Are humans ideologically assimilating, individuating, or neither?

I find myself going back and forth between the view that humans have, and will, across time assimilate(d), and the opposite; that we have, and will, individuate(d). Most of the media I've consumed seems to support the latter. There's talk about the hyper-individuality of the modern Westerner, caused by the internet providing swathes of diverse viewpoints and tons of content of which can shape a person in every which way. Furthermore, mainstream media make it seem like people are more politically polarized now than ever before.

However, the modern age, partly due to the internet, has also provided us with a ton of education. The majority of people in the West seem to have been gathered under science and mathematics as their new religion (even if they barely understand it); contrast that to the past, when we were divided by a myriad of religions and denominations therein.

And that political polarization? Is it a sign of more ideological diversity, or less? If everyone disagrees with each other, the weight of disagreement is lessened. If however, you have only a few groups of people who are in disagreement with each other, but in agreement internally, then disagreement is not only more rare (which makes people more sensitive to it), but also amplified by echo chambering and an us-versus-them mentality.

Here is perhaps the scheme through which assimilation may occur:

From ideological diversity comes both the need and means for answers. All that diversity gives rise to incredible synergies of thought that uncover things exceedingly more certain and uncontroversial. This process whittles down, at perhaps a decaying speed, the number of disagreements. Eventually, we are left with absolute truth of which we are assimilated under.

Here is perhaps the scheme through which individuation may occur:

Like a microcosm of the larger universe, the ideology of our species is entropized as more and more views, problems, events and people come into existence and are recorded, interpreted, reinterpreted, re-reinterpreted, etc. At every turn, people gain yet another reason to disagree.

Here is perhaps the scheme through which we ultimately do not trend in either direction:

See the scheme through which assimilation may occur. Once the number of disagreements are lessened, the divides between them are strengthened. The heightened potency of the disagreement eventually reaches the point of mutual destruction. In the vacuum of authority, diversity arises once again.

What do you guys think? I am torn and find it a fascinating topic.

EDIT at 21:05, UTC +0:

I want to be more precise in formulating what I mean by a society individuating or assimilating.

So, I introduce the quantity of general agreement, denoted [math] G [/math].

• Ask [math] P_1 [/math] question 1. They can choose to not answer in case they do not possess an opinion.
• Repeat process for [math] P_2 [/math].
• Ask [math] P_1 [/math] to scale how much they agree with the answer of [math] P_2 [/math] to question 1. The strength of this agreement is denoted and valued as [math] S_{1,2,1 } \in [-1,1] [/math]; the first, second and third variable denoting the subject of agreement, the answerer and the enumeration of the question answered, respectively. If [math] P_2 [/math] did not give an answer, then [math] S_{1,2,1} =0 [/math] by definition.
• Repeat process for [math] P_2 [/math].

To get the general agreement of an entire society, first decide upon some large set of questions, spanning all kinds of topics and details therein, that are relevant to the society at that time. Then, enumerate each question, from 1 to q. Then, select a representative sample (size = s) of the society.

Then, apply the above process to every pair of people in this sample. Record all the strengths of agreements. The general agreement of the society is then measured to be the following:

[math] \displaystyle G = \frac 1{s(s-1)q}\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j=1 \\ j \ne i}^s \sum_{k=1}^q S_{i,j,k} = \text{AVG}(S_{i,j,k}) [/math].

Now, let's denote the function from time step to general agreement as [math] f_G(t) [/math]. How do you think the graph of [math]f_G [/math] would look for all of humanity across all time, had this kind of experiment been frequently carried out throughout history? What would be the shape? Would it be non-monotonic? Would it display abrupt changes corresponding to different events/changes in history? Would it have been, in total, increasing (assimilation), decreasing (individuation), or neither? If neither, would there perhaps be a cyclicality?

___

As an aside, I realize that performing the experiment would affect the opinions of the subjects. That is, there is some uncertainty here due to the measurement affecting the quantity. Furthermore, there would be inaccuracies introduced due to semantic misunderstandings as well.