“Thinking outside the box” is a pattern because people often apply artificial limits to options when trying to solve a problem. It’s true that people make errors in both directions, but the former occurs more often.

Take the trolly problem for example. It depends on a fictitious universe where there’s only one choice. It’s dangerous because it trains us to make that choice rather than looking for alternatives. The real world is messy, complex, responds well to foresight and displays sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The lesson we can draw from that is perfect logic traps don’t occur in the real world and rather than steeling ourselves to make the hard choices we can often take steps to prevent the hard choice circumstances from occurring.

Another example is the choice in “Things to do in Denver when you’re dead” are there really only two options? Maybe you’re artificially constraining the problem-space? I’m not an expert strategist but I can think of two changes to base assumptions that would each open up new avenues for choices.