In my case, the result was the opposite. I acquired misanthropy by discovering that most people aren't worth the time and energy to talk to.
That said, I think you need to revise what you consider "worth it" to mean - it's not necessarily the case that you'll learn some useful new skill or hear a great story or derive some other immediately-tangible benefit from talking to people.
Not every interaction is equally valuable, your time is precious and you are an autonomous human being perfectly within your rights to reject a given social interaction, or interactions.
But human interaction is not reducible to an ROI calculation. It's far too complex and multivariate to be computable by your or anyone else's brain - the best you can do is a rough approximation.
I guess this is scattershot, but the phrase: "Just because I find many people uninteresting does not make me a broken person lacking in basic skills" stuck with me because it alone does, in fact, provide us ample evidence that there is a problem. I would never describe you as "broken" - I'm an introvert, I get it - but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting.
I agree! The problem is that people are remarkably intolerant of those who are different. For instance, if you don't find randomly selected people all utterly fascinating, it must be that you're a broken person.
> but if you find "many" people uninteresting, that is a priori evidence that it is you who is uninteresting
Well. No. The two are not bijective. You can be a very interesting person to most people while still finding most other people not very interesting. The reverse is also true.
Indeed, that theoretically can be true. In every instance I have ever heard of, witnessed or been made aware of in any way, however, it holds. The plural of anecdote is not data, granted.
But ask any advice columnist. If you find other people boring as a matter of routine, that's not because they're boring, it's because you are.
Same as with any other part of life. If X keeps happening to you over and over again, and X is statistically uncommon, then either you have weird luck or X is related to something inside you, rather than something to do with the world at large.
Now that I write it, that sounds egotistical.
I've been an introvert forever. My parents in particular would tell me things like "conversation is a game of throw and catch". When I got older, I realized I wasn't shy -- I just hated making small talk. So I responded "Believe it or not, I know how to hold a conversation. I just don't like small talk."
Whenever I tried to steer the conversation towards what I considered more interesting topics, "Um, I didn't want to turn this into a philosophical conversation." Cool. We have divergent interests. I'm capable of keeping myself busy. But my parents would continued to repeat "you gotta throw back the ball sometimes".
So one day, as a teenager, I decided I would try this whole "congeniality" shtick. You know, for science. I was genuinely congenial for several months. I can assert this with confidence because people noticed. Several complimented me on how I came "out of my shell".
At the end of my experiment, I decided congeniality was exactly as overrated as I thought it would be. I've generally been schizotypal-by-default ever since, and never looked back.
I'm not sure where you get that conclusion, but the source doesn't really matter - I think it's a bit backwards. Engaging with more people might broaden your perspective, but I don't think the outcome of engaging with people is more empathy. My experience is that empathy is something you should cultivate if you want to have a better understanding of others and their motivations. This is something you may want to do if you wish to have a relationship of some kind, or to influence their behavior.
Which is to say yes, I have considered that. And I'm pleased to have brought you an alternative perspective.
There is a fine line between using rational and reasoned thought to explain an unpopular way of thinking and using it to simply disguse being an asshole. My guess from reading your comments is that this isn't something that is really important to you, which is perfectly valid of course.
As an introvert that hates conversation myself, particularly small talk, I've come to realize that life is infinitely more enjoyable when you are aware of what side of the line people are placing you on at any given time.
I'm generally aware of where I stand, but isn't always the same as wanting to be on the polite-and-not-an-asshole side.
We're all in this together, and we all have our daily grinds and griefs.
Feel free to scoff, and scoff aloud at least because maybe someone else will hear you and let you know they're in the same boat.
My thought process runs like this:
> I've acknowledged our shared existence. Over. Done with. No mas. Can I go back to my book now? It's way more interesting than all this dreary existence-acknowledging crap.
I don't want someone to hear me and tell me I'm not alone. I already know that. I want to go back to my book or whatever.