Is it our fault?

[SickJoke]

feedback of my family was always equal for us. even strictly speaking it was better for me bcz education was very important for them and i was successful in it while my brother wasn't.
although, i can't remember my infancy but i can't ignore the role of genetics. my biology and habits are very similar to my father and he is also a mild SP sufferer himself.

How about feedback from your peer group? Are you seriously claiming that you and your brother received IDENTICAL feedback throughout your entire lives from everyone you interacted with?

 

[Ehsan]

SickJoke is right, I don't believe there is any way you can have identical feedback in your social experiences as someones else. Every single person has unique ones (my siblings and I sure did), and every reaction from others as we are children can have a huge influence on us.

Also, I think that the youngest of our years are the most important in terms of how we are developing, so that usually means the years we can't remember.

I can't disagree with you and SickJoke anyway but i only meant there are many evidences and researches which say genetics is also an important factor that should be be included.

 

[powerfulthoughts]

I can't disagree with you and SickJoke anyway but i only meant there are many evidences and researches which say genetics is also an important factor that should be be included.

My opinion is that genes can make some of us acquire anxiety easier than others based on family history, but I don't believe that it is a pre-determined characteristic like eye color. Our early childhood is where we are basically "getting ready" for life, and setting up who we will be later on. And since we can't really remember this process, we may tend to think we were just born like this. But as I said earlier, this fear of negative judgment only makes sense if it was learned very early on. In my view, it's illogical to say that genes fix us to fear what others will think of us straight out of the womb.

 

[Ehsan]

i agree. but i give a little greater role to genetics.

These are two paragraphs which i've selected from two of the best papers about biology of SP. they say genetics and environmental factors both affect SP. may be environmental factors plays a greater role:

1)Genetic factors vs. environmental factors
Genetically speaking, some animal models have shown social temperament to be breed-dependent. Kalin and Shelton (28) commented on the common ground shared by the novelty-aversive behavior of children with BI and the defensive behaviors of infant rhesus monkeys. (Interestingly, in infant rhesus monkeys the fear-related freezing and defensive barking have been shown to share common features, and were relieved by diazepam.) Despite genetic influence, animal models of behavior show that temperamental predisposition, and potentially SAD, is indeed affected by the rearing environment. In laboratories, postnatal handling of rat pups by humans increased maternal licking and grooming and arched-back nursing, while maternal separation reduced this behavior (29) to a level equivalent to that of non-handled pups (30). Furthermore, the offspring of non-handled pups showed greater fearfulness in unfamiliar surroundings (31). Pups experiencing maternal separation and their non-handled cohorts were also less likely than handled pups to feed in a novel environment. Moreover, handled pups spent significantly more time exploring novel environments and showed reduced startle response when compared with the other cohorts (31). (The neurobiologic mechanisms are discussed below.) To reinforce the discussion of environment vs. genetics, the concept of cross-fostering has been explored. BALBc mice are typically very fearful and wary of novel environments. However, once cross-fostered to C57 mothers, known for a twofold greater frequency of licking and grooming, the BALBc pups become significantly less fearful (31– 33). Another study showing the effect of early life stress was conducted in non-human primates. Infant bonnet macaques were subjected to differences in maternal stress induced by food availability. Infants raised by mothers exposed to variable foraging demands showed significantly more fearfulness and aversion to social interaction in adulthood than those infants raised with a reliable food supply (34, 35).

2)Genetics of Social Anxiety Disorder
Although there is increasing evidence that social anxiety disorder and its childhood variants, including behavioral inhibition and shyness, have a strong familial basis, the genetics of the disorder have not been adequately studied.
Several early studies (58, 59) established a familial link, but only for the generalized subtype (59). It was reported that if a proband has a diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, the percentage of first-degree relatives with the illness was 15%, which was greater than the 10% finding in subjects with agoraphobia and less than the 31% seen in subjects with simple phobia (49). Subsequently, a larger study (60) showed that the generalized subtype was markedly increased in frequency (approximately 10 times greater) among first-degree relatives of generalized social phobic probands. Another study (61) demonstrated that the children of patients with social anxiety disorder were at an increased risk of developing this disorder and other anxiety disorders.
The low genetic concordance rates for social anxiety disorder in monozygotic twins (62) have suggested that genetics plays a limited role in its development. As we suggested for panic disorder (1), what appears to be inherited is a susceptibility to social anxiety, not the disorder itself. Although no systematic genetic linkage studies employing a genomic scan or search among candidate genes have been conducted for social anxiety disorder so far, such studies are underway for panic disorder (63) and OCD (64). Likewise, molecular genetic studies of candidate genes for the several neurotransmitter systems implicated in social anxiety, notably the serotonin transporter and dopamine receptor and their various subtypes, have allowed
for associations between specific genes and behavioral traits, such as harm avoidance and novelty seeking (65, 66)—characteristics relevant to the social anxiety disorder phenotype. Thus, genetic and family studies in social
anxiety disorder are still in their infancy but support longitudinal clinical data that are suggestive of links between childhood and adult variants of the disorder.

 

[SickJoke]

i agree. but i give a little greater role to genetics.

Did you read the studies that you quoted? They're leaning toward environmental factors. So why are you quoting them, when in fact they contradict your view that genetics play a greater role?

