Social anxiety and teleology; isn't this turning into an infinite nesting doll?

The feared outcome is not the result itself. Social phobias frequently emerge from prolonged periods of isolation and a subsequent loss of ability to navigate social situations with composure. This often leads to a tendency to avoid such situations entirely. The anxiety experienced by individuals with social phobias frequently pertains to the initiation of social interactions and the subsequent ability to discern and interpret the evaluations of others during these interactions.

The impact of childhood trauma on an individual's life can be significant, yet the extent of this impact varies considerably between individuals.

Some individuals undergo a lifelong process of healing from the traumas of their childhood.

Some individuals are able to achieve a state of lifelong healing as a result of their childhood experiences.

Some individuals elect to seclude themselves as a result of the adversities they endured during their formative years.

Some individuals elect to assist others in light of past traumas.

Human beings are a peculiar species. They exist simultaneously within the context of social relationships and as autonomous entities with a unified perspective. Consequently, any given phenomenon may yield an infinite number of outcomes.

Psychology is not a mathematical problem that can be solved by applying a formula. The search for psychological problems is a joint process, and the choice of treatment school, theory, or counselor is a process of continuous trial and error.

Consequently, it is not feasible for two distinct theories to coexist within the same patient context, nor can an infinite series of nested theories be postulated.

Indeed, psychological counseling is an ongoing process of mutual growth and discovery. It entails the continual pursuit of one or more schools of thought, theories, and methodologies to ascertain the most accurate and applicable understanding of the subject matter.

It is erroneous to assume that a specific theory or practitioner will invariably result in a cure for the patient.

The entire process of psychological counseling is characterized by a multitude of unstable factors. It can be described as a process of exploration and a process of labeling and drawing conclusions.

Every individual is unique. The same event, at different times and with different mental health literacy, will elicit a variety of reactions. Consequently, each theory and school of thought has only proposed a relatively universal formula in the course of their own practice. This is not intended to be applied in its entirety. Instead, it is through the iterative process of practice that we can identify a theory that suits the patient and develop consulting skills that suit us.

Dear questioner, I'm Peilü.

I'd be happy to discuss this topic with you.

From what you've said, I get the impression you're a friend who enjoys thinking things through and sharing ideas.

Just to give you my personal views on this.

Your question has a main focus with two areas involved:

One area to focus on is social phobia.

There are two main areas: 1. Philosophy (finalism) 2. Psychiatry (social phobia)

People can look at the same thing in different ways, and this leads to different ideas about it.

Philosophy is also divided into many different schools, each with their own take on how to approach problems.

Teleology is a philosophical theory that explains the world in terms of its purpose or cause. As you said, teleology explains social phobia as "people make up social phobia because they are worried about the consequences of socializing."

"I can see that this sentence has got you thinking. In fact, I'm not sure I agree with this explanation. Where does this definition come from? Does it cover all of epistemology?

It's not an easy point of view to understand or accept.

Let's take a look at social phobia from a psychiatric perspective.

Social phobia is a type of phobia. Phobia was originally called horror neurosis, which is a type of neurosis. It's mainly manifested by an excessive and unreasonable fear of something or a situation in the outside world. Patients know that this fear response is excessive or unreasonable, but it still occurs repeatedly and is difficult to control.

As it stands, there's no clear conclusion on how social phobia develops. What we do know is that it's linked to genetics, physiology and psychosocial factors.

The childhood trauma mentioned by the questioner should be classified as a psychosocial factor, which is indeed one of the causes of social phobia.

In short, I think there's a cause-and-effect relationship, but it's not an "infinite nesting doll."

Every point of view has its limits. If one approach doesn't work, it's worth trying something different and seeing what you discover.

?

I love the world and I love you!

Good day, question asker.

I appreciate your thoughtful question. It's clear you've put a lot of thought into this, and I admire your approach of tracing the origin of social phobia using teleology.

