> It is more about observing reality and patters.
I don't agree with this, since people who hold this belief generally ignore second order effects and are immune to hypocrisy/contradiction based arguments. Without respect of contradictions, there is no basis for truth only for feelings and actions, which I think I would call "genetic truth."
Clearly this group is evolutionary conserved, and there must be some truth to that ideology for that to be true.
The first group has to deal with the Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, which is the rigorous description of what you just said. It requires constant maintenance and adjustment against selfishness and decay, it requires enforcement of universalized principles (assimilation of specific ideas).
The second group must deal with having beliefs that directly contradict reality and freedom and reality asserting itself.
Both groups have different fundamental strategies for the prisoner's dilemma and different failure modes for their strategy.
The first group says there is one theoretically correct strategy, to always trust/cooperate because from a mathematical perspective, under conditions of abundance and an assumption of universality, that is provably the correct strategy.
The second says that if you can win by defecting, you should.
The first group fails when they fail to defect in response to people defecting against them. The paradox of intolerance can be restated in prisoner's dilemma terms: if you think cooperation is always right, then how do you justify defection?
The second group fails by failing to get out of zero sum thinking. They can never be greater than the sum of their parts, they also generally create a ruggedly darwinistic society you wouldn't want to be a part of.