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.
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.