Social anxiety

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Spectrum » November 18th, 2017, 1:02 am

Maxcady10001 wrote:First I would like to acknowledge one again your system of conscience is a conclusion that only you have come to, hence no citations for an actual faculty of conscience. If such a faculty was such an obvious conclusion, there would certainly be more support. But, I have already conceded the existence of a system only in place of conscience there is social anxiety. Now please explain where conscience steps into this process:

Primal desire/intention ------>morality----->social anxiety

When primal desires/intentions interact with morality, a person begins to feel anxiety over any possible disruption of social norms, which we mistakenly call a conscience. Some inner feelings of what is right or wrong. What you are doing is putting an imaginary club bouncer before the feeling of anxiety over the interaction.
My model would be as follows;

Primal desire-->( Conscience System )
Intention------>( Conscience System )
Morality------->( Conscience System )--->Guilt, etc.-->social anxiety
Other inputs-->( Conscience System )
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Maxcady10001 » November 18th, 2017, 1:12 am

The conscience system where inputs supposedly are put through the judicial system. Your systems don't work anyway, because you don't include morality as part of the conscience system. On what basis are the judgements being made if not morality?

-- Updated November 18th, 2017, 1:14 am to add the following --

Look at your frst system
Primal desire--->(conscience system)
And you end it there. That makes no sense.

-- Updated November 18th, 2017, 2:03 am to add the following --

Ok, that was a blatant misinterpretation of your system at first glance, though your system is still flawed, as the first two inputs must encounter morality before they go into your conscience system.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Spectrum » November 18th, 2017, 2:17 am

Maxcady10001 wrote:Ok, that was a blatant misinterpretation of your system at first glance, though your system is still flawed, as the first two inputs must encounter morality before they go into your conscience system.
All the inputs will go into the Conscience System and they [including appropriately elements of the Moral Systems] will combine appropriately in various conditional states to produce various outputs. The moral elements are critical to the Conscience System.

Btw, the Conscience System is a sub-system to the overall Moral & Ethical System.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Maxcady10001 » November 18th, 2017, 2:56 am

That is very different from the judicial and legislative systems you mentioned before. Now it's an organizing process (The current government structure is not an organizing process). When the primal urges/ intents conflict with morality it yields social anxiety. During the confliction part, you are saying the initial inputs are being put with their corresponding moral consequences, and this is the conscience system process. And as i've been saying, the output of said system is social anxiety, not what you call conscience. Making it the system of "anxiety production" (which sounds better). The correction of the initial inputs (primal urges/intent) is the feeling of social anxiety. Your claim that guilt comes before anxiety is not right. The initial output is anxiety, then guilt is felt later.
A person will feel the anxiety that comes with committing the action before they feel the regret. Also it is critical to mention conscience is not active until there is a conflict between the initial inputs and morality, which triggers anxiety, and later guilt.

-- Updated November 18th, 2017, 3:09 am to add the following --

Conscience and anxiety interchangeable in the last sentence.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Atreyu » November 19th, 2017, 6:12 pm

Actual conscience has nothing whatever to do with morality or "social anxiety".

Morality is what people create when they don't have a conscience. It's like a substitute for conscience. Lacking internal guidance (conscience) as to what is 'right' or 'wrong', a man is forced either to make up what is 'right' and 'wrong' (i.e. create his own moral code, i.e. intellectualize/rationalize it), or else he is forced to follow another, already existing moral code he's learned from others. Men of conscience don't need any moral codes. Their conscience will always tell them what is 'right' or 'wrong', by definition.

'Social anxiety' is simply a psychological disorder as defined by the modern psychological community. This has nothing whatever to do with conscience, for conscience is not a disorder.

Conscience is simply a "special" feeling one may have which reveals what is 'right' and 'wrong. It's rarely present in the life of ordinary men in the ordinary conditions of life. Ordinarily, one only has flashes of it in rare moments due to a set of fortuitous circumstances which elicit it.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Maxcady10001 » November 19th, 2017, 6:31 pm

You are misrepresenting the position that i've taken in this discussion when you attach disorder to social anxiety. A person can be anxious without having a disorder. And your claim morality is what people create when they don't have a conscience is completely false. If they had no conscience, why would they need to be moral? Laws are not moral guidelines, if that's where you're going next.
Ever notice this feeling of conscience only occurs, when there is a conflict between what you may want and what you've been told is good by society? This feeling of conscience is only the fear of negative judgement, which is the definition of social anxiety I have been using.
You have only managed to say what others have already said, I have a suspicion you don't feel like reading through pages of comments, but you probably should. And no one has so far managed to distinguish between what the conscience does and what makes us socially anxious, which is the fear of being negatively judged. Please don't ignore all of the previous posts and then provide general definitions as though they are the profound words needed to end the thread.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Burning ghost » November 20th, 2017, 1:53 am

Max -

Why are you trying to redefine "social anxiety"? To what end?

