Regarding tribes, one idea that changed my life was that many successful people are smarter than they seem and don't merely go with the tribe because of herd behavior - they are quite fully aware of the specific madness of their specific crowd.
Rather, leaders perform a delicate balancing act where they act the way in-group expects them to, least they will lose any power and importance. Because your peer group, nation, firm, profession etc. is not just a passive influence on the way you think and behave, it's also the fundamental tool you have to change the world. Outside philosophy or chess nobody can succeed alone, and even there people need opportunities and support.
You can see this balancing act most clearly with politicians, who must change their apparent convictions from one day to the next as circumstance unfold (for example, see Obama's flip on gay marriage once his wider voting public flipped). But it's true in almost any setting you can imagine, all success involves a political power game. Troublemakers, those who are too easily willing to go against the status quo, are culled early, even if they are technically right and even if most people know they are right.
That is a great point. It’s also worth remembering that most stated beliefs have negligible impact on actions (e.g. my personal opinions about foreign policy). So it’s pretty rational for most people to just take the easy way out of echoing their tribe, and reserve their “weirdness points“[1] for a small percentage of situations that actually matter.
I don't disagree with you at all, but there is a risk to that balancing act: some of those attempting the balancing act nevertheless end up getting punished by the tribe in very real ways. I think this is a significant pattern undermining some inferences prone to survivorship bias. Even when you're trying to balance these considerations, a certain amount of outcome from that is unpredictable.
Rather, leaders perform a delicate balancing act where they act the way in-group expects them to, least they will lose any power and importance. Because your peer group, nation, firm, profession etc. is not just a passive influence on the way you think and behave, it's also the fundamental tool you have to change the world. Outside philosophy or chess nobody can succeed alone, and even there people need opportunities and support.
You can see this balancing act most clearly with politicians, who must change their apparent convictions from one day to the next as circumstance unfold (for example, see Obama's flip on gay marriage once his wider voting public flipped). But it's true in almost any setting you can imagine, all success involves a political power game. Troublemakers, those who are too easily willing to go against the status quo, are culled early, even if they are technically right and even if most people know they are right.