Talk:Social anxiety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Good articles Social anxiety has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Peer review Social anxiety has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

/archive1

Contents

[edit] Pronunciation

Apologies to Japanese speakers for my probable mis-pronunciation of taijin kyofusho in the spoken article. Guidance welcome. Macropode 07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antisocial personality disorder

User:Mikkalai added this reference in the see also section, which I think needs to be clarified. Beyond the colloquial meaning of the word "antisocial", it's hard to associate SAD/SP with that particular disorder without drawing some bold connections. Sociopaths (people suffering from APD) don't quite care what other people think of them, and social phobics cripple themselves over what other people may or may not be thinking. Sociopaths suffer from an internal lack of emotion, while social phobics are way too sensitized to external stimuli. The two are very distinct from each other, and while social anxiety may merit some mention on that page because of the word "antisocial", social anxiety fundamentally doesn't have much to do with APD. So I removed the reference. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 01:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If the link from the APD page to here is because of the confusion between antisocial and asocial, then wouldn't schizoid be a better example of a asocial type of disorder. An antisocial person lacks things such as empathy or morals, and a schizoid lacks the need for socialization. Someone with social anxiety disorder may very well have a "normal" need and desire for human interaction, but has trouble in interacting with people as others "normally" do. Their isolation isn't so much a extention of their personality as it is an unusually powerful emotion, or line of though infringing on their perceptions. An antisocial person seemingly has no struggle with themselves to behave antisocially, it is thought to come much more naturally. It's not that some recurent though or mood makes moral action difficult, it's that they the esire to act so isn't even present. They act so because it is an extention of their personality. At least I think that's how it might work172.193.77.70 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)SDF

APD can also stand for Avoidant Personality Disorder (or AvPD), which is very much related to social anxiety - that's where the confusion arises.

[edit] expand

I'm going to expand this article. Anyone is welcome to help or add suggestions. :) Gflores Talk 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Still needs to be properly cited instead of having many links floating around. Gflores Talk 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It might just be me, but I'm having trouble distinguishing "generalized social anxiety" with "generalized anxiety disorder". Pointing out the difference would be helpful, at least for me. Which one is worse? Anyway, a suggestion to possibly improve the article. --DanielCD 21:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with GAD, but from what I've read, it's simply excessive worrying about anything, whether it's work, grades, or family. Generalized social anxiety is a worry or fear of what other might think and fear of being humiliated in front of others. I added a bit to the article. Let me know if it's still unclear and I'll do a bit more research. Gflores Talk 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow I think that does the trick. Nice work. --DanielCD 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Nicely done. You've just given me a good excuse to re-do the spoken version. :) --Macropode 10:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One strong suggestion is that you correct the page's blatant internal contradiction: "...with the male to female ratio being 1.4:1.0, respectively" and "[s]ocial anxiety disorder occurs in females twice as often as males, although men are more likely to seek help." And this article was listed as GA???

[edit] Shyness, Social Anxiety, and Disorder/Phobia

Shyness and social anxiety are two completely separate beasts. This article makes like the two are the same or always appear in pairs. Shyness is a personality trait; social anxiety is a mental disorder. More differentiation between these would be wise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.117.4 (talk • contribs).

A new paragraph has been added in the overview section (weeks ago). Gflores Talk 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


To add to whoever made the above point [which looks like it has been addressed] - 'social anxiety' is also not the same term as 'social anxiety disorder' or 'social phobia', clearly. A while back I altered the intro slightly and it read: Social anxiety refers to feelings of fear, apprehension or worry about social situations and being evaluated by others. In psychiatry or clinical psychology, recurrent disabling social anxiety can be diagnosed as...."

But the intro now starts: Social anxiety disorder, also called social phobia, is a psychiatric anxiety disorder involving overwhelming anxiety and excessive self-consciousness in everyday social situations. People with social phobia have a..."

This makes no sense. It is defining a term referring to a regular kind of everyday anxiety and defining it as a pathological psychiatric condition. Why is there not a separate page for social anxiety disorder or phobia, or a separate part of this page? The issue recurs throughout the article: e.g. "In cognitive models of social anxiety, social phobics experience dread over how they will be presented to others". Cognitive models of social anxiety are not the same as cognitive models of social phobia.

