What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies

Tim Urban's “What's Our Problem?” asks two very important questions: what is fundamentally broken with our society at present, and how can we fix it? As it turns out, Urban has a framework for looking at the world that, albeit devoid of any foundation, works to an extent. He suggests adding a vertical axis (up vs down) to the horizontal axis of politics (left vs right), where your place on the ladder denotes how rational or irrational you're acting. He argues that the world is slipping into low-rung thinking, where confirmation bias leads people to favour one ideology over another, or they become completely closed off to others' viewpoints, creating an echo chamber called a golem. This unchecked golem absorbs high-rung people who can't or won't speak up.
To be honest, that's where the book's good parts end. After some amazing, nuanced discussion, it becomes annoyingly USA-centered – astounding for a book that claims to know our problems, not just the USA's in particular. The next chapter is a short, emotionally-detached Wikipedia-style summary of how Republicans in the US are forming their own low-rung golem, with little to no detail as to the why.
The meat of the book, however, focuses on wokeism and social justice fundamentalism, which Urban sees as a huge problem disintegrating society. I've encountered this topic online numerous times (mostly discussed by right-wingers and “enlightened” centrists), and I have never found a convincing argument in support of it - and Urban fails to provide one. Believing that inequality is not only structural is one thing, but pretending that it is not structural at all is another. Maybe it's just me, but I think high-rung thinking should also involve not becoming excessively angry when confronted with topics one dislikes, a fact that Urban conveniently forgot.
After an excruciating discussion on how progressives are responsible for the US's downfall and how (renamed) social justice warriors are bad for everyone, and why even progressives who believe in social justice should stop doing so, the book concludes with a contemplative redemption. It suggests that people should strive to find common ground even when it doesn't exist, treat political opponents as humans, and remember that we're all in this together.
All idealistic and logical and sufficiently high-rung of you, Tim. Wish the rest of the book was like that, though.