These are two paragraphs which i've selected from two of the best papers about biology of SP. they say genetics and environmental factors both affect SP. may be environmental factors plays a greater role:

1)Genetic factors vs. environmental factors
Genetically speaking, some animal models have shown social temperament to be breed-dependent. Kalin and Shelton (28) commented on the common ground shared by the novelty-aversive behavior of children with BI and the defensive behaviors of infant rhesus monkeys. (Interestingly, in infant rhesus monkeys the fear-related freezing and defensive barking have been shown to share common features, and were relieved by diazepam.) Despite genetic influence, animal models of behavior show that temperamental predisposition, and potentially SAD, is indeed affected by the rearing environment. In laboratories, postnatal handling of rat pups by humans increased maternal licking and grooming and arched-back nursing, while maternal separation reduced this behavior (29) to a level equivalent to that of non-handled pups (30). Furthermore, the offspring of non-handled pups showed greater fearfulness in unfamiliar surroundings (31). Pups experiencing maternal separation and their non-handled cohorts were also less likely than handled pups to feed in a novel environment. Moreover, handled pups spent significantly more time exploring novel environments and showed reduced startle response when compared with the other cohorts (31). (The neurobiologic mechanisms are discussed below.) To reinforce the discussion of environment vs. genetics, the concept of cross-fostering has been explored. BALBc mice are typically very fearful and wary of novel environments. However, once cross-fostered to C57 mothers, known for a twofold greater frequency of licking and grooming, the BALBc pups become significantly less fearful (31– 33). Another study showing the effect of early life stress was conducted in non-human primates. Infant bonnet macaques were subjected to differences in maternal stress induced by food availability. Infants raised by mothers exposed to variable foraging demands showed significantly more fearfulness and aversion to social interaction in adulthood than those infants raised with a reliable food supply (34, 35).

2)Genetics of Social Anxiety Disorder
Although there is increasing evidence that social anxiety disorder and its childhood variants, including behavioral inhibition and shyness, have a strong familial basis, the genetics of the disorder have not been adequately studied.
Several early studies (58, 59) established a familial link, but only for the generalized subtype (59). It was reported that if a proband has a diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, the percentage of first-degree relatives with the illness was 15%, which was greater than the 10% finding in subjects with agoraphobia and less than the 31% seen in subjects with simple phobia (49). Subsequently, a larger study (60) showed that the generalized subtype was markedly increased in frequency (approximately 10 times greater) among first-degree relatives of generalized social phobic probands. Another study (61) demonstrated that the children of patients with social anxiety disorder were at an increased risk of developing this disorder and other anxiety disorders.
***The low genetic concordance rates for social anxiety disorder in monozygotic twins (62) have suggested that genetics plays a limited role in its development.*** As we suggested for panic disorder (1), what appears to be inherited is a susceptibility to social anxiety, not the disorder itself. Although no systematic genetic linkage studies employing a genomic scan or search among candidate genes have been conducted for social anxiety disorder so far, such studies are underway for panic disorder (63) and OCD (64). Likewise, molecular genetic studies of candidate genes for the several neurotransmitter systems implicated in social anxiety, notably the serotonin transporter and dopamine receptor and their various subtypes, have allowed
for associations between specific genes and behavioral traits, such as harm avoidance and novelty seeking (65, 66)—characteristics relevant to the social anxiety disorder phenotype. Thus, genetic and family studies in social
anxiety disorder are still in their infancy but support longitudinal clinical data that are suggestive of links between childhood and adult variants of the disorder.

 

[Ehsan]

Did you read the studies that you quoted? They're leaning toward environmental factors. So why are you quoting them, when in fact they contradict your view that genetics play a greater role?

ha ha,
i meant i give a greater role to genetics than PowerfulThought's viewpoint not greater than environmental factors.

 

[worrywort]

The reason I wanted to know if it was my fault is because it's a common experience for me to leave social situations, KNOWING that I haven't acted in socially acceptable ways.....i.e. sometimes I chicken out of saying all my goodbyes and just leave....or I can seem cold or turn down people's hospitable invitations and can feel rude.....and I often leave feeling guilty and knowing that a lot of the people in the room probably took offence to what I just did.....and when I get home I try to figure out if I had just done something wrong....and if so, was it my fault? Could I have prevented it? SHOULD I have prevented it? Can I excuse myself because I have social anxiety disorder? Or should I consider myself in the same moral boat as everybody else?

Because in life, I've always wanted to do life right. I want to figure out what the truth is, and what the right way to live life is, and then do it, however hard it may be. But the way I behave socially just often doesn't feel right to me, and it makes me feel ashamed. I wish I could be a strong person, the kind that people can look up to. But this social thing I keep failing quite royally!.....

But I think I'm beginning to see now how it all works.....so.....in crude conclusion....it seems genetics definitely plays a role, but only in so far as heightening the likelihood that we might develop social phobia. Beyond that, environmental factors take over.

so....

Genetics = definitely NOT our fault....so that's good!
Environmental factors = maybe partly our fault? - i.e. the younger we are the less the weight of influence and responsibility falls on our shoulders. i.e. when we're babies our parents are mostly to blame for how we turn out.....but the older we get the more that weight shifts to our shoulders.

We could probably delve deeper into the environmental factors, and explore the role of parents, humiliating experiences, our own reactions to situations...i.e. avoidance, worry etc.....but I won't get into that now, cause I think maybe the question "whose fault is it?" isn't the right question to ask......as was said "what's done is done"....the fact is, we have social problems, and maybe the right question now is, what are we gonna do about it? How can we fix our problems?......and I reckon, at the end of the day, the only person that can tell if we're really trying hard enough, and being brave enough, etc......is ourselves. So sometimes just showing up at a party could be a massive achievement for us.....and if everyone is offended that we didn't say anything and then left early, well we shouldn't feel ashamed because we know that we took a big step. And I reckon that's the way I'll probably see it from now on.