Franzio 10:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Frazio, yes, social anxiety is very difficult to define, even most researchers have trouble distinguishing it from shyness and general social anxiety. I'm addressing your first point by moving it to social anxiety disorder (do you agree?), so it'll speak just about the disorder and there won't be confusion between social anxiety and the disorder. Gflores Talk 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes the article is very confusing, mixing terminology everywhere. The name of the article is 'social anxiety' so it seems wrong to define 'social anxiety disorder' as the opening paragraph. Could you suggest here which articles should be separate? Perhaps define shyness / social anxiety / social phobia / social anxiety disorder. -- Barrylb 11:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, I suggest we move the article to social anxiety disorder, as that is what this page is talking about (and has been since before I came here). Agree? For the more general social fear (social anxiety), that should be described in anxiety.

I agree that social anxiety disorder would be the best place for what is currently there. Most use this term interchangeably with social phobia so could there be a duplicate (automatically synchronised?) page listed under social phobia as well? Or, my perception is that the former usage is becoming the more accepted and used professionally and by those with such problems (although opinion varies) so would agree that the social phobia term could forward to the social anxiety disorder article.

I would also argue that the disorder page should take care not to explain an established medical disorder as if an NPOV view, but rather that some approaches (mainly but not only psychiatry) propose and define a disorder of this nature. And clarify early on that other approaches see extremes of social anxiety as just the high end of a continuum with no categorical division between order and disorder of this sort, and which relates not just to functional problems but to issues with a positive dimension (e.g. empathy; self-awareness).

I feel there is enough reason and work for an article specifically on social anxiety, rather than just a subset of an anxiety article. I agree about the confusion over terms and would say shyness is commonly seen as a slightly different mental state/trait and related behavioral pattern, sometimes involving or following from social anxiety but not necessarily (similar relationship between Social Anxiety Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder perhaps, although some describe them on the same spectrum). To some extent they seem to be just historically or theoretically different approaches to very similar underlying issues.

Of course others may have different perceptions. And not suggesting my intro amendment was ideal, just hopefully along the right lines. Franzio 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems DSM-IV still calls this disorder "Social Phobia", so I believe "Social Anxiety Disorder" is the less commonly used name. Actually either names is fine to me; however, the main topic being located at "Social anxiety" is a problem to me. Having non-clinical information mixed into the clinical article is a major problem for we who maintain these topics. It is silly to recommend CBT or Prozac therapy to someone with slight public speak problem. Perhaps it is best for there to be two cross-referenced topics, "Social anxiety" and "Social anxiety disorder". -MegaHasher 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Worse yet, ICD9 reads "Social Phobia", and ICD10 reads "Social Phobias". So that infobox is going to clash with the bold faced "Social Anxiety Disorder" if that's going to be the official naming scheme. -MegaHasher 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What I propose is to move this article to either social phobia, as that is what the DSM-IV is calling it, as is NIMH and other places. I don't feel too strong either way. Social anxiety disorder will then be redirected to Social phobia. Social anxiety, the more common anxiety, can remain on Social anxiety with an {{otheruses4}} tag to Social phobia. Comments? Gflores Talk 05:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we should wait to hear from User:Sadhaka who made an edit to the opening paragraph saying that social anxiety disorder was "previously referred to clinically as social phobia". In which case the article should be at social anxiety disorder. Despite the common usage of the term social phobia, it may not be correct. Barrylb 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the DSM-IV heading, I believe it is listed in the anxiety disorders category and also referred to as social anxiety disorder. This article by multidisciplinary leading experts in the field argues that social anxiety disorder is the better term that should be used: Liebowitz, Heimberg, Fresco, & Travers (February 2000) “Social Phobia or Social Anxiety Disorder: What’s in a Name?” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 57, No. 2. Franzio 09:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this... Here's the conflict...social phobia is proper per the DSM-IV-TR (I don't know, yet, what the DSM-V is going to look like re: this d/o). That said, Social anxiety disorder is also proper, when discussing the formal diagnosis of social phobia. That said, rarely do I, myself, nor do I often (if ever), hear my colleagues discussing social phobia...we invariably say, "social anxiety", whether discussing a formal diagnosis or a state of mind/behavior.
My sense is that this article should be entitled Social phobia (aka Social anxiety). Or we should have an article (this one) entitled Social phobia, and re-direct Social anxiety to it. Social anxiety disorder is a whole different ball of wax. Cheers! --Sadhaka 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Franzio, Sadhaka, and Gflores (me) agree to move it to social anxiety disorder. Barry, care to comment? The other issue is what should social anxiety and social phobia have? Sadhaka suggests having a separate social phobia article with social anxiety redirecting to it. I suggest that since social phobia is often used interchangebly with SAD, as well as being the name in the DSM, that social phobia redirect to SAD. Franzio? Barry?

