are locked in a tug of war,…