I have personally found that being the host of a party or dinner is an interesting way to be social without being extremely extroverted. Sure, you have to be sociable, but your primary objective is to make sure everyone is having a good time, the party is going well, the food is distributed, and so on. Your role is not to entertain individual people for hours on end, but more to make introductions between others and work behind the scenes, so to speak.
> we make real friends through sharing in an uncensored and frank way a little of the agony and confusion of being alive
You sound depressed, to be honest. Not everyone thinks like this (I certainly don't), and I'd hope I'm in the majority.
I don't think there's much value in calling any one class of people "truly sociable". People have lots of different ways they like to interact with others. If they're mutually beneficial, they're true enough for me.
You’re really not in a position to speculate about someone’s mental health state.
Furthermore, the manner in which you’ve phrased your response is going to be counterproductive to the person to whom you’ve communicated your perception, at the least. You’re projecting your own social norms and worldview onto someone else in an ostracizing way.
This is actually a really telling microcosm, how you’ve decided to respond. It’s indicative of the chasm between people like you and the poster to whom you’ve responded, a chasm that goes beyond any simple assessment of a mental health condition, all the way to elucidating a fundamental issue with the manner in which mental health issues are identified and handled in society.
The way you’ve represented the other poster is that he is odd, unusual and that your way of thinking should be the majority consensus view (at least you hope so), and is the socially acceptable way. You’ve alienated the poster with your phrasing.
The author began the alienation by a deliberate choice of phrasing: "true sociability" is the thing that the author likes, and if you disagree, the implication is that you enjoy a shallower form of interaction.
On a less personal note, both to this post and to the OP, the Book of Life's style is to make profound declarations by at times making specific statements about the author's outlook (Alain de Botton?) and passing them off as universal observations. Part of that style is to make world-weary pronouncements that read as emotionally raw or gritty. The statement may or may not be true; but it's also framed in a dramatic way.
One of the ways we bond with others, is by exposing our vulnerabilities to build trust. I think the author's right, in that showing a bit of the painful part of life helps make friends. And really, aren't real friends the ones that also stick with you when things aren't going great?
I definitely agree with your last paragraph, though.