You mis-read me..., and I may have mis-written. I stated that the article should be entitled Social phobia, with a re-direct from Social anxiety. And a second article should contain the Social anxiety disorder overview. If this is the SAD article, great...but there should be a separate article detailing social phobia. If any of this is muddled, it's because I'm ill, and probably shouldn't be messing about out here, anyway. Cheers! --Sadhaka 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not your fault, I misread you. Fixed now. I agree with separate articles, but I think social phobia generally refers to the disorder rather than social anxiety. Gflores Talk 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
For example, in [1] this disorder is quoted as "Social Phobia, or Social Anxiety Disorder". This means to me that either title can be used interchangeably. On measure of circulation, I did a google search on "social anxiety disorder" site:gov, and got 9440 hits. For "social phobia" site:gov, I got 33700 hits. Searching "social anxiety" on government sites, I am seeing mostly lower case usages, which means usages as a common term, and not as a capitalized name. -MegaHasher 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I'm not sure how to to interpret the .gov stats. General google search (if I've done it correctly) suggests about 3:2 to social phobia. This is the older term, originating from behaviorist approaches to the treatment of specific phobias, so might be found more in documents for that reason.

The 'International Consensus Group on Depression and Anxiety', 1998, concluded that: "We believe social anxiety disorder is the better term and draw an analogy with panic disorder, in which the anxiety and phobic [avoidance] components were not at first separated...we feel that it is time to adopt social anxiety disorder as the preferred descriptor" (italics and lower case theirs) (Jnl of Clin Psychiatry, vol 59, Supplement17 1998). This doesn't appear to be an international consensus group in any genuinely inclusive sense, and was supported by funds from the pharmaceutical industry so I don't really trust it, but that's what they said anyway.

It's tricky that 'social anxiety' or 'SA' is used to refer to the disorder/phobia, often by sufferers. This is informal not name usage though I agree, and clinically innacurate - except, as I suggested above, when used in the context of not categorically dividing social anxiety experiences into the normal and the disordered, but referring to all of it on one social anxiety continuum of low to high or infrequent to pervasive (or whatever). I think this should be explained on all the pages.

I certainly agree that social phobia should not be used to equate to social anxiety. The only other option I would personally think of is for all 3 pages - social anxiety disorder the main disorder page, with social phobia explaining the usage of the phobia term but primarily referring to the disorder page (and to social anxiety page as the more general issue). And social anxiety as the standard page covering any experience of social anxiety. Franzio 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have an article "Social anxiety disorder" and a separate article "social anxiety" and the term "social phobia" should redirect to "Social anxiety disorder". -- Barrylb 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking strictly from the standpoint of professional reference material, I believe we should have an article entitled, "Social anxiety disorder", a second article entitled "Social phobia", with a disclaimer in the intro that states, 'while social phobia is correct language, social anxiety is common usage', and that social anxiety should redirect to ths social phobia article. That would follow the referential documentation, although, in terms of usage, the whole Google search thing clearly stands in contrast to this position. Are we an academic resource, or are we going to go with the flow?...that's the bigger question. Cheers! --Sadhaka 12:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