I must confess that I am not an expert in this field, so for the time being, I will attempt to answer the question based on the original poster's line of reasoning.

It would be helpful to start by defining social phobia. In the field of psychiatry, it is also known as social anxiety disorder. Its basic characteristic is a significant or intense fear or anxiety about social situations.

It is also worth noting that in this era of information technology, many people may claim to be "socially anxious," but it is important to recognize that not all of them meet the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to it as social anxiety. For now, let's discuss this broader concept of "social anxiety."

Perhaps it would be helpful to first sort out the logical chain proposed by the questioner. It is probably:

It seems reasonable to suggest that childhood trauma may potentially lead to social phobia, which is a generalized description of a state of fear of social consequences.

The term social phobia, as mentioned in the question, may have its roots in the fear of social consequences, and there is certainly some truth to it. It can be explained by the theory of evaluative fear, which refers to the anxiety and fear that people usually feel in social situations from the evaluation of others [2].

It would be remiss of us not to consider the connection between childhood trauma and social anxiety. As infants and young children develop, it may not be difficult for the questioner to observe that at a certain stage they will become dependent on their primary caregiver, such as when a baby cries when separated from his mother. We call this separation anxiety, and the development of this emotion is closely linked to the development of individual attachment.

It is thought that an individual's attachment style may be influenced by a number of factors, including genetic inheritance, temperament and the care and nurturing they receive from their parents. It is also believed that an individual's attachment style may subsequently affect their interactions with others.

It seems that there is a close relationship between an insecure attachment and higher social anxiety. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no solution. It may be helpful to try to become more confident, as this could potentially improve your social anxiety.

At last, we come back to the question posed by the original poster: Is it possible that there will be an infinite number of nesting dolls?

I believe the answer should be "no."

If I might suggest, the logical chain after our discussion could be roughly as follows:

It seems that genetics, temperament, and parenting may play a role in shaping attachment, which in turn may influence social anxiety.

Should there be any issues with the answer, other users are welcome to provide feedback and suggest improvements.

I hope my answer is helpful. Best regards,

[1] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition): DSM-5 [M].

[2] Qiao Xiaoqian. Cognitive bias of positive evaluation of fear in social anxiety [D]. Xinjiang Normal University, 2020. DOI: 10.27432/d.cnki.gxsfu.2020.000418.

[3] Yan Xia and Hu Yamei. The relationship between adult attachment, interpersonal trust, and social anxiety. Modern Communication, 2021 (23): 245-247.

[4] Liu Xiaozhen, Shi Menghua, Xiao Yan, Wen Yuanli. The impact of college students' attachment relationships on social anxiety: the mediating role of self-esteem [J]. Journal of Gannan Medical College, 2017, 37(05): 692-697.

Hello!

Thank you for your interesting question. I will answer it in two days. I hope you will find my answer interesting.

My understanding of teleology is pragmatic. Take the questioner's question as an example. Those who support Adler's teleology think that if someone says they get weak knees and sweat when they go out because of social phobia, it is just that person wanting to stay at home and be lazy. Those who oppose Adler's teleology think that Adler's views are more like moral chicken soup.

It doesn't matter if Adler's teleology is right or wrong. What matters is how we use it. It should make us aware that we can work towards freedom.

I'll show the differences between Adler and Freud.

[1] Differences

Adler was Freud's most prominent student. The psychological community attributes his theories to the school of psychoanalysis. His individual psychology carries a certain humanistic meaning. It seems that one of the differences between him and his master is that Freud believed in "causality," while Adler believed in "final causality."

Freud's theory of causation is also called "determinism." Freud would help this social phobic understand why he is afraid to go out. He would look at why he is the way he is today through traumatic experiences since birth. The social phobic finally understands: I was traumatized by past interactions with people, so I get weak and sweaty when I go out. I am helping to understand how my past trauma has determined my current state, and I am healed in the process.

