The examples that come to mind when I try to think about this concretely are political/moral disputes like abortion, torture, or redistribution of wealth. One side thinks (for example) that an abortion is a terrible thing to do to an unborn child and that prohibiting abortions does not pose much of a hardship to women, while another group thinks that aborting a fetus is not that big a deal and that prohibiting abortions would be a large hardship to women. Averaging together turns this dispute between two separate coherent groups into an internal conflict: abortion is a bad thing to do to the baby/fetus but prohibiting abortions would pose a fairly sizable hardship to women.

So averaging increases internal conflict, but some internal conflict might not be so bad, since a lot of the processes that reduce internal conflict and separate people into coherent groups are biases: the affect heuristic, the halo effect, cognitive dissonance, group polarization, affective death spirals, etc.