I just want to say I feel strongly that Wikipedia isn't just an academic thing but an everyone thing. I wouldn't personally be against following the widest current usage if it is clearly social phobia. Although that consensus group stated that patient groups in the US are strongly in favor of the disorder rather than phobia term... I don't like the way they state this so categorically as if all think the same, and they give no stats or citation, but maybe there's some truth in it. I have to strongly disagree that the professional material equates social phobia to social anxiety. Franzio 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So no consensus? But everyone agrees social anxiety is not the correct article name for this page. Any suggestions what to do now? Gflores Talk 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the topic still uses "Social Phobia". I think there is no need to change that. Describe "Social Anxiety Disorder" as an alternate name of "Social Phobia". Change "Social anxiety" to "social anxiety". Maybe a paragraph of "Normal everyday social anxiety" description can be added into the topic. Perhaps no drastic changes are needed. -MegaHasher 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It still doesn't make sense for the title to be social anxiety when the article mostly talks about the disorder. GfloresTalk 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposals put forward by Gflores and Barrylb for a separate Social Anxiety Disorder article. Given the erudite nature of the discussion here, I'm not even going to attempt to justify my opinion. :) -- Macropode 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I've added a warning note below the intro, regarding the penultimate comment above, I don't know if someone will remove it. The above discussion got a bit complicated (partly my fault I think, under a previous nick Franzio) and doesn't seem to have reached a conclusion? I do think it should be made clear to people whether they're reading about social anxiety in general or only about the excessive level diagnosed by clinicians EverSince 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Not sure if it matters, me being an anon, but I think it should be moved to Social anxiety disorder. 71.240.184.146 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On balance I agree. I would say I'd be happy to help build up content that remained here that was on the general issue of social anxiety rather than the disorder. Stuff from social psychology and sociology and evolutionary psychology etc. EverSince 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

User:Barrylb, there are thousands of sites for many articles... that doesn't mean we should remove all the external links and just have a directory page. Now, I agree that the initial listing was too much, so I've condensed it greatly and kept the support groups as they are a good resource for those affected by this disorder. You can see other good articles such as, Cancer and Schizophrenia, have a number of external links (to resources and support groups). Please reconsider. Others are welcome to comment.

Secondly, I've noticed you remove all external links in articles; please don't act too hastily when removing them as there are some that are very helpful. You should take the time to review the websites and assess their significance, particularly with frequent editors of that article. Gflores Talk 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I did have a look at the links but I didn't think much of them. You can say just about any link is "helpful" merely by being about the topic but that isn't enough. I would really like to have some better quality links on this page if we can get them, or none at all. I think the "support groups" that were in the links were the worst offenders since they were just discussion forums - sure they may be "helpful" but there is not really anything special about them.
The quality of the links on the cancer article seems a lot higher than the links on this article. I do think there is a problem with the links on that page: they seem to be mainly US and UK based but there are many others that equally could/should be there, but the problem being it would make the list too big if they were.
If you can find some really good quality links then I would like to consider them.
I have been editing a few articles recently in related topics and they all seem to share similar problems with external links and so deserve a similar response. -- Barrylb 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the complete removal of external links is unnecessary, at least not without some discussion first. It's interesting how you kept NIMH links in other articles, but not this one. Not good enough? The other links, they're not just "about the topic", one is a government resource (which is accepted as an external link), the other presents personal experiences, another provides research articles and recommends books about the topic. These links cannot simply be replaced by a directory link.
You say, the support forums are not special? What do you mean by this? They're helpful, many articles relating to psychiatric disorders have external links to support forums. Do you wish to remove all of those too? It's good to link them, as the person reading the article probably has the disorder or knows someone who does and may want to ask questions there or read about other people's experiences.
I realize you're on the Spam wikiproject, but I think your edits are a bit too aggressive. Gflores Talk 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The NIMH link is one I would consider re-adding. Barrylb 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I re-visited the NIMH link and I see why I did not think it was worthwhile: it does not add much to the article - there is not much there. Also I note that the References section is extensive on this article and already includes the NIMH. Despite all that, I still might consider it being included.
Do you consider all the previous links should be included or just some in particular? If so, which ones? Barrylb 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my review of the links:

  • UK Social Anxiety Site Is this legit? Claims to be some kind of support group. All they have is an email address contact. No phone, no address, no names. Not much content. Cannot verify anything about them.
  • UK Phobics-society Appears to be a legitimate organisation, although it does take pharma money. Does not add much to what is in the article except some 'personal stories'. It may be useful as a place to 'get help'.
  • Social anxiety disorder Big Google ad in the middle of every page. No idea who they are - no contact details whatsoever. Quite a few pages of information but all unreferenced. Not a source I can trust and should not be in the links.
  • The Social Anxiety Institute Appears to be purely a commerical enterprise for treating the disorder. Also related to the above Social Phobia/Social Anxiety Association which makes it suspicious. Should not be in the links.

These there are discussion forums:

I am wary of including links to discussion forums. I don't believe they add much value. I am not in favour of them being included. Unfortunately the Wikipedia:External_links guide doesn't give much guidance in this regard but there are some discussions on the talk page being sceptical of including them.

