Interesting but boring approach. I think he weighs the social positives to low and the consequences of disagreement to high.

Lets take politics at work.

If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people. Which is good and it can be fun to talk politics and see why people think the way they do.

If people disagree thats fine. If theyget mad thats on them. You can always retreat to only professional interaction and if they want to break that by being petty or mean then the manager can sort that out. If your views are so insane you are getting kicked out of groups then you should probably reconsider why you hold those views or why you work with these people.

As for looking professional, do you want to be a robot or a human? Of course your boss would rather you be a blank robot who just gets on with work but they are hiring a human and humans are allowed to express themselves.

> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.

You state that as it it's a a truism. There are many times when having a group not be homogeneous allows for a greater breadth of knowledge and consideration to be brought to bear on a topic.

The point of being professional is that it's a way to allow people that may be very different to coexist and function together, sometimes to great effect.

> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.

Except you don't know this. People depend on their jobs. If they're the only one who holds an alternate view, they may not figure it worth it. Why risk alienating yourself and potentially be seen as less likeable, which might put your means of income at risk?