This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Phobia is many times defined as an irrational fear. So what is the correct term for a rational fear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianKarlsson.se ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this section is largely non-neutral. Usage of "phobia" under the guise of "a neutral negativity" is frequently used as a way of name-calling and head-gaming. For example, "homophobia" is often asserted to be a neutral term (as suggested in this section), but for those labeled with the term it seems more like thinly-disguised name-calling (the homophobia article itself recognizes this controversy). That is, when used this way, "phobia" allows the user to essentially get away with calling someone "irrational" and "fearful" for simply holding a less-than-fully-supportive perspective, regardless of the rationale. Thus, legitimizing the use of "phobia" as "a neutral negativity" here in this section is non-neutral because is promotes name-calling and bullying under the guise of neutrality.
This idea may be difficult to see, especially when the user of "phobia" in this way has him/herself suffered historically from overt name-calling. However the "covertness" of name-calling in this way does not make it neutral, it simply makes it "covert", a head game, still non-neutral. Here's another example which may be more obvious: In the southern U.S., prior to the 1960's or so, some terms for blacks were perceived as neutral by the users of the terms, but they were not neutral terms. "Plausible deny-ability" makes the name-calling plausibly neutral, but not actually neutral.
I know this is a hot issue. I will wait for comment before making changes. I may simply add words suggesting that the usage in this way, while possibly intended to be neutral by the user, can sometimes be intended as a "name-calling-under-the-guise-of-neutrality", or words to those effect.
108.7.7.6 ( talk) 18:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a psychology undergraduate at UC Berkeley and have taken an interest in the renovation of this page. Because of this page's importance, I feel its neglect doesn't do the field of psychology justice so if you would like to collaborate with me join me! Gorozco1 ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
1. Areas involved a. Amygdala b. Lef insula c. Anterior cingulate cortex (or other cortexes-- medial prefrontal, extrastriate visual) d. Hippocampus 2. Neural circuit of fear a. Auditory info--> Basolateral region (amygdala)--> Central nucleus--> Cerebral cortex, Hypothalamus, and Gray matter 3. Activation of amygdala a. How stimuli activates it and releases hormones i. Types of stimuli ii. Types of hormones b. Hormone effect on body response i. Sympathetic nervous system-- Fight or flight response c. Conditioning of amygdala to threatening stimuli i.Disrupted by damage ii. What happens when stimulated iii. Neurons learn to respond to stimuli assoc. with fear
Our article will be focusing on the neuroscience of phobia, specifically the brain regions involved during fear. The outline consists of three main sections, the first being a discussion on the general brain structures and regions involved in fear acquisition. The second section shows the network of these structures and details how sensory information comes into the brain, is processed, and results in a fear response. The third section is specifically focused on the amygdala and the role it plays in phobic responses. This details how it responds to stimuli, the hormones involved, and the behavioral responses that occur when this area is damaged or lesioned. Hpilla15 ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion and the link! Hpilla15 ( talk) 16:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Neuropsychprof ( talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Hpilla15 ( talk) 20:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Smallman12q ( talk) 22:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
VWBeetle23 ( talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
sbenduha ( talk) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hpilla15 and Schandler91! Thank you both for your contributions to the Neurobiology section. It would be really nice if you could take your Wikipedia editing one step further and integrate what was written before with the text that you have added. Because at this moment they are like two separate parts... With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Aalwaraqi ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Tturner4411 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It is very understanding to read, but should be broken up more to explain the results afterwards. You guys show a great deal of information making it easy to read. I enjoyed reading this article and learning so much more information apart from our class. ilsetap08 Ilsetap08 ( talk) 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the organization of the article. You guys did a good job with that. Make sure to check your grammar though, it could stand to be improved. It was a very easy to read article and I think that is very important, great job there. Make sure to explain the results more afterwards. I really enjoyed reading the neurobiology section of this article and I think you guys did a great job. With a few minor adjustments this article is going to look great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.20.25 ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Great organization with the article guys. You guys did an amazing job with giving the background of what a phobia is and what causes them and all that jazz. The only thing I would say to add is like different type of phobias. Like add a list of phobias like near the end of the page. I mean that is just a minor thing I don't know if it needs to be added but it seems like it wold be nice. The Diagnosis section was well written and really enjoyed that. Everything seems to be fine and awesome so that is good, great grammar and spelling. keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolazSalinas ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You're doing a really nice job adding to this Neurobiology section. Keep up the good work! Neuropsychprof ( talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your suggestions! While we tried to incorporate as much of the suggested changes as possible, here is the gist of what we focused on editing:
- Add more wikilinks and shorten the introduction of brain components
- Grammatical errors, rewording of sentences
- Flow in previous writing in the section to our contributions
- Delete unnecessary information or off topic information
- Include discussion of HPA Axis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.27 ( talk) 18:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as organizing the sections, there were several different suggestions, so we were unable to implement everyone’s comments. However, we did organize our section around the basic outline of:
1. Brain regions involved
2. What they do in relation to phobia
3. A closer look at the amygdala
4. What happens when these areas are damaged
The only changes we have yet to make are in relation to the Disruption by Damage section. While it was advised by the instructor to integrate this info to the section above, we found it difficult to keep our sections organized according to the outline by rearranging the section. We wanted to put all information in relation to lesions and damage in the last paragraph, so we can first present how the brain regions work, and then what happens when they’re damaged. Thank you for all your helpful advice!