In summary, not one of the links adds much value to the article. Some links may be useful as places to get help but there is nothing particularly special about the links that were included. By 'special' I mean why link to these sites instead of any other? The NIMH link might be worthwhile including even though it adds little value because it is a reasonably credible source and representative of what is out there. -- Barrylb 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of your assessments, on some I do, which is why I condensed the initial listing. Your comments on the discussion forums are solely your opinion, not based on policy nor even a guidelines! I would also like to ask if there is any possible link that could be added to this article, as you've now left the article with no external links (besides a link to a directory)? I feel that whatever link I add will be taken away, so maybe you can list a couple? I guess I'll leave it how it is even though I don't completely agree with the edit. Have a good day. Gflores Talk 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so surprised that my comments on discussion forums are based on my opinion? I said so! As I said, there isn't much help from the guidelines. Are there any possible links that could be added? Well that is the problem: probably not, if these ones are representative of what is out there. If you do want to suggest any other sites, then I will consider them. I do not know of any. There is no Wikipedia requirement that we have links though.
If you feel strongly enough to state your disagreements with my assessments of any particular site then I will be happy to debate further. Barrylb 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop bickering, kids. :-) If we are going to include discussion forums, it should be under a heading of "Resources" or "External resources"...not "See also" or "External links". Just my POV. --Sadhaka 12:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of established precedent for the usage of the external links section in other articles. Barrylb, while I see some merit in your arguments, the wholesale deletion of all of these links without at least some attempt at prior consultation and discussion on this talk page is disrespectful to other editors and the work they've done here. --Macropode 06:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never really understood alot of wiki and am quite new so please forgive me but does Barrylb own this page and require permission for any editing.I strongly am in favour of some external sites at least the main USA and UK ones which have been invaluable to many people including me.Is it Ok for me to add them back or will Barryld just delete them every day because he appears to think his opinion is more important than anyone else and he appears to have a bit of an obsession about it.Sure you dont want pages of links but since there is only one there at the moment whats the problem with adding a few more which might actually help people?--klodo123 13:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well as usual Barrylb has removed the external link to the main Uk SA site as he thinks he owns the site and listens to no other point of view.I am not sure of the rules and as he has made no reply to my other comment so I have decided to add external link every day for ever basically.I'am not really interested in Barry's point of view.There are several people here who want external links and as there are already over 30 lines of pointless references it is hardly a matter of space.if I have breached any wiki rules and Barry is the head honcho here I will happily back down but if Barry is just a nobody with a crazy obsession about removing links then I will ignore him.I think at least the main Uk and USA sites are fine.

Klodo123 11:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review:

Please note that the MAOI class of antidepressants was shown to be more effective than other drugs (Versiani et al, The British Journal of Psychiatry 161: 353-360 (1992); Hirschfeld RM,J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Apr;61(4):268-75.) And these drugs are safe if proper care is taken. --Elrafael 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSRIs

A sentence in this section reads:

"Pediatric and pregnancy studies have been largely inconclusive and not recommended".

I guess this means that the studies that were inconclusive recommended SSRIs not be used in pediatric and pregnancy cases. Would somebody more informed than I am like to clarify this? -- Macropode 06:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got it, but I've reworded it as I couldn't find a ref about use for children. GfloresTalk 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Liebowitz

For the benefit of listeners (are there any? :) ) to the spoken version of this article, could anybody inform me of the correct pronunciation of this gentleman's surname? -- Macropode 08:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's Lee-bow-itz, (bow as in bow and arrow) but I could be wrong. GfloresTalk 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was considering whether to pronounce the W as V, but this probably only applies in a European context and would be incorrect general American pronunciation. -- Macropode 09:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opinion line

"Many people would also say that these people are just self-concious and shy, two ordinary personality traits."

This line bugs me, but it refer's to peoples opinions, not facts, so i can see why it is accurate. Is there any way we could word it or add to it to indicate that its not the generally accepted opinion or something? I know i am probably being hypersensitive but... hey, thats what the disorder is about :) WookMuff 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed to more accurately reflect the real situation. -- Macropode 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing APA

Does anyone know the author's name or where can i find it to cite the article?

