Increasing cretinization

Terms like “US politics are more polarized” and “American society is more fragmented” beg the question of just what do these and like statements denote within the context of cretinization.

It was once common to understand polarization and fragmentation in both negative and positive senses. Yes, fragmentation can represent negative segmentation of authority, but it can also reflect positive functional specialization. Yes, polarization can represent the inability to speak with one voice, but it can also reflect transparency of issues and keeping tradeoffs public. Yes, conflict can be bad, but conflict can be good. . .and so on down the list of negatives in American society that, however, under different circumstances and contexts can be net-positive.

Now, “on net” no longer makes sense in static terms of pros versus cons of fragmentation, polarization and the like. “On net” has become fuzzier because we can no longer comprehend complexity as we did. That is to say, we’re dumber until we recognize it’s “more-complex-than-polarized-and-fragmented” today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s