Hpilla15 ( talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The intro contains the following sentence: "Proximity and the degree to which escape from the phobic stimulus should also be considered." It seems to be missing some bits; possibly it should be "...to which escape is impossible..." or "...to which escape is possible..." or something. I'm not actually certain what the content here should be, but it does need attention. Kierkkadon ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I'll be adding a new section on hypnosis since is now being often use to cure or help phobias. I'll be using reliable resources. Below is my bibliography: David Goode. (undefined). Hypnotherapy-Service. In Phobias and Fears. Retrieved Feburary 18, 2013, from http://www.hypnotherapy-services.com/downloads/Fears_and_phobias.pdf. Kraft, D. (2010). THE PLACE OF HYPNOSIS IN PSYCHIATRY, PART 4: ITS APPLICATION TO THE TREATMENT OF AGORAPHOBIA AND SOCIAL PHOBIA. Australian Journal Of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 38(2), 91-110. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I found a good source on the incidence of phobias at [1]. I don't have time to incorporate it into the article at the moment but wanted to add the source here. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright thank you very much for your input..this source would be a good addition to my section of hypnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has just seen massive new edits that, as far as I can tell, are mainly concerned with describing rather obscure ideas that come from a researcher named H. N. Levinson. My view, I'm afraid, is that these edits give greatly undue weight to ideas that have achieved minor notability at best, and probably will need to be reverted. Looie496 ( talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
When searching a phobia, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN IMAGE OF THE PHOBIA!!! There are probably plenty floating around on the net. People who have phobias who come searching for it to see what triggers it get b,asked with a face full of it as they browse the page. Come on. Won't a description simply suffice? 120.148.168.247 ( talk) 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC) (Extreme arachnophobic and trypophobic. If you don't know what it is, search up an image of it. You'll be delighted.)
The first sentence of this article is a little bit of a mess:
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.
1. The clause "when used in the context of clinical psychology" is a little clumsy and breaks up the sentence. Why can't we just say "A phobia . . . is a term in clinical psychology"? I assume the author wished to avoid the implication that it is only a clinical psychology term. But since the entire article is about the term as used in clinical psychology, I don't think it would be a problem to begin that way.
2. "persistent fear of an object or situation in which . . ."--What is the antecedent of the word which in this clause? Is it fear or is it object or situation? Neither one seems grammatically consistent with the rest of the sentence.
3. " . . . in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ." In avoiding what? The transitive verb "avoiding" requires an object. My intuition is that the intended object was the which earlier in the sentence. This would have the meaning: "The sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding [the object or situation]", which is sensible and comprehensible, but it is not a possible parsing of the sentence as written. If this is indeed the intended meaning, it should read: ". . . an object or situation which [not in which] the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ."
4. The last phrase: ". . . often being recognized as irrational." What is recognized as irrational? (The fear? The avoidance? The actual danger posed? The sufferer? The great lengths?) Also, by whom is it recognized as irrational? (By the sufferer? By the general population? By clinical psychologists?) (The sentence can be read to mean that it's only a phobia if the sufferer him/herself recognizes its irrationality. To an outsider like me, knowing little about clinical psychology, that is a plausible and conceivable reading. But I don't know if it's what is intended. It could equally well mean that everyone but the sufferer recognizes the irrationality of the phobia.)
