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.

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)

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 work 172.193.77.70 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.

Great points^^

Antisocial personality disorder is a totally different thing. People with that problem feel too little anxiety and so are capable of anything (crimes, lifelong patterns of abuse of others and crazy risk-taking). In contrast, people with social anxiety disorder (or AVOIDANT personality disorder) feel too much anxiety and are crippled by it (either behaviorally or in terms of happiness). (Until they get good help, or self-help).

98.245.150.162 ( talk) 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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???

This was a really good artcile until the name was changed from "social anxiety disorder" to "social phobia." I can't understand why wikipedia would change the title to a term that was replaced in 1994. ^[1] (It is now 2009, Wikipedia, as you seem to be unaware.) You are doing the opposite of updating this page. You took a page and actively outdated it. Wikipedia, itself, also uses the term "social anxiety disorder" in other, now more correct, articles ^[2]

The very first reference of THE article is to a page listing off multiple reasons as to why "social anxiety disorder" is now (and has been for a while) the most commonly preferred/accepted term. ^[3] It is a complete contradiction to the article. This makes absolutely no sense. What more do you want? The title, as of now, is outdated and needs to be changed. Kt89x ( talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

• National Institute of Mental Health Government site - trust ok but does not add much content.

• Social Phobia/Social Anxiety Association At their 'mission' page it says "The SP/SAA is in its infancy" and "costs of the Association are being underwritten by the Social Anxiety Institute, Inc. in Phoenix". This appears to be the The Social Anxiety Institute already in the links. I'd say that makes it linkspam.

• 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'.

• Anxiety Disorders Association of America Correct link is http://www.adaa.org/GettingHelp/AnxietyDisorders/SocialPhobia.asp - has very little content - not worth including.

• Social Phobia -From Epidemiology to Brain Function Interesting research thesis but aren't there lots of research papers? Why this one?

• 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.

• Comprehensive list of articles pertaining to social anxiety Big list of articles, but not classified in any way. Looks like the articles are all copied from elsewhere with possible copyright violation. There is no information about who runs the site. Not impressed.

• Social Anxiety Research Clinic New York State Psychatric Institute Looks like they will give you "free treatment" if you let them perform experiments on you. Adds nothing to this site.

These there are discussion forums:

• Social Anxiety Support
• Social Phobia World
• UK Social Anxiety Forum

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)

Hi, I'd like to petition for my site www.socialanxietysupportchat.com to be added as a resource. The site is non profit, has no ads, and is definitely a respectable resource for those that suffer from Social Anxiety. I've spent time building the site up so that it looks professional and is accomodating to anyone that wants to join. Please take a look at my site or come visit, and you will see it's a great place for those that suffer with SAD. The room is modded very closely and we have a bunch of great people in the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.21.254 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has responded to my inquiry and I don't see any reason why my chat can't be added as a resource, so I'm going to ahead and add it. The site is non profit and has no ads and is a good resource for social anxiety so I don't really see why you would take it down. I understand that it wouldn't fit under an external link because it is not informational, but it is certainly an interactive resource that people can use. And I see no reason why other outlets such as message boards, and other chats can't be added here as long as they are documented, contain information about themselves, and are professional and of a high quality (like my chat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.21.254 ( talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Gflor e s ^Talk 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Gflor e s ^Talk 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)

"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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps, but what motivates the extreme avoidance if not anxiety? 68.37.138.139 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hello. Just writing to suggest a possible link for this page. www.socialanxietyassist.com.au Shyness And Social Anxiety Treatment Australia Information on social anxiety, blushing, sweating, public speaking anxiety, children and social anxiety, treatment options, famous sufferers and more Thankyou for considering this request 59.167.89.244 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article does not "feel" or read like a standard Wikipedia article. Specifically, "The remainder of this article concerns the diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (social phobia) rather than social anxiety in general." should not appear, ever, in a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.229.55 ( talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is clearly two different articles, and there's no reason to have them both here. I propose these solutions:

1. move everything beyond the first paragraph to "Social anxiety disorder" and keep the first paragraph here to be developed into its own article or merged with another article if appropriate.

2. remove the first paragraph entirely and rename this page "Social anxiety disorder". Ziiv ( talk) 05:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct suggestion. Otherwise there is permanent danger of conflating the two notions. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Social Phobia, Social Anxiety and Social Anxiety Disorder are all the same illness. Social Anxiety is just short for Social Anxiety Disorder. Why do you have a wiki page for social anxiety separate from Social Phobia? The Social Anxiety page should be redirected because there is enough confusion about social anxiety as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.99.190 ( talk) 10:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Social Anxiety Disorder is a recognized mental illness with specific definitions. Social Phobia is the phenomena in general outside the context of a specific mental disorder. Ziiv ( talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Social Anxiety disorder and Social Phobia are the same thing. One term is just more current than the other. Google it and every link will tell you it's the same thing. Did you social anxiety is the phenomena is general without a disorder? That might be a little less incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.181.66 ( talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

sufferers may deliberate over what could go wrong and how to deal with each unexpected case

'each possible case' ?