There is something here that does not appear in much literature. It can take a long time for anxiety to be recognised. What happens is that the sufferer has an armoury of excuses which sometimes seem to make sense. Social "I am not washed - I havent time - my hair's a mess - I'm not presentable - I dont like X - I would be much happier reading a book - you are always going out - you never spend any time with me -" Literally hundreds. Ordinary household stuff "I'll do it later, could you do it for me - let's have a takeaway tonight - let's have a lazy day - not on Saturday - not on Sunday - I'm tired right now - all you want is a maid - stop nagging " Again hundreds. What I am saying is that the tests for identifying are far too clumsy. The tests need to be expanded to basically cover the fact that every single time there is a symptom of anxiety, there is an excuse. And to every suggestion there is a No. In other words, as an ailment the tests are not catching sufferers. And when it comes to CT there are rejections. "I dont want to go for a walk - I'm feeling very happy lying here - It's too wet to go out to the group - I'm not one of them - " Not only has the treatment no chance - the manufactured excuses lay the groundwork for denial of the condition once again. The ailment protects itself in the first place by refusing recognition and it fights back later with (objectively) specious arguments.

[edit] Prevalence

I find this information somewhat contradictory. Am I just interpreting this incorrectly? Rtcpenguin 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Social anxiety disorder occurs in females twice as often as males, although men are more likely to seek help.[14]

and

Approximately 13.3% of the general population will experience social phobia at some point in their lifetime; with the male to female ratio being 1.4:1.0, respectively.


It looks like the figures were changed --Kraftlos 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

I won't delist this article because it appears to comply with standards, but it seems to of snuck it's way through the system without actually, you know, going through the system first, I don't see anything amazingly wrong with it, but I recommend you condense the lead, read WP:LEAD if you want to see what a lead needs to be. Homestarmy 17:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Phobia vs. Avoidant Personality Disorder

Do all Social Phobics have Avoidant Personality Disorder? If not, how do you confidently distinguish the two? That article's discription of that disorder sounds like things that go on in the mind of a clinically socially anxious person.--J. Daily 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)\ I LOVE ARIANNA!

In the Avoidant Personality Disorder page, it says "Research suggests that people with avoidant personality disorder, in common with social phobics, excessively monitor their own internal reactions when they are involved in social interaction. However, unlike social phobics they also excessively monitor the reactions of the people with whom they are interacting." This is the only difference it mentions. --DearPrudence 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
APD is an older diagnosis and, as the name suggests, indicates that a person's whole personality is disordered (an Axis 2 condition in DSM). So quite unlike a specific social phobia. The similarities with generalised social anxiety disorder can be less clear. I would say APD is supposed to be more about inhibition and expectation of rejection - in a way that leads to avoidance but may or may not be accompanied by an experience of anxiety. I believe some do see APD as just a more extreme deeper-seated form of social anxiety disorder, whilst others see it as more like extreme pervasive shyness. I can try to add something like this to the pages unless anyone disagrees EverSince 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Deprivation Disorder

I noticed that there are many similarities between Social anxiety and Emotional Deprivation Disorder. Can someone who knows more maybe cross-link/reference these two and show a connection? --70.68.140.39 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes section

Just a note to say I've expanded this section a lot, & added various other bits. Not sure how much pruning it might need and I'm not sure if all the parenthesised citations are appropriate? I have the full references for all of them, but not weblinks to pubmed or whatever which would take some time, I'm not sure what's necessary? EverSince 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. it's all my own work even though I've added it as a lump

I guess it's necessary to fully cite them, I'll do it as I can, assuming no one else does. EverSince 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can, figure out the contradiction between where the article states a male to female ratio of 1.4:1.0 and then states later that it occurs "twice as often in females than males." OverSS 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work eversince. I added a couple references. I think some of the existing references need to be converted to the new format, not quite sure. Could someone help make a table of the prevalence rates for different countries? I'm not too familiar with the wiki syntax. 71.240.184.146 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone's edited to fix the ratio now. A table of prevalence rates sounds good - don't know off top of my head how to do it either. Still working up the energy to properly reference those citations. Thanks EverSince 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychotherapy

The assertion that CBT is "a form of therapy that is effective for several anxiety disorders" is misleading. The work of Wampold and Luborski in particular has demonstrated that no one psychotherapeutic methodology has outperformed any other when studies are corrected for investigator bias and other methodological problems. The phrasing does not say that CBT is the only effective methodology (which would be outright false), but it singles it out inexplicably. 75.0.189.239 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESocial_anxiety_b186.html"