It is generally referred to in psychology as a "disorder", or moving toward a "disorder".

This thread seems like nothing more than a drawn out semantical argument and I am completely oblivious as to what your aim is here?

Conscience is often thought of as a the "angel" on one shoulder and the "demon" on the other, you know this. Basically we weigh and balance immediate pleasures against the effect in the now and in the future, on myself and on others (we care about others due to natural empathy - meaning we understand others feel pain like we do.) If you see that as being synonymous with "social anxiety" you simply fail to grasp that "social anxiety", in regard to "conscience" (as stated above) is a conscience dilemma. I may want to do something, but will not because my conscience tells me it causes undue harm (it is empathy not fear, although I can appreciate what you mean if you also fail to see the difference between "empathy" and "fear"? For now I assume you can draw some kind of line between those terms at least!)

If anything I would say "anxiety" is more like an absence of tangible conscience. "Anxiety" is about not knowing how to act or what to do, to be in a place of confusion without guidance. The point you may be trying to get it is that strangely the extremes of conscience can lead to "anxiety". If we try to act out every moment of our lives with intense regard for the possible harms we'd remain static and "freeze", or in the other extreme, within much conscience, we'd be unable to clearly distinguish between different possible outcomes.

If we have a balance of conscience then we are able to understand the responsibilities of taking on decisions in life and accepting the outcomes of our actions and reassessing our intentions with the outcomes of our actions. Over time we build up a structure to better assess how we wish to act. Given the complexities of life we undoubtedly come across dilemmas and feel a strain upon our conscience, which I would define, in the social context, as "social anxiety".

If you merely wish to shift the obvious of this by tweaking a definition then you are doing so for a purpose. What is that purpose?

-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 1:54 am to add the following --

Max -

Why are you trying to redefine "social anxiety"? To what end?

It is generally referred to in psychology as a "disorder", or moving toward a "disorder".

This thread seems like nothing more than a drawn out semantical argument and I am completely oblivious as to what your aim is here?

Conscience is often thought of as a the "angel" on one shoulder and the "demon" on the other, you know this. Basically we weigh and balance immediate pleasures against the effect in the now and in the future, on myself and on others (we care about others due to natural empathy - meaning we understand others feel pain like we do.) If you see that as being synonymous with "social anxiety" you simply fail to grasp that "social anxiety", in regard to "conscience" (as stated above) is a conscience dilemma. I may want to do something, but will not because my conscience tells me it causes undue harm (it is empathy not fear, although I can appreciate what you mean if you also fail to see the difference between "empathy" and "fear"? For now I assume you can draw some kind of line between those terms at least!)

If anything I would say "anxiety" is more like an absence of tangible conscience. "Anxiety" is about not knowing how to act or what to do, to be in a place of confusion without guidance. The point you may be trying to get it is that strangely the extremes of conscience can lead to "anxiety". If we try to act out every moment of our lives with intense regard for the possible harms we'd remain static and "freeze", or in the other extreme, within much conscience, we'd be unable to clearly distinguish between different possible outcomes.

If we have a balance of conscience then we are able to understand the responsibilities of taking on decisions in life and accepting the outcomes of our actions and reassessing our intentions with the outcomes of our actions. Over time we build up a structure to better assess how we wish to act. Given the complexities of life we undoubtedly come across dilemmas and feel a strain upon our conscience, which I would define, in the social context, as "social anxiety".

