I'm afraid your example is not at all hyperbolic -- instead, such places and worse, are and have been common throughout the ages ...

(Agreeing with you btw)

I have no reason to think people in North Korea aren't just as nice and just as terrible as people in Seattle or anywhere else, really. The political system in North Korea is atrocious, but the point was that people are people.

My counterpoint is that while "people are people", they are impacted and influenced by their material, cultural, and political circumstances.

People can become hardened, callous, mean, and damaged to a greater or lesser degree in durable ways that outlast political circumstance.

If you beat and abuse a child, and that child will be more likely to beat and abuse others. This is called the cycle of violence. You can absolutely have times and places where this is more or less prevalent.

"people are people" on a slave plantation as well, but their behavior is not the same as those living in Seattle. If you flipped a switch on the political system overnight, the people would not flip with it. You might expect to see trauma and damage to impact behavior for generations to come, even if you magically teleported them to Seattle.

I know families that fled the cultural revolution in China, and it still has behavioral impacts on people 60 years later, including children who have never even been to China. Many viewed their neighbors as threats, thieves, and informants and are less "nice" to strangers as a result. It changed who they are as people in durable ways that outlasted the causal circumstance, and informed how they teach their children to treat strangers living in Seattle 60 years later.

Surely you can imagine a place where conditions are not conducive to "being nice" and as a result, people are less nice overall. You might see the same absolute range, with examples of extreme kindness or terrible behavior, but the mean and typical behavior can be shifted.

I understand and agree with what you said. But I'd say what you're describing is how people are affected in a superficial level. In the façade they present to strangers. However, I interpreted the original post to mean that, in an intimate level (within a group of friends who trust each other), it won't be that different. But yes, it may be that you are in a place where for whatever reason you can't form meaningful relationships with others. Usually that happens to people who leave their countries, rather than the ones who stay. But sometimes, it can be the other way around.

Anyway, I think the original point is that you really live in the small group of friends and your interactions with strangers, while also part of life, it's less meaningful. So, you can find a culture that matches you more closely, but unless the culture you are in is completely disgusting to you, you're probably optimising the wrong thing.

Yeah I think you get my point. I was mostly objecting to the strict equivalence they were claiming. Across cultures you will find some relative constants in human behavior. For example, Most people love their children no matter where you go, but even that can mean different things depending on the norms and that culture.

I would push back a little bit on the idea that these differences are purely superficial. Humans can have real cultural differences regarding where they find meaning in life, how they relate to others in society, and if they ever find satisfaction, happiness, and fulfillment in their own lives.

Just because such differences can not be summed and weighed against each other to determine which culture is "better", does not mean they are the same.

This is the post-modern sentiment that I reject. E.G the differences can not be compared so therefore they are the same.