Sure. But if it came down to lots of time alone or lots of time with forced contact, which would you pick? They both sound bad to me (what do you expect from being incarcerated?); the baked in assumption that what's bad for most humans is bad for all humans is what bothers me.
the baked in assumption that what's bad for most humans is bad for all humans is what bothers me.
The implication, or rather question here, is not about what one person likes vs. another person. We are all entitled to opinions, choices, etc., and we all have different ones.
The article is discussing whether a total absence of social interaction is bad for humans not because we just don't like it, but because it is necessary and requisite for your brain to function & survive, the same way a total absence of water is bad for us. Would it be so bothersome if I suggested since a severe (aka total) lack of water is bad for most humans, it's bad for all humans?
"But if it came down to lots of time alone or lots of time with forced contact, which would you pick?"
As terrible as prison is, almost no one actually prefers solitary confinement (introverts included). It's easy to say that you can handle solitary confinement until you end up spending practically 24 hours a day alone (23 of which are in one tiny room) for even a month or so.
Even this text based communication on HN is a form of human interaction. I'm not sure complete isolation is something anyone is genetically predisposed to prefer.
Not really relevant to your point, but introversion vs extraversion most likely isn't determined by genetic factors. It's essentially a choice (albeit one that was made at such a young age that it's impossible to change).
