I very much agree. I would consider myself to be more asocial than average, though certainly not aggressively so. The types of sentiments expressed in this article are usually written by very social people who see conversation as some inherent good. I think you are in the minority of such social butterflies in terms of checking that assumption.
For an example, take this quote:
> But that is not the whole story. In mid-life and beyond people can still experience the joy of a random meeting, however short, which somehow touches a nerve.
What exactly is the joy? Is that joy not something I can obtain more easily via the “traditional” social channels I’ve cultivated over the course of my life thus far? And won’t a social interaction in one of those channels have a much greater chance of lasting positive impact given that person is more likely to be someone I interact with regularly, enabling me to build off that initial interaction over time?
Moreover, what’s the downside of the encounter? I suspect a lot of asocial people like myself strongly dislike the much more common awkwardness and self-doubt that accompany a social interaction that goes poorly. Is enduring a lot of that really worth the few instances where you feel a fleeting sense of connection?
Putting effort into that social interaction also means I will have less energy to put into other pursuits that mean more to me: my marriage, playing piano, reading, career goals, riding my bike, existing friendships, etc.
I don’t disagree with the article necessarily, but I do think it’s mostly an “ode to random social encounters” more than a serious attempt to make a case for why people not predisposed to doing so should try to have more random social encounters.
The questions you ask in your last two sentences really get at the interesting stuff. But of course they are too nuanced and complex to answer in any comprehensive, generalized way within an easily digestible length.