Adler disagreed with his master because he saw the past as determining the present, which helped social phobics avoid socializing. When drowsiness comes, pass the pillow. Tell him it's reasonable he can't socialize because his knees are weak and he sweats when meeting people. In that case, he can't go out to meet people.

It's a vicious cycle. He fears socializing because of past trauma. Because of this fear, he can't socialize.

It means there's no hope for change because he's already been determined by past experiences.

Adler said, "You're wrong. Why study psychology?" They argued and stopped talking. Adler came up with his own theory. One core concept is teleological theory.

Adler's theory of purpose and trauma.

Your past doesn't determine your present. Everyone's behavior has a purpose. You can change it.

The social phobic wants to stay home and be lazy. He makes up a lie—social phobia—and believes it so much that he gets weak in the knees and sweats when he goes out. His suffering is real, but it's caused by his aim of being lazy and comfortable at home!

He can stand up, take a step back, open his mouth, and interact with people if he wants to! This is the proper way to play psychology. It helps people with social anxiety overcome their inferiority complex.

The host can think about it. Who is right and who is wrong?

[2] Integration

I think both sides are right because their arguments make sense.

Both are right? No, if both were right, it would be illogical. The master and apprentice have opposing views.

How should this contradiction be explained? My answer is: anyone who supports only one side is right, but only half right.

How do you understand it?

I once read on Zhihu.com that the ABC theory of emotions by Ellis, an American psychologist in the cognitive behavioral school, explains the relationship between the teleological and the causal theories of this master and apprentice. It fits my understanding of the "theoretical conflict" between them very well. I copied and pasted the relevant description given by the author on Zhihu.com named Renee here:

As humans, we perceive the external world based on the objective world. We interpret and translate it through our beliefs to form judgments. If we analyze this abstractly, Freud is concerned with healing the established results. Adler's point is to intervene in our beliefs.

The host can try to think along this line of inquiry and get a logical answer.

That's all for today. I'll continue tomorrow.

This is incomplete.

I love you, world.

Good morning, host.

Yesterday, I attempted to provide an overview of the cognitive behavioral school of thought, which does not actually contradict the theory of causality and teleology. It is interesting to see that there are many different schools of psychology that explain the same thing from different perspectives. However, it can sometimes be challenging to reconcile the nuances of these perspectives when they are described using words created by many different scholars. Today, I would like to further explain my personal views on this translation. The theme is trauma and Adler's teleology of the purpose—to gain freedom.

[3] Trauma

I was delighted to see Pei Lu join the discussion yesterday and share his thoughts. In response to Pei Lu and the original poster's "yes," I would like to express my agreement with Pei Lu's view that the difference between Adler and Freud lies in the concept of libido. I believe that there are others who have followed in Freud's footsteps in different directions for the same reason.

However, to slightly correct the behavior of being careless when answering questions the other day, I looked up Ichiro Kishimi's "Nasty Courage" and found that indeed, in the content of the first night, there was a subheading that read "Psychological trauma does not exist." The philosopher's original words in his dialogue with the young man were, "Adler psychology clearly denies psychological trauma, which is epoch-making and innovative."

I must admit that when I read it, I was taken aback.

I wondered if perhaps this gentleman Adler might have had a literary youth background. It seemed as though he was denying the existence of solid facts without evidence-based scientific thinking.

It is worth noting that my initial reaction was influenced by a lack of consideration for the time variable. The concept of "psychological trauma" was not solely proposed by Freud, but rather preceded his psychoanalytic theory. The challenge of obtaining medical evidence for psychological trauma led to some debates, which might have contributed to Freud's unique approach in developing his psychoanalytic theory. It is important to recognize that Freud utilized the term "libido" rather than "psychological trauma" to explain the painful symptoms of his patients. One of the reasons for the ongoing discussions surrounding his psychoanalysis was also because his theory could not be empirically verified.

