> 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.
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.
[1] https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html