[nebulosa]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems that the author falls victim to the same fallacies he mentioned in his post. By assuming that all discussion of politics inherently devolves into tribalism, he invokes the all-or-nothing attitude which, as he mentioned, is often present among politically "engaged" people with minimal experience with views outside their sphere of opinions.

It's also worth noting that I notice some people will often conflate, usually accidentally, holding strong opinions (politically or otherwise) with not being exposed to a wide enough range of opinions/not being educated enough.

In addition to this, people will often hold a series of political views out of ideological consistency, rather than tribalism, a factor which strangely is minimised in the discourse surrounding it.

I find that, as long as you're with reasonably politically aware adults, you can have positive conversations as long as you are both aware of your moral bases and discuss in good faith.

[mikelyons]

The tendency toward ideological consistency seems itself driven by the tribalism tendencies of the ego-survival mechanism that assesses a self's fitness to be protected by the in-group they're expressing allegiance to / holding an identity/belief system of.

I think it doesn't take a realistic view of humans or the mind to try to draw a clean distinction between these two as if they are separate behaviors in a human ego.

[nebulosa]

I'd argue that the trend can come from two places, the less rational type you mentioned which appears to occur to enhance compatibility with an in-group, and the type which is based on having a set of base moral values which then affects our political beliefs. The latter of these can be seen as creating one layer of abstraction above the values, perhaps aiding in expressing those views, as well as enabling discussion with those who arrived on their views without consultation with their morals (due to copying others views, going with current trends in ideology, etc.).