I would hypothesize that wanting shopping to be focused on convenience over the social aspect is a much more common opinion (see: online shopping) than wanting to go to a loud, crowdy, noisy environment where you can pay a premium to drink alcohol and not be social.

I don't think that is a fair comparison at all. Somethings are inherently social, like going to a bar, where as others are much more of a grey area. I would argue that many of these have historically been social experiences out of necessity (no automated machines, no online shopping, etc.), not out of the need for social interaction.

My stepfather owned a bar for some decades. It's not quite as social as you would imagine. A great many people go there to drown "around" people, but not necessarily to drown "socially".

Doesn't that even more show the value of just being around other people? It's definitely a lot cheaper to drink your own booze at home.

And that's what people do when e.g. they care more about economic considerations than social stigma of drinking alone.

This is an excellent point. For thousands of years, the default was every interaction was social. The idea that you should be able to walk into a standardized store and converse with a clerk like they were an automated sales droid is only a fairly recent phenomenon. These faceless, purely functional transactions - they are exception, not the norm.

The point of a bar is to socialize, or at least have company. Otherwise why not buy a bottle and stay home?

Some people don't want to socialize, but just be "around" people. There seems to be a difference.

May be the stigma of drinking alone, where one is sometimes considered a drunk if one drinks alone.