Hello, I have been the guy that has been posting links to my social anxiety chat room (www.socialanxietysupportchat.com) in the external links section. I realize that just posting the links without clearing it here first was the wrong way to go about things, so I apologize for that, I haven't ever edited a wiki page before. I want to plead my case though to have a resources section where links to chatrooms, discussion boards and myspace style sites for social anxiety can be posted. I think as a page involved in the wikipsychology project, it is important to include these links which will allow those afflicted to meet other similarly afflicted people to discuss experiences and gain further knowledge on the subject at hand. All of the sites that I'm thinking of are non profit and exist solely for the purpose of benefitting those with social anxiety / social phobia. You have to remember that this page is the first page that comes up on Google when people search for social anxiety / social phobia, so it is going to reach a lot of people so I think it's important to have this information available. Here are some of the sites I'm thinking of:

www.socialanxietysupportchat.com - this is my chat site.
www.sahideout.com - this is another SA chat site.
www.socialphobiaworld.com - a social anxiety / social phobia message board with over 10,000 users.
www.anxietytribe.com - a myspace style profile site for those that suffer with anxiety disorders.

I want to hear peoples feedback on this, so please tell me what you think. Feel free to send me a private message to my talk page. Thanks. Riverafan42 ( talk) 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverafan42 ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 07:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. People suffering from social phobia need social support too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.11.131 ( talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy/guideline is Wikipedia:External links. Can you tell us if they comply ? Even if they don't I'd like to see the least commercial listed as a public good, for precisely the reason you state - Wikipedia is highly rated by search engines. WP does allow such exceptions. Great site btw, even if it does use Active X which means I may be missing some of it. It would be helpful to indicate, as you have done, the nationality makeup as, in the UK at least, much of the problem is getting support on the NHS. 212.84.106.19 ( talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I've just noticed that it has been dmozed so forget what I said. This is sensible and it delegates decsions to the dmoz editors. dmoz has looser criteria than WP, allowing chatrooms forums and the like which is good. You need to add the sites here - [1] (and perhaps suggest thet they give a rough nationality breakdown to help users for the reasons I gave above). 212.84.106.19 ( talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But why do we post the link to dmoz which basically is a list of links instead of just posting links on this page? Why don't we seperate the links into two categories: informational and resources. Informational can include sites that are not interactive and that provide background on what social anxiety actually is, resources can be interactive sites such as message boards and chats. We're basically ignoring the better aspects of wikipedia by posting this dmoz link and letting them do all the deciding for us. Who even decides what dmoz links get posted and what don't? I think we should decide what we want to put on this page ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverafan42 ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Even DMOZ shouldn't be allowed as they have hardly updated in 2 years are are now owned by Time/Warner/AOL. Thunder2k ( talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is very common for sufferers of social phobia to self-medicate in this fashion, especially if they are undiagnosed and/or untreated. This sort of self-medicating behavior is usually always counter productive to the sufferer, as many illicit drugs and alcohol are depressants and only make the problem worse."

I agree that self-medication probably does make the problem worse, but how is it relevant that these substances are depressants? The fact that they depress the CNS does not unto itself seem relevant. 99.224.253.8 ( talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Only makes sense to bring up CNS depressants in the context that they're more relaxing than say, a hit of crack. But in terms of it worsening the problem, it is completely irrelevant. Actually if you want to go into acute worsening, let's talk about stimulants. -- 70.59.145.128 ( talk) 04:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the article:

is a diagnosis within psychiatry and other mental health professions referring to excessive social anxiety (anxiety in social situations)

Where did this info come from please? I've never seen that statement anywhere but here in 10 years of study. Thunder2k ( talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Added a citation from Webmd to an article stating that -- JustinMullins ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When someone knows that there is an intentional suppression, and tries to ponder over the situation- can that be called social anxiety disorder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.106.128 ( talk) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The commonly preferred term is "Social Anxiety Disorder" and not "social phobia" as stated in your first source. The title shouldn't have been changed. ^[4]

It seems most editors agree that the article be moved back to it's original name in their discussion Shyness, Social Anxiety, and Disorder/Phobia. Unfortunately, it's not possible to simply move it, because the name was used previously so we have to go through the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —  Deon Steyn ( talk) 07:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion that is years old is not convincing. JPG-GR ( talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in public isn't so bad, because it is a controlled situation. Speeches can be prepared before hand and rehearsed so that the words are same when you practice alone or actually give it with people watching. 1 on 1 conversations are a hundred times worse, because they are unpredictable and there is a pressure to have something to say without letting the conversation go dead. Also, the other people are judging you based on your eye contact, mannerisms and so on.. I can reread Email, letters and speeches to make sure I'm not saying anything stupid. In a conversation you only have a second to respond, before you are left stuttering with nothing to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.120.190 ( talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There had been (until 2 days ago) a section in this article titled "Notable sufferers" which contained a list of people (several professional athletes and a musician) reported to be sufferers of this disorder. That section was recently deleted [2] for being "unreferenced" (presumably this is a WP:BLP issue). All of the people in the list, however, have wikipedia biographies, and each of those articles includes a claim that the person is a sufferer of Social anxiety disorder (and all but one of those articles include an external reference for the claim).

