This is a sharp observation, and it points to something real about the current information environment, even if it is framed in a somewhat abstract philosophical way.
What social media has done is compress too many domains of life into a single constant feedback space. In earlier information systems, people switched contexts: you had political discussion in one place, personal life in another, professional identity somewhere else. Now all of it flows through the same channels, with the same speed, visibility, and reward structure. That creates pressure not just to have opinions, but to perform immediacy of opinion across topics that used to require distance, expertise, or even silence.
The “wartime cognition” idea is useful as a metaphor, because it describes how platforms tend to reward vigilance, moral positioning, and binary framing. But the deeper issue is incentive design rather than collective psychology alone. Algorithms amplify content that signals certainty and emotional clarity, not reflection or ambiguity. Over time, that trains users to treat every topic as if it requires an immediate stance, even when the healthiest response would be to stay uncertain or disengaged.
The important nuance is that this does not automatically make society less wise, but it does shift what kinds of thinking are socially rewarded. Slow thinking, contextual understanding, and domain boundaries are not gone, but they are structurally disadvantaged in fast public feeds.
In practical terms, the pressure you are describing is also why many people are now deliberately narrowing their information diet or separating “thinking spaces” from “broadcast spaces.” Not everything needs a public position, and not every issue is meant to be processed at social media speed.