If you merely wish to shift the obvious of this by tweaking a definition then you are doing so for a purpose. What is that purpose?
AKA badgerjelly

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Maxcady10001 » November 20th, 2017, 4:13 am

The way you defined conscience, there is no conscience. I guess the reason for the quotation marks. You're calling what is referred to as conscience, at its heart only empathy. I don't believe anyone else does that, hence the thread. If you'll notice i've been saying social anxiety is what happens when there is a conflict between what we want and our morality, the feelings of empathy, justice and fairness.
I don't believe I have redefined social anxiety, if you specifically google social anxiety, you will come up with some variation of nervousness in social situations, or the fear of being negatively judged. I did not pick that definition out of thin air.
And we are all socially anxious, to some extent, but most of us do not have a disorder (I guess depending where you would draw the line).
Also, try to answer the challenge, make a distinction between what we feel is a conscience and what is social anxiety. Unless you define conscience as only empathy, which no one else does. Google supports that statement. Now who's redefining words?

As to why i'm arguing over semantics, I don't want to argue with religious zealots, and since i've only just begun studying philosophy I don't have a lot of the knowledge I would need to argue about philosophical matters,though i'm sure I soon will. Also, this is supposed to be an argumentative place, and i've just read in Ecce Homo, "to be able to be an enemy presupposes a strong nature." I would like to be an enemy.

-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 4:19 am to add the following --

I meant google supports what I said, about no one supporting your definition.

-- Updated November 20th, 2017, 4:30 am to add the following --

Also its very hard to be somewhat original in post topics.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Burning ghost » November 20th, 2017, 5:03 am

Max -
The way you defined conscience, there is no conscience.
That makes no sense.
You're calling what is referred to as conscience, at its heart only empathy.
Make your mind up. Either I am saying there is no conscience or I am saying it is "only empathy". Wrong on both counts, but I am starting to see you are unsure how to read properly.
If you'll notice i've been saying social anxiety is what happens when there is a conflict between what we want and our morality, the feelings of empathy, justice and fairness.
I could argue that it is about not knowing what we want. Throwing in a string of other contentious concepts like "morality", "justice" and "fairness" just gives you more words to hide behind.
Also, try to answer the challenge, make a distinction between what we feel is a conscience and what is social anxiety.
Evidence that you don't know how to read properly. I have answered this with as much thought as I am willing to at the moment. The onus lies on you to present a coherent argument not for you to flip the tables on the reader. At the moment your argument consists of "because I say so" and "google says so". Did Nietzsche cite google? Or was he already in the throes of madness? The jury is out on the latter question.
Now who's redefining words?
That would be you. Or rather you simply don't quote grasp the importance of semantics within the philosophical field. If you are choosing to challenge a definition then you should have a reason for doing so. I will ask again, what is the reason for this?

Notice that if you don't define the context then people take on different meanings. It is not extraordinary for people here to assume by "social anxiety" that you're referring to an anxiety disorder. The onus is on you to make the distinction. If you're just talking about being nervous in social situations (which you are unless I am VERY badly mistaken?), then I would not say this is "conscience", but rather attached to the term "conscience" by way of the very phonetically similar term "self-conscious". People have comfort zones and when they are out of them they get anxious. There is not a great deal more to say. If you wish to attach this to "fear of breaking rules" then we can associate our conscience with the society we live in. Then there is the nature/nurture fallacy, meaning the distinction is one of convience to delineate between different levels of investigation.

If you are new to philosophy I would recommend trying to be more precise to the point of being bearly legible. I wouldn't personally suggest Nietzsche as the best way to start, but I guess we each have our own path to go down.

To reiterate:
Also, try to answer the challenge, make a distinction between what we feel is a conscience and what is social anxiety.
My reply:
Conscience is often thought of as a the "angel" on one shoulder and the "demon" on the other, you know this. Basically we weigh and balance immediate pleasures against the effect in the now and in the future, on myself and on others (we care about others due to natural empathy - meaning we understand others feel pain like we do.) If you see that as being synonymous with "social anxiety" you simply fail to grasp that "social anxiety", in regard to "conscience" (as stated above) is a conscience dilemma. I may want to do something, but will not because my conscience tells me it causes undue harm (it is empathy not fear, although I can appreciate what you mean if you also fail to see the difference between "empathy" and "fear"? For now I assume you can draw some kind of line between those terms at least!)

