The subject is more far more complex than the black and white way some are addressing it. Almost all higher evolved species vary in myriad minor ways in order for survival of the fittest to be successful as environments change and vary, versus being identical, thus less adaptable.
So yes as an intelligent tool using species that evolved within cooperative small community groups in extremely complex Earth environments, humans needed to have similarities to work together. For some things like preferences of the way we language verbally communicate, we needed to be very similar because such was important for survival.
But in other ways, like what humans wore on their heads or feet even among same groups, not so because whether one human wore a hat with feathers or with some animal's tail flopping off the back, was of trivial concern. Thus a great range of different circumstances of importance for whether or not conformity had value.
What the OP really titled was a far narrower set of social facets than the general thread title terms he used. Some SF members that seem to want to be the ones creating threads, have a tendency to think of narrow circumstances for whatever but then pose such to the rest of us without considering how broadly beyond their own thoughts others might interpret language used. Like (ironically given this subject) we are supposed to think like them by some expected way and get what they really mean without extra explanation
As someone in my career sometimes wearing a hat writing documents, I noticed many otherwise highly intelligent people have trouble communicating with an understanding how others might interpret what they wrote in ways they didn't bother to consider.