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.
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.
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]
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.