The fundamental split in humanity does not concern what we think about matters, but rather how we perceive kinds of humans, that is, races or ethnicities, which we today call groups. The split is that 1/3 of humanity think that kinds are real, 1/3 think they are a human invention and 1/3 can’t decide what they think.
The problem with this split is that it leads into two orthogonal entrances to logical reasoning, whereof one is ultimately contradictory and the other is consistent (but ultimately ambiguous) – perceiving (actually assuming) that kinds are real is ultimately contradictory, whereas perceiving (actually assuming or understanding) that kinds is a human invention is consistent (but ultimately ambiguous). It means that both sides can rightly claim to be logical, because the split does not reside in logic, but in how we perceive kinds (of humans especially).
The winner in this split is thus those that perceive kinds (of humans especially) as a human invention (eg, traditional empirical scientists), because they are at least not contradictory (like for example cladists and particle phycisists), although they end up in ambiguity. This does not, however, mean that they are the winner in politics, not even in democratic politics, because there is no guarantee that a majority of the people understand the nature of this split. Instead, democracy may well adopt the perception of the loser of this split, sorry to say. Democracy does not guarantee sense, unfortunately.