I like the collective intelligence framing because it highlights how optimization at the individual level can undermine outcomes at the group level. When every system becomes a ranking exercise, people start performing for metrics instead of contributing complementary strengths. It's interesting how "purity tests" emerge in different contexts as well, where narrow criteria define value. The healthiest systems tend to leave room for diverse forms of contribution.

Your distinction is important. Once disagreements evolve into purity tests, people stop evaluating ideas on their merits and start treating compromise as disloyalty. It's interesting how that mindset shows up far beyond policy debates too. The phrase itself has taken on a broader cultural meaning over time: https://ricepuritytesthq.com/. The challenge is preserving room for nuance before every disagreement becomes an identity marker.