I take psych research with a grain of salt after witness people such as Dan Ariely. It's very easy to be like "oh this is 'soft' research" and create a bit of a study that is 90% interesting hypothesis and 10% evidence. They're all "Twilight Zone" style hypothesii where there's an ironic twist at the end. Such as drug dealers are the same as sumo wrestlers or presidents operate like toddlers, or whatever interesting irony or generalization strikes the public fancy for novelty. In this context, the term "nasty neighbors" feels like a marketing-hype type term.
Are the psych studies really any different from all the "cleverly contrary to mainstream belief" software stories that land here? I assumed they were all HN-flavored clickbait.
Within a country people still compete against each other which is an in group. It’s very arbitrary how we define in group and out group. We create one when we see fit, even brothers can compete with each other
"even brothers can compete with each other"
Sibling rivalry (for parental attention usually) seems like it should've have been the baseline here, not neighbors...