I propose the following re-written sentence:
Phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is a term in clinical psychology for a type of anxiety disorder. It is usually defined as a persistent fear, recognized [by the sufferer?] as irrational, of some object or situation which the sufferer takes great lengths to avoid, typically out of proportion to the actual danger. Chalkieperfect ( talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with access to reliable sources add some statistical information on which sorts of phobias are particularly common? -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth ( talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This section is completely unreferenced and uses a clinical term in a non-clinical way to justify insulting people who oppose some of the lifestyles listed here. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! I was looking over the clinical section under classification and I realized that it could be updated. The information is using the DSM-IV and with the DSM-V being recently released, some of the information has changed. It's very important to keep up with this because many psychological definitions can change from one manual to the next. These are my proposed edits (I didn't change the agoraphobia section, except for changing the numbering. I copied the rest of the paragraph):
Most phobias are classified into two categories and, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM-V), such phobias are considered to be sub-types of anxiety disorder. The two categories are:
1. Specific phobias: Fear of particular objects or social situations that immediately results in anxiety and can sometimes lead to panic attacks. Specific phobia may be further subdivided into five categories: animal type, natural environment type, situational type, blood-injection-injury type, and other. [1]
2. Agoraphobia: a generalized fear of leaving home or a small familiar 'safe' area, and of possible panic attacks that might follow. It may also be caused by various specific phobias such as fear of open spaces, social embarrassment (social agoraphobia), fear of contamination (fear of germs, possibly complicated by obsessive-compulsive disorder) or PTSD ( post traumatic stress disorder) related to a trauma that occurred out of doors. S.koltun ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Another method that is used in the treatment of a phobia is systematic desensitization, a process in which the patients seeking help slowly become accustomed to their phobia, and ultimately overcome it. For example, a woman who is afraid of snakes could start the process by looking at pictures of snakes, transition to videos of snakes, then possibly to seeing snakes in a cage, touching the snake, and then finally being able to hold it without fear. [1] Melissadinkin ( talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)MelissaDinkin
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I heard that it's important for people to be in charge of their desensitisation therapy (ie go into the therapy with all relevant information and consent to do it) - is that in the book?
Knittea (
talk) 10:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Phobia: greek (fovia): lack of definite aperture/focal point/focus stability reference.
Claustrophobia and agoraphobia are in reality not phobias at all, but space-time, position, differencial reference focal point asimetries, which lead to balance desquilibriums. These experienced desquilibriums are taken up in PLL reference to be non-wanted (survival mode), within the context of overal events, and actively NOT sought out. When the neuronal threshold firing level of a detect event is set to high, then that becomes debilitating in interaction.
Many phobias are defacto survival drives, but outside of the stability criterea of usefullness in context, EXCEPT, if there IS a definite focal asimetry, such a those found in far and nearsightedness, at which point they are not debilitating, but actively in direct relation to personal survivalbility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.8.124 ( talk) 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Phobia is many times defined as an irrational fear. So what is the correct term for a rational fear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianKarlsson.se ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this section is largely non-neutral. Usage of "phobia" under the guise of "a neutral negativity" is frequently used as a way of name-calling and head-gaming. For example, "homophobia" is often asserted to be a neutral term (as suggested in this section), but for those labeled with the term it seems more like thinly-disguised name-calling (the homophobia article itself recognizes this controversy). That is, when used this way, "phobia" allows the user to essentially get away with calling someone "irrational" and "fearful" for simply holding a less-than-fully-supportive perspective, regardless of the rationale. Thus, legitimizing the use of "phobia" as "a neutral negativity" here in this section is non-neutral because is promotes name-calling and bullying under the guise of neutrality.
This idea may be difficult to see, especially when the user of "phobia" in this way has him/herself suffered historically from overt name-calling. However the "covertness" of name-calling in this way does not make it neutral, it simply makes it "covert", a head game, still non-neutral. Here's another example which may be more obvious: In the southern U.S., prior to the 1960's or so, some terms for blacks were perceived as neutral by the users of the terms, but they were not neutral terms. "Plausible deny-ability" makes the name-calling plausibly neutral, but not actually neutral.
I know this is a hot issue. I will wait for comment before making changes. I may simply add words suggesting that the usage in this way, while possibly intended to be neutral by the user, can sometimes be intended as a "name-calling-under-the-guise-of-neutrality", or words to those effect.
