Then you're probably following a losing strategy. "Team" doesn't have to mean "generic normie political party"; there are other team dynamics at play. In any case, if you haven't partitioned the political space into allies and enemies along at least a few planes, you're probably going to get taken advantage of (at the very least).
If you're not attuned enough to figure out why political alliances are worthwhile, your opinions probably aren't that original.
It's not a matter of "reassurance" - it's about economies of scale. If the best explanation you can come up with for why a bunch of people exhibit a behavior you don't is "they have a personality flaw", this is very strong evidence that you don't actually have a good grasp of people's motivations.
> Strength in numbers is a compensation for insecurity.
"strength in numbers". ≠ "economies of scale"
The former is about relative group size, mutual defense within the group, and reducing the risks of aggression against outgroups.
The latter is about increasing the effectiveness of coordinated activity more generally (which, yes, can include defense and aggression), especially those activities that persuade people. Winning hearts and changing minds about issues, especially across faction/party lines.
Making common cause with others who mostly share your views, even if the issues you most care about aren't the same ones, is just good tactics. Making common cause with those you mostly DISAGREE with on the issues that you DO agree on is good STRATEGY.
Originality imposes no attempt at either agreement or disagreement. Suggesting that a person must either agree or disagree (forced dichotomy fallacy) to achieve any desirable outcome misses the point. It is a solution not wanted.
Why do you think people who are undoubtedly smarter and more original than you are also buy into political "teams"? If "conformity" is your best answer, then once again, this demonstrates you don't really grasp what's going on.
This is not meant as an insult to you, but just as a warning that you should keep this in mind when you’re analyzing your own decision making; you are pretty clearly neither smart nor original. It’s very unlikely you are actually ever going to have any valuable original thoughts, at least in the way you seem to think you do.
I’m sure you’ll appreciate this since your profile is all about “radical honestly”. Taking Dalio seriously is another sign of a hopeless midwit with an inflated sense of intelligence.
It is one thing to build political alliances for practical reasons (a necessity if you want to achieve anything), it is entirely another thing to take on every and all opinions of your alliance regardless of their merit. That's a personality flaw that everybody has to one degree or another.
