You are forced to see the world through your own biases (including things like having two arms and seeing the visible light spectrum, not just who you vote for).

Many of these biases are common in humans, and humans can exchange ideas.

It can be enlightening to test your biases against real human being to see which ones are valid and which ones are things you've picked up along the way and might not be fruitful to you now.

Because you only see life through your own eyes, you definitionally can't examine yourself in isolation, and you can't know how you are affected by yourself.

I've found exchanging with others fruitful, even when I don't want to and find it repellant.

Have a good one

Asocial seems more accurate than antisocial.

Then why are you posting here? You must require some kind of social interaction. Is arguing with people on HN meeting your needs, or are the alternatives all too scary and alienating to consider?

In general, I am skeptical when anybody says, "I am a ______." We vastly overstate what aspects of our condition are innate and which are merely habitual. I have seen many people with misanthropic tendencies find balance, and many others sink into the mire.

I think you should try a bimodal approach.

By all means, continue learning how to enjoy yourself alone, and stop feeling like you "should" be more like everyone else. That's actually healthy.

At the same time, though, consider the possibility that there may be more for you outside your house, and you just haven't found it yet. You don't have to force yourself to be social, but try different things that sound like they might be appealing to you.

It doesn't have to be either/or. Keep enjoying your solitude, but budget a small amount of your energy to exploring in case it unexpectedly pays off.

Is it not contradictory to value isolation but also to peek outward from it to access information? Surely reading books is some admission that there is value in experiencing the perspectives of others, albeit a one-sided experience.

I don't think reclusiveness is a moral failing. I don't think we owe society participation. But I do think that hermithood forgoes unbounded unforeseen possibilities for a known, bounded experience. I'd call this "the safe bet is not necessarily the best bet" argument against isolationism and towards social/collaborative open-mindedness.

> I'm making it to test my idea against the wisdom of the crowds in case someone can enlighten me about where I might be wrong.

Which is the same reason everyone else seeks relationships with other people. That is the value social interaction brings. Now that you've cracked the code, so to speak, do you find this behaviour grating because you don't normally like to have your thoughts and ideas challenged/enlightened?

If you are an "anthrope" (human), then the position of hating humans (misanthropia) is inherently contradictory, hence not valid. Disliking/not wanting to be part of what groups of people do is valid, and striving to keep yourself separate yourself from those groups is also valid. It doesn't make you a misanthrope, though.

What you really want to hate is time, because that's the true limiting factor. Given enough time, anything is possible, but you {insert any modal here} run out of it. Hence, why projecting things onto descendants is a thing. Writing and other methods of symbolic information reproduction have been great inventions to facilitate this.