The weakness of ‘balance’: it’s always a superficial analysis.* It reliably gets us nowhere, and it assumes too much.
They offered scant evidence of forethought when they taught the children to ‘strike a balance’ without a way to tell what exactly to balance in the first place. Then, thinking turned into sludge. If you must teach nuance and subtlety and precision, teach that. Just don’t tell people there are no rules, or the balancing acts they attempt will be without rule, without measure, without canon, without any hope of success by any more than mere chance (though ‘chance’, too, is a simplifying abstraction).
‘Balance’ is for the non-thinkers to persist their lazy ignorance and subject all things to their worst judgement under that rubric.
* Except in such cases as Newton’s Third Law of Motion and other things that make reference to literal, physical balance.