Makes complete sense, and as you said, the invention of the internet has absolutely exposed this part of human nature, perhaps more than ever before.

You got it! New album next year. Super psyched!

Absolutely, we are hard wired to create in groups and out groups. It’s just herd mentality as part of being a mammal, so it’s a very old (on the evolutionary timeline) and deeply rooted part of being human. The sense of fulfillment really comes from feeling a part of a group that is better than another group in some way. Makes sense evolutionarily but it’s difficult to bypass in modern times when it’s no longer necessary to survive.

>Humans definitely have the "my team vs your team" mentality. Studies show that having a rival or hatred towards another group (political party, sports team, etc) it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain one would have when they achieve something purposeful in their lives.

urgh i have noticed this.

try pointing out that on economic issues both parties in most western nations are near-identical (pro-corporate neo-liberals) and you see it immediately.

Our brains are designed to work effectively for 20,000 years ago. It has been unable to keep up with what we've created.

A fundamental idea in Democracy is that in any decision process, opposing viewpoints should be argued and the decision makers (voters) ultimately make their decisions based on the relative merits of the arguments as well as their personal interests and values. This isn't (necessarily) the same thing as tribalism. In tribalism, the decision process is short circuited so that arguments, value systems, and even one's own self-interest aren't taken into consideration. After a decision-maker has aligned themselves with a particular tribe, the arguments and relative merits of policies may no longer be looked at because they just care that whatever positions "their" tribe has made "win". In fact, they may not have any notion of how their tribe even came to their decision in the first place or any idea how that decision will ultimately effect them.

Having differing political views does not mean that tribalism has a place in the government. Though I absolutely agree with the necessity of a plethora of viewpoints & societal practices to have a healthy democracy, that should not infer sociopathic partisanship has a role in those discussions. In the States, one particular sect (mostly, Republicans) believes denigrating your opposition while making wild and atrocious unsubstantiated claims is now normal behavior.

The fact this picture & this illustration exist while actively reflecting a significant portion of the electorate’s perspective of those they label “liberals” (US Democrats are not politically liberal with respect to European politics). When you consider a foreign government as corrupt & bereft of integrity as Putin’s Russian Federation to be better company than your own countrymen, you have passed the threshold of tolerance and factionalism.

>he whole point of democracy is that we can't have a sole political stance that everyone agrees on, it's inevitable that different groups will form each with it's own opinion on which is the optimal path forward for society.

tell that to people who support one of the majors.

from what ive seen Democracy seems to devolve into 2 barely different parties who do everything they can to prevent other parties from ever gaining power and their supporters are rabid and believe anyone who opposes their party is the enemy.

its why ive never had a 'side' none of them represent me or even close to it (i have no interest in social issues, want poverty eradicated by redistributing wealth via a return to keynesianism and the eventual replacement of the current capitalist model with something new not something as old as electricty. too bad none of those are a priority for anyone)