Rather than adding this back in to this article, I would like instead to open a discussion about having a "Notable sufferers" section. What are the pros and cons? I can see various possibilities for action:

• (a) no further action (leave as is, with the Notable sufferers section deleted)
• (b) revert deletion of the section and its contents (so that notable sufferers are again listed)
• (c) revert the deletion, but with the addition of an external reference for each person listed
• (d) link to the various biographies in the "See also" section, instead of explicitly listing them as sufferers

From my point of view, (a) would be the default, and I think (b) is problematic in that it invites further additions to the list for which a reference may not exist. Possibilities (c) and (d) are better but both possibly add material that may not actually strengthen the article. Soiregistered ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism from the Mother Jones(a left-wing magazine) article is highly political and unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.160.152 ( talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the section on nutraceuticals as a form of treatment.

"Many people choose to self-medicate using legally available nutritional supplements. One such supplement believed to benefit sufferers of social anxiety is L-tryptophan"

There is no reference for the "many people", so I think that the information content of this statement is nil. The research article that is linked to which purportedly provides evidence of the efficacity of this treatment was a pilot study with seven subjects. Jimjamjak ( talk) 09:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint ( Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the claim that "it is very common for sufferers of social phobia to self-medicate" using alcohol or other drugs should be deleted as it is vague (how common is "very common"?) and unsubstantiated, and appears to contradict the previous statement that only "some sufferers" self-medicate in this way. At the very least, it needs a reference. Marsoult ( talk) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I took out the word "very" for the moment, pending sourcing for incidence of substance misuse in social phobia. I am not sure who added that but it is original research and needs a source I agree.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised to see no mention of medicating with cannabis here, although I suppose there's no published studies on the significance / correlation / or science of it. Anyone know? I've heard differing accounts of the ability to help or worsen the effects of SAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.67.254 ( talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of articles showing that many people with social anxiety disorder use cannabis. There are also a few studies that found cannabis can be effectively used as a treatment for social anxiety disorder. However, it seems that this research is in its early stages, so I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to include it. Ermacora ( talk) 06:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For someone (who knows the subject matter) to do:

RE: the paragraph beginning with "In a 1995 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the SSRI paroxetine....":

Seems like this is an inappropriate amount of detail. Maybe move those details to a "paroxetine" article, and replace this paragraph with a single sentence that summarizes the information in the paragraph. Hyperlink the term "paroxetine" to the appropriate page (where the detailed info is presented).

philiptdotcom ( talk) 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had social phobia for maybe a year now, though I haven't been diagnosed with it yet. I am 13 years old. For a year now, I'm been plagued by constant swallowing. It's embarassing! I swallow between every 1 and 5 minutes, meaning that I swallow 250 times per school day. So should we add swallowing to the list of symptoms? I don't have any studies or research to prove it though. Y'all are going to have to help me, if you can. 99.22.169.184 ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not qualified, but I would regard swallowing every minute as normal, since we all salivate continuously. Now if you were unable to swallow, and dribbled continuously, then that would be embarrassing. Perhaps you should seek help with the embarrassment, rather than the swallowing ? Google [normal swallow day] suggests 580-2000 swallows per day is normal.-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 04:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"It is a rather extreme form of social phobia (SP), although the latter is sometimes treated synonymously.[1]"

There are three problems with this sentence I think. First, I have never seen a source that says SAD is an extreme form of SP. They are usually synonymous. Second, the citation is bad and does not say anything about what this sentence says. Three, the terms are treated the same, and they are the same disorder (and thus treated the same), but the word "treated" here is ambiguous. Consider revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.40.100 ( talk) 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cite 14 is worded to suggest kava may be dangerous. The study cited specifically concludes the opposite -- that no toxic effects were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.202.103 ( talk) 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We need secondary sources. I have removed the prevention section as it was based on two primary sources and the first sentence was unfounded. [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Source for "SAD is sometimes referred to as an 'illness of lost opportunities'." does not appear to be best Wikipedia:RS. It looks like a business that is selling a gel to reduce sweating. Changed to a more RS: Stein MB, Gorman JM. Unmasking social anxiety disorder. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 2001; 26(3): 185-9 Eturk001 ( talk) 18:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to add some inputs in the document because i felt like it lacked some statistical facts. In order for the document to be more reliable there must be some hard facts. By doing so, the individuals are able to better understand the pint you're trying to make. Though there was some important points that was previously made about Social anxiety disorder, i feel as if the Statistical facts that i input will make it more accurate and more relate-able. Many times i read articles on Wikipedia i have a hard time believing them because there are no facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagenor ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Source # 55 is to a website that is selling a self help book. It has no scientific basis. "A long-accepted evolutionary explanation of anxiety is that it reflects an in-built 'fight or flight' system, which errs on the side of safety. The symptoms of anxiety are a clear indication that this is the case.[55]" Long accepted? By who? 204.124.208.253 ( talk) 20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed. Reference #55 now goes to an article called "Social skills deficits among the socially anxious: Rejection from others and loneliness" by Chris Segrin and Terry Kinney1 (2005) in a journal called Motivation and Emotion. A search for "evolutionary" in the article returns no results. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 00:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)