If anything I would say "anxiety" is more like an absence of tangible conscience. "Anxiety" is about not knowing how to act or what to do, to be in a place of confusion without guidance. The point you may be trying to get it is that strangely the extremes of conscience can lead to "anxiety". If we try to act out every moment of our lives with intense regard for the possible harms we'd remain static and "freeze", or in the other extreme, within much conscience, we'd be unable to clearly distinguish between different possible outcomes.
In many social situations we feel nervous because we are concerned whether other people will like us or not. We do not think about the "morality" of the situation unless it is an extremely uncomfortable situation where we're put in a position of extreme emotional pressure. I may want to shoot a murderer, but my conscience will stop me (not necessarily because of societal rules, but certainly not completely detached from them - like I said, the delineation between nature/nurture argument is one of investigative convenience.)

I hope some of that helps.

Is "small" to "large" as "conscience" is to "social anxiety". I say no. You don't have to agree and I would be very intrigued to hear why you'd make such a claim rather than any justification for it.
AKA badgerjelly

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Maxcady10001 » November 20th, 2017, 10:51 pm

"I may want to do something but will not because my conscience tells me it causes undue harm.(it is empathy not fear, although I can appreciate what you mean if you also fail to see the difference between "empathy" and "fear"? For now I assume you can draw some kind of line between those terms at least!")

It is there, where you say empathy is the basis of conscience, instead of social anxiety, or any of the previous claims. Specifically, when you say "it is empathy not fear." Also, as mentioned before, your claim is contrary to any popular defintions of conscience. All popular sources for definitions on this site (why wiki is one I don't know) don't include empathy as the driving force of conscience. Why you choose to criticize citing sources, is unusual, as you have cited material before. Almost all topics rely on popular definitions (in fact, everything does).
Also, I am not challenging a definition, I have accepted both of the popular definitions of conscience and social anxiety, I am only saying what's the difference? Not once, have I rejected the definitions supplied me, and failed to obscure the difference between the two definitions for conscience and social anxiety. No, I am obviously not challenging a definition, only observing the feelings of conscience are indistinguishable from social anxiety. If you read other posts, you would know this.
I dare you to make the argument social anxiety, or conscience is about not knowing what we want, if you can that is (you can't, although please try).
I also dare to you to make a distinction between what your conscience does and societal rules, i'm referencing your claim to why you wouldn't commit murder. You are the one making incredible claims here, as if you could find a reason for any feeling of conscience divorced from societal rules.
Also, what do you mean we do not think about morality in social situations, that is complete nonsense, as if you go around saying and doing whatever you want, in ignorance of what's deemed moral. Another incredible claim. We always think about the morality of the situation.
The only notable idea mentioned inyour post, are your comments on nature vs nurture. It took me longer than I care to admit, to realize most of this is garbled rambling (much like Nietzsche). Also, just because I quoted one line from Nietzsche, does not mean anything. I've only read one of his books, and the easiest one at that. Also, i've found that any reading of a philosophical book is going to be very tedious, and hard (written purposely this way), and there is no proper place to start (though many would say the Greeks).
As to the distinction between social anxiety, and social anxiety disorder, it is the intensity to which a person becomes anxious in social situations. The disorder coming in at the far end of the spectrum. As I mentioned before we are all socially anxious, but we are not all handicapped by it.
I believe I have addressed everything you've said, except why i've made this post, which i'm sure is an attempt at an insult.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Burning ghost » November 21st, 2017, 3:11 am

