More suspect is the notion, not necessarily implied by Scott's piece but but explicitly stated in the post he linked, that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their word.
This is not a defense of religion. Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not?
Also, because this notion of tribalism is trending, I fear it risks becoming the new psychoanalysis (i.e. "everything wrong with you can be explained by repressed childhood trauma!"). We don't behave philosophically as often as we like to pretend, but that doesn't mean we don't ever.
I think the realizations about tribalism are primarily useful insofar as we are introspecting to understand our own motivations behind our political/social behaviors, and hopefully allow us to overcome those aspects of our psychology in an attempt to reach that philosophical common ground with our enemy tribes.
The only other application will be those who employ such knowledge in a pursuit of power or money.
He's got a book coming out too, which hopefully will pay for some of the time he put into the project.
Just goes to show you that Seth Godin is on to something in Tribes (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591842336). Be passionate, be a leader, be successful.
Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.