(This is off topic but) there's probably something fascinating to be studied about it. The assumption I've heard a number of people make is that their anti-socialness means that they read more, code more, and as such it's actually a positive quality that elevates them above others. Even as someone who can be antisocial themselves, I think it's a load of bunk, and it's sort of interesting to see human interaction being dismissed as frivolous.
To be fair he said "lack of desire for lots of social interaction" -- with emphasis on the word "lots" -- and not "lack of desire for social interaction".
cortesoft may very well be needing social interaction (inasmuch as Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fulfilled), just not lots.
Yep. Being at work all day gives me enough group social interaction. Then at home I just like to be alone with my wife. I am an introvert, so being out with people drains my energy. I like people, but only need it a bit.
I think the person you are replying to is agreeing that it is not frivolous, but is stating their amazement that so many people dismiss it as being such.
On the one hand, I can think fairly deeply. Yes, I do regard that as a positive quality. And yes, a lot of social interaction gets in the way of that. ("Interruptions shatter mental momentum" - I forget who said it, but when you're trying to think deeply, it's really true.)
On the other hand, I need human interaction - maybe not as much as most other people, definitely not all the time, but I need it. I need to be able to be a person, not just a thinking machine.
So maybe I'm "unsocial" without being "anti-social"...