It is thought that Adler met Freud in 1900, which would mean that his theoretical system was constructed at the beginning of the 20th century. It is possible that the attempt to obtain empirical research data support for psychological trauma in medicine may have been made after the 1970s (neuropsychology originated in Adler's old age, when people began to trace the source of psychological activity physiologically). It seems likely that the situation of the many victims of World War I, World War II or other wars also accelerated the study of psychological trauma. Humans already had some means of observing the brain to study psychological trauma, which could be used as empirical evidence of the actual existence of psychological trauma.

I would like to return to the topic of how I understand trauma. I believe that the instinct of life is to survive. As soon as a person is brought into the world, they will instinctively adapt to the demands of the environment. Otherwise, they may not survive. Therefore, an infant and later childhood and adolescence will grow in the direction of adapting to the environment.

It is important to note that growth is a complex process, involving the development of new brain structures, glands, neural circuits, and skeletal muscles, as well as the emergence of coping mechanisms that allow humans to navigate their environment. These changes are influenced by the surrounding environment and are driven by the fundamental human need to avoid danger, seek safety, and maximize benefits while minimizing harm. If a child is subjected to adverse conditions over an extended period, it is likely that their physiological development will deviate from the trajectory that might have occurred in a safe and supportive environment. However, it is challenging to conduct a controlled experiment to directly observe these changes, as they often manifest subtly and cannot be easily quantified.

If we consider a person to be like an intelligent computer, then the result of being placed in a certain environment and growing up in it is that the hardware and software will be constantly solidified during the process of growing up into an adult according to the requirements of the environment. This is supported by the saying, "the way you are at three years old is the way you will be at seventy," and of course genetic predisposition also has a large degree of decisive influence. This means that you are assembled and this set of physical and psychological settings you will have to make do with for the rest of your life. In other words, the personality of a person has formed and stabilized, or the cognitive, emotional and behavioral patterns of a person have been fixed and have a considerable degree of stability.

Forming a stable pattern is also an instinctive requirement for life development, as it allows us to conserve energy. Human energy is limited, and human development requires constantly responding to environmental changes, constantly exploring outward to learn new things, and responding to new environmental requirements to ensure the continuation of life.

It would be beneficial to consider that all past experiences are not to be discarded. It is not only possible to consciously remember the past, but also to recognise that the body remembers and learns how to interact with the environment. This means that in the future, when encountering similar situations, there is no need to relearn and adapt again. Instead, you can use your existing resources to quickly resolve the situation. This allows you to direct your energy towards learning and exploring how to deal with the new environmental requirements.

This raises an important question: what does this mean for those who have experienced trauma? It suggests that, for some, the physical and psychological changes brought about by past experiences may be difficult to alter. In a sense, this can result in a kind of emotional "freeze," where individuals find themselves unable to fully engage with the present. When faced with a situation reminiscent of a past trauma, their natural coping mechanisms for stressful situations may be triggered, leading to a re-experiencing of the original trauma and a continued inability to fully inhabit the present.

It is important to note that social phobia can manifest in individuals who have experienced abuse during their formative years. In such cases, the individual's entire psychological makeup, or "hardware and software," is shaped by the belief that "people are scary, be ready to hide at any time." This can lead to a heightened state of alertness, a tendency to monitor and identify potential dangers at all times, and a readiness to either fight or flee at any given moment. These traits are developed in order to ensure survival.

It could be said that their perception and judgment of "danger" stems from the cognitive structure and emotional response mechanism they have acquired in the past. Similarly, their coping behaviors may also originate from past learned behaviors, such as lashing out to scare away the abuser (attack) or avoiding contact with others to ensure their safety (avoidance). It is understandable that these behaviors may seem unusual to many people.

I feel that these reactions are perhaps misguided.

It is important to recognize that the attitudes of others towards social phobics can often be perceived as a signal of "danger." This can lead to the instinct to survive becoming a survival strategy when they go out, resulting in physical responses such as weakened legs and sweating when they see people.

