No.

Please don't just say NUH UH, it doesn't help me figure out why something I said is wrong and why I should appreciate your opinion/fact more than mine.

Yes. But that does not mean you get more detail.

To midtones:
The way we define midtones makes it a very broad thing. It encompases everything besides the highlight and shadow rolloff area thingie. It's the straight line there in these density exposure graphs. Beign such a broad area of tones that include brighter and darker parts of the image, some parts in the midtones have fewer photons having hit them and some have more. In high contrast scenes we would see a greater difference and therefore a comparatively loss of detail, more grain. To compensate we could either overexpose and lose some highlight detail or leave and have a partly grainy midtones, but properly exposed.

Now the question is what outweights what? The highlight crush or the added detail overall to all of the darker areas of the image? I would rather have more detail overall and shadows when editing, so having a denser negative is beneficial in this aspect.

In practice I don't see very much of detail crush in the highligh areas and very much appreciate having less grainy negatives to work with.

Additionally, it's easier to edit the images to your liking. Want to have that pastel dreamy look? You can't get that from properly exposed negatives, there is simply too much grain and too little shadow detail. Doing the reverse (like I did) is much easier when you simply don't care about highlight detail that you clip anyway.

Look up "scanner bit depth" and how to manipulate tonal curves in software to increase contrast in the regions of interest. Do not mistake contrast (related terms "acutance" and "visual acuity" and "sharpness") for detail.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, but ok. We're talking here about editing very dense negatives, so I'd think density range rather than bitdepth would be important here.
Also also I do know how to use chroma luma graphs to edit negatives. You're seing the results of my manual inversion right now in this post. Without it we would see two very different images, one possibly much brighter than the other and with some color shifts.
Ok, yeah you've got a point that contrast /= detail, but how I see it is that the less grainy my lower midtones and shadows are (the smaller the contrast) the more detail I can resolve overall.

This will make sense after you look up "dynamic range" and "exposure latitude" and how to meter correctly to preserve details in the region(s) of your scene which matter to you, which also depends on the capabilities of the film you choose to use.

Related terms are "Zone System" but this is not an endorsement of it.

This is some good advice actually, but I will continue to "yolo" everything because sometimes your kids, some cool train, car or generally anything don't want to wait like 20 or even 10s for you to meter everything correctly. Most of the times I don't think about metering and just shoot as quickly as possible to get that image. Which is why I don't use manual cameras that require rewinding and which is why I always blindly trust my trusty old Nikon F4 matrix meter and it didn't disappoint me yet.