Max -

I am not going to reply after this unless I can do so quickly. I am replying because I respect you as a human and have no intention to "insult" you, but will not go out of my way to try NOT to insult you.
It is there, where you say empathy is the basis of conscience, instead of social anxiety, or any of the previous claims. Specifically, when you say "it is empathy not fear." Also, as mentioned before, your claim is contrary to any popular definitions of conscience.
Don't see how it is anymore so than you're own extrapolation from "social anxiety". I am just saying that empathy (being a known biological function not simply a theory of the human mind) allows us to know other minds (or at least plays a major role in this process if you wish to be pedantic) and we do things "in good conscience" because we have an understanding of the pain and dismay it can cause to others. You see someone punched in the face and you'll wince, AND by doing so you act as if you've been hit and relate to the pain. Fear on the other hand can be expressed empathically, by way of understanding that other people feel fear (which you know by way if empathy not fear itself). I can fear falling off a cliff and this has little to nothing to do with empathy (it could if I worry about how my friend and family will feel about me dying or getting injured and the distress it will cause them).
Why you choose to criticize citing sources
Basically because I believe philosophy has a lot more to it than looking up words in a dictionary. For me it is an exploration of the limitations of this verbal language in its symbolic form. It is constantly trying to expand to other realms of "real" and "physical" but is in its essence a descriptive function posed as its own sense of "reality" - which is funny in its circularity and surprising useful if you're only inclined to see it as the be all and end all of the human condition and if you're definition of "language" is confined to the "popular" dictionary definition. I guess we cannot help being narrow minded for to us in our world view we're always the broadest thinker because there is nothing we know outside of our appreciation, and the more satisfied we are in settling into this thought the less likely we are to ever expand beyond its necessary limits.
No, I am obviously not challenging a definition, only observing the feelings of conscience are indistinguishable from social anxiety. If you read other posts, you would know this.
And I have made it very clear that they are distinguishable. I can see where you're coming from though I believe? You are saying that the feeling of anxiety, in a social context, is the same as a feeling of conscience. They share in common what I have already described when I talked about uncertainty I believe? If not I'll go again at least for the sake of better clarity. Our conscience guides us toward clarity and an action taken in "good conscience" (meaning acting in such a way so as to avoid future regret - it may be a "bad act" in the moment, but one that has "good intentions") whereas anxiety is fear driven, and I can see how you could argue that "fear of regret" can be called anxiety, but it is here that I would say we're talking about a very specific part of conscience and that is why it is the "same feeling". The point being is that conscience has a narrower context ruled over by empathy (see above), but social anxiety is only concerned with the isolated individual with the social context framed as if it is a "wild animal" rather than something we interact with. I can certainly understand that lack of conscience (meaning acting without conscience) would lead to acting in fear. This would be comparable to purposeful action in the stead of fear ruled reaction.

I cannot say the feeling of "conscience" and "social anxiety" are the same. I can see perfectly well they are related though. I also find it strange that we're talking about descriptions of feelings and you're saying you're not redefining what they mean only saying the feelings of each are "indistinguishable". That is contrary in my book and why I have repeatedly asked what your motivation is. Of course you don't have to answer and maybe you don't have a motivation other than simple curiosity about how people perceive different terms and chose to deconstruct them.
I dare you to make the argument social anxiety, or conscience is about not knowing what we want, if you can that is (you can't, although please try).
Of course I can and so could anyone, even you (and you have but only by way of hiding behind other vague terminology - as we all must have to to some degree). It is simply a question of framing the meaning within a context where the terms have more obvious borders. I can simply say the opposite and pose that in fact it is about knowing what we want not not knowing what we want. It is the same thing I know, the question is did you realise this? I thought that was pretty clear given that you've just done the very same thing to me in order to avoid establishing what context you were using "morality", "fairness", etc., in.
I also dare to you to make a distinction between what your conscience does and societal rules, i'm referencing your claim to why you wouldn't commit murder. You are the one making incredible claims here, as if you could find a reason for any feeling of conscience divorced from societal rules.
To deal with the first part of the sentence, that is a question I cannot answer and one I find very interesting. The whole nature/nurture intrigue and a necessary distinction made for investigation which is after the matter of fact likely impossible to fully shed as it was part of the process.

As for the latter part I have no idea what you are referring to exactly? I honestly cannot see what "claim" you are referring to. I am damn sure I've made it clear I don't regard the distinction between nature and nurture as anything but a means to make purposeful investigation not as two distinct things. I am born with certain set limitations, and even during my prenatal development I am under the influence of the physical environment. When I come into the larger world beyond the womb I map and orientate about it. I may "feel" divorced form the environment, and have a certain degree of control over my environment, but I am not omnipotent. Regardless I still act with purpose and force rather than following blindly every rule society dictates. If you are suggesting I said I am not shaped by societal rules then you're forcing in that interpretation. The principle point being that societal rules are put in place by people through the nature of what they are, it is a self-perpetuating force and one that keeps humans alive enough to continue to propagate and, hopefully, "improve".
Also, what do you mean we do not think about morality in social situations, that is complete nonsense, as if you go around saying and doing whatever you want, in ignorance of what's deemed moral. Another incredible claim. We always think about the morality of the situation.
My bad! I should've explained this more. In a none social context I don't tend to think about the morality of eating meat, yet I eat meat. This can be applied to the social context too (after all whilst eating meat I am acting within a "social sphere", not hunkering away in a corner gnawing on the bones of a human I've just killed - not lately anyway! :D). So I don't walk into a room full of people and consciously think about the morality of my every action and my every word, we are already doing this automatically, meaning we behave like humans do in a social context because that is how we behave, nothing that is deemed "social normal" is considered in a moral context (unless we're actively discussing morality!), yet if I see people fighting or in heated argument which veers outside the current social context then I will act with fear, or my conscience will supply me with the "good" behavior (in regards to what I personally think is right regardless of the laws of the land - although under the duress of them, as explained above.) In this regard "morality", which you've not defined relative to conscience or social anxiety, would likely straddle the line between them. The conscience is influenced by the society rules yet driven by the personal perspective, personal beilefs and the individuals make-up and experiential history within the given context. We all know rules are useful, but most of us are well aware that sometimes rules must be broken to adhere to our take on the situation. This is where Nietzsche goes into "will".

