The Folly of Absolutes

Humanity’s unique strength lies in our ability to pass knowledge across generations, a feat made possible through the power of language. Unlike other animals, we record our discoveries, allowing future generations to build upon them without starting from scratch. The invention of the wheel, for instance, didn’t need to be rediscovered by every new human—through oral and written traditions, we’ve created a system of collective learning. This process enables each person to inherit a wealth of knowledge, refined and expanded by those who came before.

Learning, at its core, is about absorbing new information and adapting—whether by shifting behavior, refining mental models, or reshaping worldviews. Intelligence, in this context, can be seen as the speed and efficiency with which someone learns. A person who can process new data, recognize patterns, and adjust their perspective through fewer iterations might be considered “smarter” than someone who takes longer to do so.

Yet, in today’s media landscape, genuine learning seems scarce. Our socioeconomic discussions are increasingly framed in absolutes, where nuance is sacrificed for simplicity. Arguments are presented as black-and-white, with little room for compromise or complexity. This polarization stems partly from a cultural shift where attacking the “out-group” (those who differ from us) takes precedence over supporting the values of the “in-group” (those we align with). As a result, ideologies often devolve into extreme, zero-sum positions, designed to categorize people as either allies or enemies.

This absolutist mindset is convenient for those seeking to eliminate opposition and surround themselves with like-minded individuals. But it leaves the majority—those in the middle—unrepresented. Consider the concept of “wokeism.” Its very name implies a binary: you’re either “awake” or “asleep,” with no meaningful in-between. This framing allows those wielding the term to gatekeep morality, branding anyone insufficiently “woke” as a racist, misogynist, or worse. Such absolutes dismiss the possibility of partial agreement or good-faith disagreement, reducing complex issues to simplistic litmus tests.

This oversimplification is antithetical to critical thinking. Many of today’s socioeconomic ideologies gain traction because they’re emotionally charged and easy to digest. They’ve been diluted to the point of intellectual laziness. If someone isn’t “left enough,” they’re labeled a fascist. If they’re not “right enough,” they’re dismissed as a snowflake. By framing issues in such stark terms, we’ve eradicated the middle ground—where real progress and understanding often reside. This approach stifles critical thought, as it prioritizes judgment over dialogue.

The tragedy is that language, humanity’s greatest tool for collective learning, is being weaponized to draw battle lines rather than foster understanding. If we could pause long enough to consider that our worldviews might not be 100% correct—that they could benefit from refinement—we might begin to escape this mess. Absolutism is an intellectual dead-end, a betrayal of the very faculties that make us human. I don’t have a perfect solution for dismantling this mindset, but I’m convinced it’s a fight worth having. Let’s move away from the divisive, absolutist rhetoric and return to a more balanced discourse—one that embraces the messy, nuanced reality of human thought. Only then can we hope to restore the steady, thoughtful rhythm of progress, like the ticking of an old grandfather clock keeping time.