I wasnt speaking in the case of that tribe specifically, and I would argue it continues only because they dont really have any solid contact with outsiders that test their way of life through direct means like you would have seen among tribes on continental masses (where constant fighting means only the strong survive).

I don't buy that either. The practice of burning widows in India was continued until the British put a stop to it, but the Indus Valley had a long running civilization with lots of contact. They Maya ate their disobedient vassals. The Assyrians robbed everyone who had any contact with with them, every year, for 4000 years. Now their traditions solved problems as follows: the Indus valley avoided inheritance battles, the Mayans ensured loyalty through terror, and the Assyrians were the only full-scale civilization that existed at the time.

You have to realize that Traditionalism isn't a moral mechanism. Sometimes the problem being solved by tradition is: "How do we support our pedophile leadership?" or "How do we terrorize our vassals into obedience to avoid rebellion?" Traditionalism has no reason to produce a moral answer, just an old one. The question may not even be formed to the benefit of the society, but it's elite. The value of questioning and challenging tradition is to spot those flaws where a tradition is inapplicable, useless, antiquated, or counter-productive. Traditionalism actually has no way of pruning itself of bad ideas once they take root as a tradition, because abandoning the tradition (even if it was for a good reason) is rejected out of hand because it "solves a problem".