I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers.
I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. So does "parties are only small talk". A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger.
Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading.
Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.
> That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.
The underlying assumption, if used as an argument, instead of a filler phrase, is, that there is value in sozializing for everybody. But is this so?
I would challenge the underlying assumption and state (without proof, but who needs proof in a philosophical debate) that the world was made better by a lot of people and progress was created by a lot of people who were not good at socializing.
Take people like Marie Curie who actively went against the social norms when collecting her second Nobel Price in person. At this time media had made her something of a persona non grata and the Nobel Committee explicitly asked her not to come in person as to not taint the reputation of the Price with her being there.
Or take Prof. Donald E. Knuth's take on email [1]. He doesn't want to be social. He needs to be anti-social for him to do his work.
or take Luhmann who wasn't known to be very socially likeble and who stated that words like 'truth' needed to be redefined (scientifically) and was hard to follow in discussions because one needed to know how he had redifend terms one was used to.
But these redefinitions actually provided clarity and precision once understood. They were just not socially usable.
> Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.
In my early 20s I forced myself to hit up clubs, raves, house parties etc and I never lost the feeling of being on edge, not knowing what to say and so on. Now since the beginning of COVID I have regressed to what I was like in my teens (socially) so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature.
I suspect many people out there are like me, and socializing is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole for them: an unpleasant and ultimately futile experience.
I might suggest that there are multiple kinds of parties. Clubs, raves, and house parties are vastly different from a whiskey tasting party, and are vastly different from a book club or a craft club, which are also different from groups to go hiking/biking or sports playing.
>so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature
I've been through what I think is a similar cycle before and feel I can relate a little to this feeling ; I've tried to look at it as more of an unseen muscle group.
Although we can look at ourselves and say we've definitely lost 'socialising muscle mass' for a lack of a better word, I think the ease in which we can regain our muscle mass gets easier with each cycle.
I also like to think of it, like a balloon that represents our boundaries as a person and although our territorial boundary might shrink when we're isolated (deflate) with each stretching of our boundary it becomes easier to fill again?
When you put it like that, it does seem a little silly..
I think really it's less about "preferring a book to a party" and more about the OP's claims that socializing == "Mindless conversations about the news that regurgitate the same tired storylines."
If the reason you prefer a book to a party is that you are ultra intelligent and other people are mindless, then maybe it's poor social skills. If your reason for preferring a book is that you have a fulfilling social life already and just want to enjoy the book, then have at it.
> I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers.
Might be a framing device, yes.
> I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills.
I think that's reaching again. That might just be a personal preference, "I enjoy reading more than socializing." Is this not a valid opinion to have? One can also occasionally do both (not at the same time) but still prefer one over the other if given the choice.
> A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger.
The author's problem wasn't that he couldn't engage in conversations about "complex" or interesting topics, it was particularly about the topics that were of interest to him. No matter your communication skills, you won't be able to strike up a meaningful conversation with just anyone on HAIFA constructions and their properties.
> Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that uninteresting topics at parties equal uninteresting characters, either way, I think this is way outside the scope of the discussion. Neither OP nor the person you're replying to (me) has even hinted at this.
> Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character.
I'm not so sure about that. GP practically called lack of social skills a deficiency and he wrote about hardly anything but character.
> That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.
Again, outside the scope of the discussion, at least as a response to my comments and the author's article.
But, I will respond all the same, because it irks me. First, it's a truism. Second, it feels like your premise is that one should be good at it? Should everyone strive to be better at socializing?
I think no. Those who enjoy socializing should keep their skills sharp and probably work to improve them; because to them, the act of socializing is a rewarding one.
If you do not innately enjoy it, it's highly unlikely you ever will, and why should you even strive to want this? For what purpose? No, if you do not enjoy socializing, spend as little time on it as possible. Spend time on what's rewarding to you.
If staying at home reading books is it, then that's absolutely fine.
Unfortunately, there is this inane pressure in society to be sociable, appealing, and likable. To be such a person, to be liked in the office at that level, or at parties, or worse, in social media, is even equated with success.
None of my "heroes" are or were likable. They were difficult people who obsessed about their work, it took nearly all their time, in some cases the sacrifices were huge, family time, the family itself, and even procreation was sometimes sacrificed, but damn, these people laid the foundation for modern civilization and technology.
This is what all of humanity should strive for. Valuable contributions. Do you know how all those people made those contributions?
By spending inordinate amounts of time by themselves. Absorbed.
I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. So does "parties are only small talk". A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger.
Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading.
Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.