> I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers.

Might be a framing device, yes.

> I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills.

I think that's reaching again. That might just be a personal preference, "I enjoy reading more than socializing." Is this not a valid opinion to have? One can also occasionally do both (not at the same time) but still prefer one over the other if given the choice.

> A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger.

The author's problem wasn't that he couldn't engage in conversations about "complex" or interesting topics, it was particularly about the topics that were of interest to him. No matter your communication skills, you won't be able to strike up a meaningful conversation with just anyone on HAIFA constructions and their properties.

> Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that uninteresting topics at parties equal uninteresting characters, either way, I think this is way outside the scope of the discussion. Neither OP nor the person you're replying to (me) has even hinted at this.

> Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character.

I'm not so sure about that. GP practically called lack of social skills a deficiency and he wrote about hardly anything but character.

> That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.

Again, outside the scope of the discussion, at least as a response to my comments and the author's article.

But, I will respond all the same, because it irks me. First, it's a truism. Second, it feels like your premise is that one should be good at it? Should everyone strive to be better at socializing?

I think no. Those who enjoy socializing should keep their skills sharp and probably work to improve them; because to them, the act of socializing is a rewarding one.

If you do not innately enjoy it, it's highly unlikely you ever will, and why should you even strive to want this? For what purpose? No, if you do not enjoy socializing, spend as little time on it as possible. Spend time on what's rewarding to you.

If staying at home reading books is it, then that's absolutely fine.

Unfortunately, there is this inane pressure in society to be sociable, appealing, and likable. To be such a person, to be liked in the office at that level, or at parties, or worse, in social media, is even equated with success.

None of my "heroes" are or were likable. They were difficult people who obsessed about their work, it took nearly all their time, in some cases the sacrifices were huge, family time, the family itself, and even procreation was sometimes sacrificed, but damn, these people laid the foundation for modern civilization and technology.

This is what all of humanity should strive for. Valuable contributions. Do you know how all those people made those contributions?

By spending inordinate amounts of time by themselves. Absorbed.