powerfulthoughts said:
If a child is surrounded with positive, affirming information about who they are, along with a strong effort of socializing their children with positive messages, then they will succeed.
Not true at all. Plenty of children who were raised in a nice, stable home with loving, nurturing parents still have social anxiety. I have seen it many times. In fact, in a psych course I took we discussed how children can grow up in very good households and still have problems.
Yeah, if all one needed were loving parents and a stable home life, I wouldn't be here right now. To be a bit bitter and mean-spirited, might I ask where my success is? I've got no doubt that what Beleza just posted is correct - that if you're born into a poorer living situation, you're more 'at risk'. I just occasionally see the assertion that if everything was hunky dory, I should be OK, and the fact that I'm
not just causes enough cognitive dissonance to bug the hell out of me.
I can go down Richey's list, saying that I had easy going parents, fantastic schoolmates, lived in a beautiful home, was surrounded with mentors who provided great advice (that never stuck), and had an overall blessed life where little went wrong. I feel talented, I feel smart - then what the hell's wrong with me? Sometimes I feel like, amongst all these people who have genuine, heart-breaking pasts or present situations, and have developed symptoms similar to my own, that means I must be
especially deficient if that's my natural way of feeling.
Without chattering on more about me personally, I just think that, as has already been said a fair bit, social anxiety is a damn broad malady, and has several root causes, though some are more common than others.
Now I'll stop being cranky and try to contribute. I don't think the nature vs. nurture thing is all that clear cut. As a very young child, I was extremely hidebound. I never, ever crawled. My mother had hell with potty training me. Once I 'learned' a word, even if it was wrong, that was it; I spent years in speech class because I was too damn stubborn to change. This still holds true, to some extent. Babies have personalities, and I suppose it's a question of whether that's a neurological quirk or random environmental chance. One has to wonder if one could take two infants, expose them to the same stuff, and get reasonably similar personalities. I think it's a little bit nature, a little bit nurture, and then everything just results from experience.
That largely-unscientific spiel done, I do agree with powerfulthoughts sentiment about folks believing it's unchangeable. Letting social anxiety define you, thinking that you can't change it because that's the way things are - that's just delusion. If it's adversely affecting your life, you need to do something about it, not just accept it as the status quo. Very little makes me feel worse than seeing someone resign themselves to that.
Maybe that's just my own experiences and beliefs talking, but eh.
As for the lie bit, it's a charged word. The original post goes straight from a rather provocative title to a spiel about how accepting that you were lied to is some sort of easy-to-use magic bullet. Now that powerfulthoughts has explained it, I get it, but something being a lie and something being predicated on a lie are two different things. I suppose that, given I really don't feel inferior, the message wasn't for me. (And in fact, I agree strongly enough that it seems like a truth that's needless to even state.)
So thank you for making the thread, powerfulthoughts - if nothing else, it has generated some stimulating discussion.