I guess I am saying here that "conscience", in the grander scheme of language, is "personal morality". Morality is what we frame to be the social acceptable, or normal, behavior. These are usually enforced by societal rules, yet there are no rules in law that say "being bad is illegal" because we have no means of measuring this well so we set the laws around items that we mostly agree with. The law is a living thing we steer and we are a law unto ourselves that collectively steer it (this should be pretty obvious and vastly intriguing.)
The only notable idea mentioned inyour post, are your comments on nature vs nurture. It took me longer than I care to admit, to realize most of this is garbled rambling (much like Nietzsche). Also, just because I quoted one line from Nietzsche, does not mean anything. I've only read one of his books, and the easiest one at that. Also, i've found that any reading of a philosophical book is going to be very tedious, and hard (written purposely this way), and there is no proper place to start (though many would say the Greeks).
Fair enough. You said you're new to philosophy so thought it worth mentioning. Yeah, tedious and hard. But you'll likely find that something you grapple with more than others, for me Nietzsche would seem more to my personal disposition (at least in my head), but I find him quite obtuse - probably because I jumped in head first too quickly. Beyond Good and Evil is much more accessible than Thus Spake for sure.
As I mentioned before we are all socially anxious, but we are not all handicapped by it.
Yeah, but we could just as well say we're all capable of murder, we're all sad, we're all happy, or we're all stupid. If we are all like this or like that in a social context then we're all just "social". Meaning, if being "social anxious" is the norm, then why call it "social anxiety" when we can just say we're all social? I am being a little pedantic here of course! It is a very interesting thing and I guess what has been revealed here, if anything, is how we cannot escape the "social" aspect of our nature/nurture, yet constantly seem to move about and try and make such a distinction (if you get my gist?)

Anyway, like I said, I'd rather not spend so much time going over and over this. I hope we have at least said things here to each other that will help further discussions in other topics.

Thanks for your time

note: If I reply here again it will be MUCH more brief.

-- Updated November 21st, 2017, 5:20 am to add the following --

I would just like to add food for thought in regard to conscience, morality and such ...

We could compare these things to what we can do, what we want to do, what we're allowed to do, and such.

The law, as dictated by society, doesn't tell me what I am allowed to do. It is a standard by which I readily guide my actions. That said we must be able to see that the law is in place due to a common human agreement (albeit one subject to degrees of personal ideologies and tyranny.) The "personal morality" I referred to as being synonymous with "conscience", would be the confliction between the non-written laws of society, accepted behaviours of culture/setting, the actual written laws, and my personal thoughts and positions (If I wanted to murder someone nothing would stop me if my will was strong - at least not stop me from putting my full force of effort to the task! What is allowed means something quite peculiar if you look closely.)
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Atreyu » November 21st, 2017, 8:49 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:You are misrepresenting the position that i've taken in this discussion when you attach disorder to social anxiety. A person can be anxious without having a disorder. And your claim morality is what people create when they don't have a conscience is completely false. If they had no conscience, why would they need to be moral? Laws are not moral guidelines, if that's where you're going next.
Ever notice this feeling of conscience only occurs, when there is a conflict between what you may want and what you've been told is good by society? This feeling of conscience is only the fear of negative judgement, which is the definition of social anxiety I have been using.
You have only managed to say what others have already said, I have a suspicion you don't feel like reading through pages of comments, but you probably should. And no one has so far managed to distinguish between what the conscience does and what makes us socially anxious, which is the fear of being negatively judged. Please don't ignore all of the previous posts and then provide general definitions as though they are the profound words needed to end the thread.
They need to follow a moral code because they don't have a conscience to guide them, that's why.