It might be helpful to consider how our bodies respond to perceived danger. When we encounter a hungry tiger, for instance, our bodies react with an adrenaline rush, instant muscle and skeletal tension, and a frantic need to run away. While this example is not entirely apt, as hungry tigers are generally considered equally dangerous, it does illustrate the benefits of mental and behavioral patterns becoming fixed. Perhaps "once bitten, twice shy" better illustrates how trauma can freeze people in time and space.

It is worth noting that some war veterans who have experienced psychological trauma may still feel a sense of fear when faced with certain situations, such as the dark or mechanical noises. This is despite the fact that they were able to settle down after the war and are now fully equipped to live peaceful lives in peacetime. However, it is understandable that those who have suffered psychological trauma on the battlefield may find it challenging to venture out when it gets dark, particularly when coupled with the mechanical noises that can be heard on the streets they frequent. These noises can unintentionally evoke feelings from their past traumatic experiences.

Research and experimental data from brain observation also seem to indicate that the physical response to trauma may be forced to change. It appears that corresponding brain areas are activated when they re-experience fear on the battlefield, and some reports suggest that images of the battlefield may sometimes become uncontrollable (flashbacks), even though they are already in a safe place. It seems that going out in the dark may have a significant impact on their physical state, causing weakness and sweating, and making movement difficult.

It would seem that they can only survive by moving around in a very small area during the day for years on end, and that they feel safe only when they are inside their homes, even though this may not reflect the reality of their current situation.

I wonder why, when I try to answer an interesting question, I often find myself wanting to be as clear as possible, only to end up going off on a tangent.

I will continue tomorrow, as the theme is freedom, and I will do my best to finish it.

That's all for now. I hope this message finds you well and that you're able to find some joy in the world.

Good day, host.

The following constitutes a continuation of the subject matter addressed yesterday. The topic under discussion is Adler's denial of the existence of trauma, and the objective is to ascertain whether this denial is beneficial in terms of facilitating the attainment of freedom.

[4] Freedom

In a previous statement, I posited that psychological trauma is a tangible phenomenon that gives rise to observable physiological alterations. I further postulated that these changes engender shifts in an individual's perception of their surroundings and of themselves, as well as alterations in their coping mechanisms. To illustrate this, one might consider the contrast between the appearance of a seedling growing in poor soil with a lack of water and sunlight and the appearance of a seedling growing in fertile soil with an abundance of rain and sunshine. There are notable parallels between social phobics and certain individuals who have experienced war trauma. Both groups exhibit a profound fear of venturing outside their homes or even contemplating such a venture. This apprehension is accompanied by a distinct physical discomfort. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding these individuals render it challenging to alter their circumstances, compelling them to restrict their movements to a limited area, despite the relative safety of venturing outside.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of psychological trauma is that an individual's mind and body no longer function as they would like. This results in a loss of control over one's own actions, as the physical and psychological responses formed by past experiences take over. This can lead to a situation where an individual feels as though they are a slave to their past selves, unable to make decisions or take action without feeling paralyzed. This lack of free will can extend to situations where an individual wants to go out and interact with others, but is unable to do so due to the limitations imposed by their trauma.

In the subtitle of "The Courage to Be Disliked," by Ichiro Kishibe, the assertion "Psychological trauma does not exist" is illustrated with the example of a feverish patient being told by the doctor that wearing too little and getting caught in the rain is the cause of the illness. This example demonstrates that a cause-and-effect approach is an inadequate methodology. As the young man in the dialogue states, "It is irrelevant whether you wear too little or get caught in the rain. The crucial issue is that you are currently experiencing a high fever. The key is the symptom."

If one is a medical practitioner, it is imperative that the appropriate medication or injection is prescribed, as this is the only way the patient can truly recuperate.

