"I believe that if a tribe delegates, for whatever reason, their ethical decision making to a group with that sort personality bias then the morality that results in is perfectly valid." By what standard? Morally conservative people who make such a delegation without understanding the bias and its effects may be making a serious mistake with respect to their own values.

I agree that the broad liberal-intellectual moral personality that permeates academia, media, and Less Wrong is better by my (liberal-intellectual) standard and yours, but if we don't understand this process it will be difficult to avoid similar mistakes on our part. I wouldn't worry too much about letting slip the well-published 'secret' that most journalists, scientists, and other academics are politically liberal. The only special danger here is letting slip that a portion of these groups' support is due to personality differences rather than knowledge.

suggest that having decisions made by a group that tends not to care about conservative values like respect for authority, group loyalty, and various taboos is far better than those usually made. This is partly because it would better suit my own preferences but also because each of those differences from the norm tends towards deciding what is best for the group rather than best for the leader or best for signalling allegiance to the leader.

Given that you are explicitly disregarding the group's ethical standards, how are you defining "best for the group"?