[hooskerdu]

I don’t disagree with your final statement, but they’re also not wrong. Growing up it was well-known that homeschool kids were strange, intelligent in some ways, and completely inept in most ways that mattered. People who desire to completely shield their children are just as detrimental to their children’s development as those who over-expose. However, in my purely anecdotal experience, the ones who were over-exposed were better off than the former. And the middle road led to better outcomes overall.

[next_xibalba]

Where were you and others encountering these homeschooled kids if they were locked up in their cosseted homes in which they were apparently never socialized?

As another reply pointed out, maybe these kids are “weird” in some way, maybe they are not. We don’t have more than anecdotes here. More importantly, and to the point of my first reply, we don’t know the motives of their parents. The GP was engaged in mind reading. Certainly, the motives are manifold. One motive may be, “I’m going to home school my kid because he’s weird and won’t do well in a public school.” We don’t know which way the causal arrow points.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Growing up it was well-known that homeschool kids were strange,

Growing up, it was well-known that in highschool that there was always a small subset of students who were strange. It was so cliche that more than a few sitcoms were founded on that very premise. You could walk up to any stranger age 40 or older, say "you know those weird kids in high school" and they could almost certainly rattle off the list of names even today.

This is because in any large group of kids, some significant percentage of them will be weirdos. Thinking that this is somehow a result of homeschooling is more than simply fallacious, it reveals a prejudice of yours.