However, Adler's teleology is thus given the meaning of "psychological trauma does not exist," which is a viewpoint that I do not agree with. It is evident that wearing thin clothes and getting wet constitutes a trauma, and that having a fever is a sequela of trauma. In the absence of an understanding of the underlying cause of the disease, it is challenging to determine the appropriate course of treatment, including the selection of appropriate medications and injections.

Accordingly, the appropriate methodology for opening Adler's teleology is not to assert that "psychological trauma does not exist." Rather, it is to utilize your comprehension of how your past trauma has resulted in present-day apprehensions to exercise your remaining free will in overcoming the influence of your past self. This entails the liberation of your body and mind, which can be achieved by conquering your fears and attaining control over your faculties. It is only through attaining such autonomy that one can truly achieve healing. This entails the capacity to venture forth at one's discretion and, alternatively, to remain at home when desired, as the body and mind are now free from external constraints. The individual is thus endowed with the capacity to choose.

The question thus arises as to what it means to use one's remaining free will to overcome the control exerted by one's past self. In essence, this entails the rebuilding of the structural framework of the brain, the re-establishment of hormonal secretion and the re-integration of these processes with the skeletal muscles.

Nevertheless, I have already departed from the factory.

There are no returns, no exchanges, and no repairs. This is why many people utilize the theory of causes in a nesting doll manner. It is evident that a considerable number of individuals have not attempted to apply Adler's theory of purpose. However, it is challenging to do so.

I believe this is also the reason why psychological healing is so challenging and prolonged for individuals with psychological disorders resulting from enduring or profound trauma. In terms of their physical and mental capabilities, they frequently exhibit a nested doll or cyclical pattern of deterioration. To venture outside their homes and interact with others, they must surmount significant psychological trepidation and physical discomfort. This process is inherently arduous. Individuals possess inherent limitations in their capacity to endure pain, the duration of their resilience in repeated practice, and the eventual manifestation of physical and mental changes. It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain with certainty.

The mere act of observing one's child engaged in the process of completing their homework assignments can evoke a profound sense of distress. It is a fallacy to assume that merely "trying hard" is sufficient to achieve the desired outcome.

Indeed, the healing process is insufficient in and of itself; it also necessitates the provision of numerous social resources, which are not always readily available.

Consequently, the attainment of freedom necessitates the development of strength and the assumption of responsibility.

Freedom is not without cost. One cannot simply be instructed to engage with others and then immediately do so.

It is erroneous to assume that individuals can be controlled with a mere switch. Merely understanding and agreeing with Adler's ideas does not guarantee the ability to put them into practice. This is why I concur with the criticism of Adler's tendency to espouse ideas without taking responsibility for their implementation.

A similar saying can be interpreted to mean that one may possess a comprehensive understanding of principles yet still be unable to lead a virtuous life.

Nevertheless, precisely because of this, Adler's outcry is all the more valuable. Individuals have the capacity to transcend the constraints of the past, to challenge the limitations imposed by the present, to exert control over their circumstances, and to shape their future identity. As long as one is aware of one's freedom—that one always has the option to choose and is not merely a passive recipient—then one can actualize one's aspirations.

In conclusion, it is necessary to address the empirical problem of trauma. It is believed that the physical changes caused by trauma are molecular and generalized, which makes it impossible to accurately localize them anatomically with existing medical methods, such as those used to diagnose physical diseases.

This is also the reason why psychological disorders are often referred to as "syndromes" rather than "diseases." This is because the corresponding physical location or abnormalities for phobias cannot be identified. Furthermore, it is not possible for an individual to be placed in two different environments simultaneously, allowing them to grow up and compare the physical changes that occur as a result. Consequently, it is not possible to confirm the existence of trauma and psychological changes using logical reasoning. However, I choose to believe that such changes do occur.

In light of this, it is evident that if Adler did not adhere to the notion of psychological trauma, it would be challenging to provide evidence to the contrary.

