> One might argue that if someone is appreciated on the basis of whether that person makes one feel good in the moment - they are being treated no different than a drug (alcohol, etc).

I think this is a very consumer-centric reductionist way to look at human interaction.

We are a social species and have been so for millions of years. Social connection and interaction is deeply encoded into our genes. We have dedicated cranial hardware for recognizing faces and emotions in others. We have a complex larynx and tongue entirely so that we can make sounds that convey meaning to other humans.

Given that, it's entirely reasonable to state that we need human connection not as a drug-like balm to cover a failure to be a sufficiently hardcore individualist, but because that as what it means to be human. You wouldn't say a worker ant dying on its own is a failed ant. Ants need their colonies to be ants. We need our tribes to be people.

I don't think these two are exclusive. The Terry Pratchett quote there at the end of that reads like it's a tounge-in-cheek reduction, with a sense of humor. Obviously we're more complex than that, but sometimes we really are that simple and that's ok too.

I do wholeheartedly agree - personal anegdote: regular live improv comedy has done wonders for my well-being. And one could say this format of spending time with other humans has opened new very personal techniques for self-soothing to me. But it's also assumed this rather consumerist form, almost drug-like, repetitive, formatted, scheduled. It's not, like, a real tribe or anything serious like that. And as it turns out a lot of wonderful human interactions really can be reduced.

Having had earlier personal experiences with substance abuse, and seeing good people go down a lethal path, it's been a discovery to me that adults do this whole self-soothing thing and that it is a skill that they pick up from family and society. All these folks I meet doing improv seem to be getting something similar out of it.