>>372358341
I think you are vastly overplaying in-group-out-group-dynamics while missing far more crucial aspects of this photo, especially if haven't been there and missed what was said right before, which shuffled it up.
It sounds very reductionist while in my opinion if you need to reduce such a phenomenon to a single mechanic, then it should be occlusion - i.e. whether I'm visible and covering other people or not.

I will grant you that at least you mentioned several mechanisms here >>372357906, which also apply, when you didn't here >>372358341, and that my "just" makes it sound like I am trying to be just as reductionist, which was not my intent. I just wanted to highlight that I find this mechanism to be more influential.

I don't like that you are claiming that I am scared and don't understand basic psychology, that's very rude - though admittedly I called you a turboautist which is also rude, but in my opinion more playful, considering how often we throw the term "autist" around. If you took offense to that, then I am sorry for using a term that implies that you lack the capacity to understand human emotion.

Why did you even bring this up, though? How is anything in your analysis remarkable enough to be worth mentioning?