108.7.7.6 ( talk) 18:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a psychology undergraduate at UC Berkeley and have taken an interest in the renovation of this page. Because of this page's importance, I feel its neglect doesn't do the field of psychology justice so if you would like to collaborate with me join me! Gorozco1 ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
1. Areas involved a. Amygdala b. Lef insula c. Anterior cingulate cortex (or other cortexes-- medial prefrontal, extrastriate visual) d. Hippocampus 2. Neural circuit of fear a. Auditory info--> Basolateral region (amygdala)--> Central nucleus--> Cerebral cortex, Hypothalamus, and Gray matter 3. Activation of amygdala a. How stimuli activates it and releases hormones i. Types of stimuli ii. Types of hormones b. Hormone effect on body response i. Sympathetic nervous system-- Fight or flight response c. Conditioning of amygdala to threatening stimuli i.Disrupted by damage ii. What happens when stimulated iii. Neurons learn to respond to stimuli assoc. with fear
Our article will be focusing on the neuroscience of phobia, specifically the brain regions involved during fear. The outline consists of three main sections, the first being a discussion on the general brain structures and regions involved in fear acquisition. The second section shows the network of these structures and details how sensory information comes into the brain, is processed, and results in a fear response. The third section is specifically focused on the amygdala and the role it plays in phobic responses. This details how it responds to stimuli, the hormones involved, and the behavioral responses that occur when this area is damaged or lesioned. Hpilla15 ( talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion and the link! Hpilla15 ( talk) 16:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Neuropsychprof ( talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Hpilla15 ( talk) 20:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Smallman12q ( talk) 22:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
VWBeetle23 ( talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
sbenduha ( talk) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hpilla15 and Schandler91! Thank you both for your contributions to the Neurobiology section. It would be really nice if you could take your Wikipedia editing one step further and integrate what was written before with the text that you have added. Because at this moment they are like two separate parts... With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Aalwaraqi ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Tturner4411 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It is very understanding to read, but should be broken up more to explain the results afterwards. You guys show a great deal of information making it easy to read. I enjoyed reading this article and learning so much more information apart from our class. ilsetap08 Ilsetap08 ( talk) 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the organization of the article. You guys did a good job with that. Make sure to check your grammar though, it could stand to be improved. It was a very easy to read article and I think that is very important, great job there. Make sure to explain the results more afterwards. I really enjoyed reading the neurobiology section of this article and I think you guys did a great job. With a few minor adjustments this article is going to look great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.20.25 ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Great organization with the article guys. You guys did an amazing job with giving the background of what a phobia is and what causes them and all that jazz. The only thing I would say to add is like different type of phobias. Like add a list of phobias like near the end of the page. I mean that is just a minor thing I don't know if it needs to be added but it seems like it wold be nice. The Diagnosis section was well written and really enjoyed that. Everything seems to be fine and awesome so that is good, great grammar and spelling. keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolazSalinas ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You're doing a really nice job adding to this Neurobiology section. Keep up the good work! Neuropsychprof ( talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your suggestions! While we tried to incorporate as much of the suggested changes as possible, here is the gist of what we focused on editing:
- Add more wikilinks and shorten the introduction of brain components
- Grammatical errors, rewording of sentences
- Flow in previous writing in the section to our contributions
- Delete unnecessary information or off topic information
- Include discussion of HPA Axis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.27 ( talk) 18:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as organizing the sections, there were several different suggestions, so we were unable to implement everyone’s comments. However, we did organize our section around the basic outline of:
1. Brain regions involved
2. What they do in relation to phobia
3. A closer look at the amygdala
4. What happens when these areas are damaged
The only changes we have yet to make are in relation to the Disruption by Damage section. While it was advised by the instructor to integrate this info to the section above, we found it difficult to keep our sections organized according to the outline by rearranging the section. We wanted to put all information in relation to lesions and damage in the last paragraph, so we can first present how the brain regions work, and then what happens when they’re damaged. Thank you for all your helpful advice!
Hpilla15 ( talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The intro contains the following sentence: "Proximity and the degree to which escape from the phobic stimulus should also be considered." It seems to be missing some bits; possibly it should be "...to which escape is impossible..." or "...to which escape is possible..." or something. I'm not actually certain what the content here should be, but it does need attention. Kierkkadon ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I'll be adding a new section on hypnosis since is now being often use to cure or help phobias. I'll be using reliable resources. Below is my bibliography: David Goode. (undefined). Hypnotherapy-Service. In Phobias and Fears. Retrieved Feburary 18, 2013, from http://www.hypnotherapy-services.com/downloads/Fears_and_phobias.pdf. Kraft, D. (2010). THE PLACE OF HYPNOSIS IN PSYCHIATRY, PART 4: ITS APPLICATION TO THE TREATMENT OF AGORAPHOBIA AND SOCIAL PHOBIA. Australian Journal Of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 38(2), 91-110. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I found a good source on the incidence of phobias at [1]. I don't have time to incorporate it into the article at the moment but wanted to add the source here. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright thank you very much for your input..this source would be a good addition to my section of hypnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has just seen massive new edits that, as far as I can tell, are mainly concerned with describing rather obscure ideas that come from a researcher named H. N. Levinson. My view, I'm afraid, is that these edits give greatly undue weight to ideas that have achieved minor notability at best, and probably will need to be reverted. Looie496 ( talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
When searching a phobia, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN IMAGE OF THE PHOBIA!!! There are probably plenty floating around on the net. People who have phobias who come searching for it to see what triggers it get b,asked with a face full of it as they browse the page. Come on. Won't a description simply suffice? 120.148.168.247 ( talk) 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC) (Extreme arachnophobic and trypophobic. If you don't know what it is, search up an image of it. You'll be delighted.)
