Words of Wisdom:
Social people interact breadth first. Anti-social people interact depth first.
Every choice you make excludes choosing otherwise.
Humans live by their creativity, not by devouring limited resources.
People twist their factual views to fit their moral views, not vice versa.
Children are people.
Young people are people.
A Few Consequences:
Anti-social people waste less time.
Trying not to exclude any options is absurd. Trying not to exclude some specific options isn't. "Trying to keep your options open," without the context of refering to some specific options, means keeping the ones that society cares about open. For example "You should go to highschool to keep your options open" means that highschool is helpful on the standard paths through life (it helps get into college and helps you get hired with or without college). Keeping options open in that sense, as a goal, is not a good way to live, because we should seek our own path, not choose between stereotypes ones.
We shouldn't ration our raw materials to last for 50,000 years. Not even for 1,000 years. How long exactly, then? Well, hard to say, but the market knows. The market knows because prices reflect supply.
It's not all that surprising that presenting, say, an anti-semite with a factual history of Israel, is ineffective.
Once again I find myself gorging on the wisdom of Curi.
This doesn't affect the relevant wise words, and yes one should always be prepared to use the enemy's terminology, but: it's so topsy-turvey the way depth-first people are meanly labelled "anti-social". These are the people that built up our society in the first place.
A few corollaries (these are all based on your definitions):
1. 'Social' people are more likely to discover new areas of insightful discussion with a given person.
2. This is obviously true, but it may be important to note that in many cases, options can still exist in an only slightly altered form. Thus, every choice excludes choosing otherwise *at that time*. That is, while Time is an important factor in choices, it usually doesn't change the situation overmuch.
3. This is also true, as long as one acknowledges the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to increase the longetivity of a given popular and limited resource in reasonable ways.
4. Shouldn't it be TYPS?