Ok, let's break this down a bit.
You essentially asserted that some people live under common assumptions, and then asked why they get mad when you challenge them.
"Because beliefs are tied to identity," we said. We gave examples.
You then asked “but why?” You followed up with an assertion that OTHER people yoked themselves to ideas, but YOU were a snowflake.
We pointed to evolutionary psychology and/or biology as a possibility, and referenced the Illuminatus! concept of “neophile”.
You again asked, “why?” Which at this point doesn’t make sense, because you don’t seem to be asking about evolutionary psychology, you just seem to be reiterating the previous question. Which means that you really didn’t understand the answer we gave.
It’s at that point where the conversation broke down, and we started poking you with sticks. If you had wanted to “keep the conversation going,” you should have responded to the answer given, rather than ignoring it and circling back to your previous question.
So, you want to know why most people act under blanket assumptions? Because for the most part, it works, and they’ve got more important things to do. They’re simply trying to get through their day, and they really don’t have time to get into extensive ontological analysis of belief systems and their real-world repercussions. Their belief systems work well enough to get by, and they’ll only really be faced with the issue of changing them when it directly and severely impacts their lives, if then even.
Then there is a minority of people who act under blanket assumptions, and they do that because they see some kind of personal benefit in it, be it financial, “spiritual”, or power-based. They use the assumption as an angle to manipulate others.