This is likely the reason why the theoretical explanation of psychological problems is consistently controversial: psychological activities cannot be directly observed or verified. Rather, they are a means for humans to demonstrate their cognitive abilities and wisdom. There is a tendency to prioritize causal relationships, a proclivity for logical consistency, and a desire to exert control over the future, despite the challenges of empirical evidence. However, engaging in such intellectual pursuits can bring a sense of enjoyment and purpose to our lives, as well as a commitment to self-care and self-love.

To illustrate, we may return to my previous translation of social phobia using the ABC theory of cognitive behavior. Freud posited that if A is present, then C is likely to follow. If this cannot be proven, Adler proposed that the individual may have created B to induce a state of fear in themselves. While neither of these hypotheses can be empirically verified, they both offer a compelling explanation of the observed phenomenon.

In Freud, I discern a profound sense of compassion for the inherent fragility and powerlessness of life. It is evident that one is not to blame for the circumstances they find themselves in; rather, it is simply a matter of unfortunate fate. The individual has experienced significant hardship, yet it is not their fault.

In Adler's theory, the capacity to persevere and transcend one's circumstances is emphasized. This implies that individuals have the potential to define themselves beyond the constraints of their past experiences and to maintain hope in the face of adversity. Regardless of the challenges one may face, the ability to shape one's destiny is within reach, as long as one is willing to take action and embrace freedom.

It is imperative to never lose hope, as the present is within one's own control. This is because one is free to act as they see fit.

The above. The world and I love you.

P.S. It can be argued that Ichiro Kishibe's interpretation of Adler's thinking is to live in the present. The past is immutable, and the future is inherently unpredictable. However, the present can be chosen and controlled, as it is not constrained by the past and can influence the future.

Nevertheless, it would be more beneficial to invite Freud and Adler to perceive their own present simultaneously. The timeline is comprised of the past, present, and future. It is truly remarkable that having compassion for one's past appears to be a means of achieving freedom.

Hello, host!

I'm thrilled you took the time to read my response yesterday and continued to contribute to the discussion by sharing your thoughts and questions. Today, I'll continue to engage with you in the discussion area and expand on my response from yesterday.

Let's keep going! It's time to integrate.

I'm excited to hear your explanation of your own question, "Why do some people maintain a sense of superiority by actively socializing, while others maintain a sense of superiority by avoiding social interaction?" I think the main reason is that past experiences have caused social interactions to result mainly in a sense of superiority or a loss of superiority.

This would be a return to cause and effect thinking, which would be consistent with the vicious circle of social phobia I mentioned yesterday: Why do you get weak knees and sweat when you go out? Because going out is terrifying.

Have you ever wondered why it can be scary to go out and meet people? Well, it's because when you go out, your legs weaken and you sweat when you meet people!

Translated in the words of the original poster: Why is there a fear of social interaction? Because social interaction can undermine feelings of superiority. But here's the good news! We can overcome this fear and reclaim our sense of superiority.

And here's the really fascinating part: why does socializing undermine feelings of superiority? It's because of the fear of socializing!

I guess that's precisely why Adler said his master was wrong. Because if we really use cause and effect theory in this way, social phobics will get stuck in this dollhouse, and then there really is no psychology to play with!

His teleology, on the other hand, is a game-changer for the socially anxious person. It gives them the power to take control and break this vicious cycle. It turns out that I'm not afraid, I'm just lazy. What needs to be done is not to find reasons for fear, but to take the first step, open your mouth and stop being lazy! It's as simple as that!

I guess his master was pretty angry, because in all honesty, Freud didn't really use his theory of causality like that. I ended my account of the master's theory of causality yesterday with the following sentence: "…to understand how my past trauma has determined the way I am now, and to be healed in the process: then I know that in fact the present is the present, and going out to meet people is actually not as scary as I used to think." And it's so true! I'm so excited to see what the future holds for me now that I've made this breakthrough.