Their interest in having any moral guidance in the first place is not due to conscience. Some people simply want to know what is 'right' and 'wrong'. That's natural for many people and in and of itself is not conscience. The desire to know 'right' from 'wrong' is not conscience. Conscience is the inherent ability to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Conscience is what tells you what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It's not what motivates you to find out what is 'right' or 'wrong'. What motivates one to seek is the subtle realization that something is missing. And what is missing is conscience.

Conscience is not 'fear of negative judgement'. That is simply what is often falsely called 'conscience' in ordinary conversation. That kind of emotion might be called 'being self-conscious'. It's an ordinary emotion and conscience is not an ordinary emotion, but a special one, like intuition and 'sixth sense'. Conscience is one of the so called 'higher' emotions which give us knowledge, like intuition does ("emotional IQ"). It is not an ordinary emotion like fear or social anxiety which gives no knowledge whatsoever. Conscience, intuition, faith, etc are extraordinary emotions which are not ordinarily experienced, and, like many things which are desirable but very rare in the life of mankind, people like to imagine that they have them, when in fact they do not.

At best, we can only have rare flashes of these kind of 'higher' emotions...

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 450
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Mark1955 » July 5th, 2018, 5:20 pm

Chili wrote:
November 15th, 2017, 10:59 am
The desire to be socially accepted is just another urge from the id, and so social anxiety is much like food anxiety or fight-or-flight reactions.
Got to disagree with this. The id is about survival it's about eating to stay alive not about whether to use the forks from the outside in or not. Society, and any associated social anxiety, is a super-ego thing. It's about moderating your desires to conform, or if you're socially anxious being afraid that however you moderate them you will not be deemed to conform.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6961
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Greta » July 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 5:20 pm
Chili wrote:
November 15th, 2017, 10:59 am
The desire to be socially accepted is just another urge from the id, and so social anxiety is much like food anxiety or fight-or-flight reactions.
Got to disagree with this. The id is about survival it's about eating to stay alive not about whether to use the forks from the outside in or not. Society, and any associated social anxiety, is a super-ego thing. It's about moderating your desires to conform, or if you're socially anxious being afraid that however you moderate them you will not be deemed to conform.
For young people social acceptance and survival are the same thing, especially for those with disabilities. Being undiagnosed HF autistic, I was destroyed at school and never recovered functionality in the long decades since and I remain hampered and damaged by PTSD. Even now, some days I simply cannot bring myself to go out or even make business-related phone calls.

Still, now that I am older and in a position to withdraw, I can safely deprioritise human acceptance. If one is independent and in a position of strength, then acceptance matters less. However, when one is dependent or subject to another's powers then acceptance is a matter of survival.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 450
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Social anxiety

Post by Mark1955 » July 6th, 2018, 4:53 am

Greta wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 5:20 pm
Got to disagree with this. The id is about survival it's about eating to stay alive not about whether to use the forks from the outside in or not. Society, and any associated social anxiety, is a super-ego thing. It's about moderating your desires to conform, or if you're socially anxious being afraid that however you moderate them you will not be deemed to conform.
For young people social acceptance and survival are the same thing, especially for those with disabilities. Being undiagnosed HF autistic, I was destroyed at school and never recovered functionality in the long decades since and I remain hampered and damaged by PTSD. Even now, some days I simply cannot bring myself to go out or even make business-related phone calls.

Still, now that I am older and in a position to withdraw, I can safely deprioritise human acceptance. If one is independent and in a position of strength, then acceptance matters less. However, when one is dependent or subject to another's powers then acceptance is a matter of survival.
I'm sorry about your personal circumstances, but I'd suggest that it's a measure of how far we all are from a genuine need to survive in our comfy modern lives that the concept of social acceptance equating with survival can be considered. Yes young people might think that removing their mobile phones renders them non existent, but that's because there is no real prospect that they won't be able to eat for the next 7 days, will die of hypothermia if it rains tonight, will be killed by some predator if they don't hide effectively overnight. I appreciate that for the minority with an extreme condition the situation is worse. Any comment made about a group has to be a generalisation, which by definition fits almost no one exactly.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Post Reply