> This is a skill you can learn. This assumes it is a skill one has to learn. This assumes there is value in learning this for everybody as well as an overarch

> This is a skill you can learn. This assumes it is a skill one has to learn. This assumes there is value in learning this for everybody as well as an overarching value that makes this skill universally worthwhile learning. > It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. I agree wholeheartedly. Like every skill one needs to practice, make mistakes, learn and become better over time. If one decides that learning this has value in/adds value to one's life. > if you care Again assuming that one needs to care. This is quite condescending. This sounds like coming from an enlightened position with the need to show the truth of your ways to the lowlies. > It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things QED Nice as hominem here. You are not arguing, you are attacking. There is no additional signal towards a shared understanding. You are fighting from an entrenched position you are trying to proof to be the truth for everybody. > you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes. If one doesn't find value in parties, socializing and the likes, why do others feel the need to argue that they are wrong? Why do you feel the need to attack and state universally that parties are good and OP is wrong? I think there are people who gain value from different forms of socializing. And that is good for them. And there are people who don't. And don't need to, to be of value to themselves and society. Why can't we not accommodate them and understand that they don't gain value from that? Why should we argue for these people to learn that skill. Can't one respect that and interact with these people on their turf? In their chosen way?