I'm thrilled to share that this narrative is my understanding, and that "the present is the present" was added by me deliberately. Many of Freud's visitors experienced incredible healing after understanding the causal relationship (causality) between their past experiences and the patterns of behavior in the "present (the moment they sought help from Freud)." I'm not sure if Freud ever told his visitors, "the present is the present," but I'm convinced this is the perfect way to open up the theory of cause and effect. Even if the time variable is not mentioned, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

To draw an interesting analogy, you can only know what you ate yesterday to know why you have diarrhea today. Then, things now and tomorrow are not so difficult! Take your medicine and go to bed when you should. I guess Freud never said that because you ate something you shouldn't yesterday, you have diarrhea today, so you don't have to do anything!

I also suspect that Adler and his master had a serious argument, to the extent that Adler said there is no such thing as psychological trauma. Freud's work was centered on uncovering psychological trauma, so how could he not fall out with his apprentice? It's fascinating to imagine the dynamics of their relationship and the evolution of Adler's ideas!

I have to say, I don't fully agree with the Adler theory. I would love to tell him, half-jokingly and without any ill intent, that I think the reason he denies the existence of psychological trauma is probably because he really hasn't suffered trauma from his original family. He's been incredibly lucky to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth! Even if he was weak and sickly as a child and often frightened by nightmarish events, who can be as lucky as he is to have parents who truly love him?

Let's dive back in!

I got a bit sidetracked there, but let's get back to the topic! We only need to mention the time variable, and we can unify cause and effect. You were absolutely right in your comment on the discussion board – when we stand at the present point in time, cause and effect helps us diagnose the root cause of our discomfort, while teleology helps us prescribe a cure!

The author uses the ABC theory, mentioned yesterday, to explain that A is the event, B is the belief, and C is the emotion. Let's look at the ABC of social phobics: A is a past social trauma event, B is the resulting belief that all social interactions are traumatic (loss of superiority), and C is the fear of all social interactions. What Freud did was help social phobics understand that your current C is the root cause of the illness left behind by the past A. What Adler did was tell social phobics that your current C is the B you created by scaring yourself. All you have to do is take the word "trauma" out of A and get the hell out of here and go meet people! Stop whining here because A therefore C.

So I think the best way to understand cause and effect theory is to remember the time variable: Freud senior manages the past, Adler manages the future, and social phobics manage the present themselves.

But what I'm really curious about is that this master and apprentice couldn't help but notice the time variable. Did they argue over a difference in ideas? As a psychology enthusiast, I'm really excited to find out more!

I've made so much progress today! I'm almost done with the main content, and I'll be able to finish up tomorrow. I'll just have to fill in the last bit.

The above is incomplete, but it's going to be great!

The world and I love you!

It's not uncommon for people to say they're "socially fearful" even if they haven't been diagnosed with social phobia. It seems like social fear is a part of our lives. But it's important to realize that not everyone is socially fearful. Many people may just be a little reserved or shy.

Many people still find it difficult to let go. They want to improve their situation and avoid new challenges, which makes it hard for them to meet new people and make friends. This can lead to various forms of concealment and withdrawal.

Some people might say that they're afraid of the consequences of socializing because they're worried about what might happen. To avoid these consequences, they might use social phobia as a way of protecting themselves. This could be a reason why.

It's true that many people are afraid of the negative social consequences that can result from social interactions. There are plenty of examples of people who have lost their wealth or loved ones because of social interactions. Some people even say that they are socially phobic because of these situations.

But who doesn't worry about the consequences of socializing? There are plenty of things that can have consequences, but it's still really important to establish social relationships. If the trauma of childhood and some of the traumas during growth have made you afraid of the consequences of socializing in various ways, making you socially fearful, then in order to end the infinite nesting dolls, you must get to the bottom of the trauma and heal it. It's probably a good idea to go to the hospital for a diagnosis and then seek psychological counseling.

ZQ?