The first sentence of this article is a little bit of a mess:
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.
1. The clause "when used in the context of clinical psychology" is a little clumsy and breaks up the sentence. Why can't we just say "A phobia . . . is a term in clinical psychology"? I assume the author wished to avoid the implication that it is only a clinical psychology term. But since the entire article is about the term as used in clinical psychology, I don't think it would be a problem to begin that way.
2. "persistent fear of an object or situation in which . . ."--What is the antecedent of the word which in this clause? Is it fear or is it object or situation? Neither one seems grammatically consistent with the rest of the sentence.
3. " . . . in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ." In avoiding what? The transitive verb "avoiding" requires an object. My intuition is that the intended object was the which earlier in the sentence. This would have the meaning: "The sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding [the object or situation]", which is sensible and comprehensible, but it is not a possible parsing of the sentence as written. If this is indeed the intended meaning, it should read: ". . . an object or situation which [not in which] the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ."
4. The last phrase: ". . . often being recognized as irrational." What is recognized as irrational? (The fear? The avoidance? The actual danger posed? The sufferer? The great lengths?) Also, by whom is it recognized as irrational? (By the sufferer? By the general population? By clinical psychologists?) (The sentence can be read to mean that it's only a phobia if the sufferer him/herself recognizes its irrationality. To an outsider like me, knowing little about clinical psychology, that is a plausible and conceivable reading. But I don't know if it's what is intended. It could equally well mean that everyone but the sufferer recognizes the irrationality of the phobia.)
I propose the following re-written sentence:
Phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is a term in clinical psychology for a type of anxiety disorder. It is usually defined as a persistent fear, recognized [by the sufferer?] as irrational, of some object or situation which the sufferer takes great lengths to avoid, typically out of proportion to the actual danger. Chalkieperfect ( talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with access to reliable sources add some statistical information on which sorts of phobias are particularly common? -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth ( talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This section is completely unreferenced and uses a clinical term in a non-clinical way to justify insulting people who oppose some of the lifestyles listed here. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello all! I was looking over the clinical section under classification and I realized that it could be updated. The information is using the DSM-IV and with the DSM-V being recently released, some of the information has changed. It's very important to keep up with this because many psychological definitions can change from one manual to the next. These are my proposed edits (I didn't change the agoraphobia section, except for changing the numbering. I copied the rest of the paragraph):
Most phobias are classified into two categories and, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM-V), such phobias are considered to be sub-types of anxiety disorder. The two categories are:
1. Specific phobias: Fear of particular objects or social situations that immediately results in anxiety and can sometimes lead to panic attacks. Specific phobia may be further subdivided into five categories: animal type, natural environment type, situational type, blood-injection-injury type, and other. [1]
2. Agoraphobia: a generalized fear of leaving home or a small familiar 'safe' area, and of possible panic attacks that might follow. It may also be caused by various specific phobias such as fear of open spaces, social embarrassment (social agoraphobia), fear of contamination (fear of germs, possibly complicated by obsessive-compulsive disorder) or PTSD ( post traumatic stress disorder) related to a trauma that occurred out of doors. S.koltun ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Another method that is used in the treatment of a phobia is systematic desensitization, a process in which the patients seeking help slowly become accustomed to their phobia, and ultimately overcome it. For example, a woman who is afraid of snakes could start the process by looking at pictures of snakes, transition to videos of snakes, then possibly to seeing snakes in a cage, touching the snake, and then finally being able to hold it without fear. [1] Melissadinkin ( talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)MelissaDinkin
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I heard that it's important for people to be in charge of their desensitisation therapy (ie go into the therapy with all relevant information and consent to do it) - is that in the book?
Knittea (
talk) 10:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Phobia: greek (fovia): lack of definite aperture/focal point/focus stability reference.
Claustrophobia and agoraphobia are in reality not phobias at all, but space-time, position, differencial reference focal point asimetries, which lead to balance desquilibriums. These experienced desquilibriums are taken up in PLL reference to be non-wanted (survival mode), within the context of overal events, and actively NOT sought out. When the neuronal threshold firing level of a detect event is set to high, then that becomes debilitating in interaction.
Many phobias are defacto survival drives, but outside of the stability criterea of usefullness in context, EXCEPT, if there IS a definite focal asimetry, such a those found in far and nearsightedness, at which point they are not debilitating, but actively in direct relation to personal survivalbility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.8.124 ( talk) 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)