I disagree that consuming media and participating online is not "interacting with the world". I spend a lot of my free time reading Wikipedia, watching YouTube, and playing games. This content comes from "the world". At my job I sit in front of a computer and interact with people via text and voice call. This is interacting with "the world".

I don't understand why we fetishize in-person interaction as being "the world" and virtual interaction as "not the world".

What about reading books? Would you criticize someone for reading too many books? Does that person not have a "point in living" in your opinion?

In my opinion, this is a true Scotsman fallacy. And the bias is due to nostalgia.

That being said, I think there is a general bias in American culture towards "making something of yourself", which results in the act of participating in non-productive activities (ex: "mindless tv" such as gameshows, infomercials) as something which you need an excuse to do. For example: "I need to de-stress so I can be productive tomorrow". When you get old, this excuse is no longer possible. Which is why folks refer to vegetating like this as "sad".

A hedonistic/utilitarian framework is a better model to look at these situations. Is that elderly individual enjoying themselves? Yes. Will their inaction today result in negative consequences (financial, health, etc.) later in life? No. In this framework, it's a perfectly good use of their time then.

As a redneck, I love America. But I think this question posed by the OP is interesting because it shows the tradeoff everyone must make in American culture between exercising individual freedoms and increasing social credit/value/standing.

> Is that elderly individual enjoying themselves? Yes.

Are they? I dont think its as obvious as you think it is.

People often trade long term joy for short term joy. If they didn't, drug dealers, casinos, facebook etc would be out of business.

I consider engaging with media to be interacting with the world.

Passively Watching TV all day = no interaction

Writing an essay about the tv you watch = interacting. Or even just talking about it with someone.

I think what im trying to criticize is passive consumption. If you exert agency or creativity in what you do, than it isn't passive anymore.

Thinking about the TV you watch but not writing an essay about it = interaction or no interaction?

Where is the boundary; how can you define it?

Life isn't binary but full of shades of grey. There are no hard lines.

> This is interacting with "the world".

To each their own, but no, it's not the world. We're made for real, in person interaction. Huge chunks of our brains are made to discern subtle facial details or body movements.

I remember there are studies that socialization is good even for introverts. They think it isn't, but it is.

We're social creatures by design, it's built very deep into us. To try otherwise is foolish for 99.9999% of people. Of course, everyone thinks they're that 1 person in a million:-)

It may be beneficial from a medical perspective, but you're ignoring the obvious risks. For people with SAD, etc. there is the risk of severe stress. For all people, there is the risk of sexual assault. There is the risk of false or true accusations from students, friends, or partners, the risk of getting assaulted, physically confronted, or robbed, reputational damage, etc. The list goes on.

It's up to each individual to decide whether the rewards of in-person social interaction outweigh the risks. And it's not up to anyone but me to proscribe what my decision on this matter is.

> For people with SAD, etc. there is the risk of severe stress

I think you used the wrong acronym. I assume you are not talking about seasonal affective disorder.

More to the point, for most people in most places there exists social options where such risks are not significant relative to other risks.

Yes I agree with you that the risks are low.

But I disagree fervently and am offended with the parent comment. It doesn't make one foolish or prideful to take ownership over evaluating the cost/benefit. As an asocial person who prefers it online: parent commenter, kindly [edit: mind your own business]

Social anxiety disorder.

> And it's not up to anyone but me to proscribe what my decision on this matter is.

True, but then when stuff like cost of mental healthcare goes up, which it constantly is, who pays that bill? The correct answer is: everyone.

> I remember there are studies that socialization is good even for introverts. They think it isn't, but it is.

As a pet peeve. Being an introvert is not the same thing as having social anxiety or disliking socialization. Lots of introverts like socializing.

How about raising children with the stated goal of having them move out?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'm not suggesting you should do the same productive achievement all your life. Life changes and so should your goals as time moves on.

Also, why are you having children if your only goal is to get rid of them? Yes, part of having children is hoping and preparing for them to eventually be independent adults, but that's hardly the only thing raising children is about.