# Social Anxiety, my theory



## matthias10000 (Oct 1, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I would like to share a theory of mine about the causes of social anxiety on this forum. Questions or reactions would be greatly appreciated.

b
But first I have to say that I was reluctant to post on this forum, the amount of negativity you can find here is overwhelming. The most popular part of the forum is _Frustration_ which currently has 1,239,059 posts on it and has the most online viewers of all.

I was actually thinking to myself what if the parts of the forum like: _Research studies, trials and news_ or _goal setting _had more viewers/posts? I actually think that that would be more helpful for your social anxiety than just complaining how much your life sucks.

b
*THEORIES*

I personally believe that social anxiety has everything to do with (the struggle for) social dominance. For most of human life (and even in our days) there were resources that everyone wanted to have: women, money, food, social popularity, being accepted, and plenty of others... In a perfect world everyone would get an equal amount of all these resources and everyone would be happy. But we don´t live in that world, *some people are just better than others at acquiring these resources in the presence of others* (= social dominance). And it is logical that if some people gain more of a limited amount of resources , that at the bottom of the social hierarchy, some people get none of these resources. If they try to gain more of (limited) resources from the ones higher at the top of the hierarchy, the ones at the top (who have more of these limited resources) don´t want to share these resources, with the ones who are lower. This can be extremely demotivating for the ones who are at the bottom of the hierarchy, they think to themselves: what have I done wrong? The ones who are higher than them, are very likely to protect their social status and the benefits that come with it, by using aggression, intimidation, and other manipulative tactics to stay where they are and preventing you from going up in social rank and ´stealing` ´their``resources.

b
We humans like to act as if we are better than the other human primates because we can think about our actions and our surroundings. But there are studies that for me kind of prove that possessing conciousness doesn´t really set us apart from other primates. Let´s take an example: in the primate world, most of the males who are stronger than other males, have a bigger chance to be at the top (=have high social status and get a lot of the limited resources). In this study on human males: http://www.albany.edu/news/pdf_files/Gripstrength.pdf researchers found that stronger the male (measured by hand grip strength with a dynamometer) , the higher the probability that the male was more socially aggressive, had bigger shoulders, had more sexual partners ,earlier age at first sexual intercourse and better health. According to the researchers hand grip strength is highly heritable (about 65%) and correlates with your blood testosterone levels (which are also higly heritable).
b 
In primates the ones who are at the top usually have more testosterone than those who are low in the hierarchy.Scientific studies have shown that testosterone administration (= giving testosterone to males/females) increases reward sensitivity (= getting more pleasure from resources that are beneficial for survival like women, food, social popularity, etc), testosterone increases approach towards these resources, testosterone decreases empathy (probably comes in handy when those poor *******s at the bottom of the hiërarch try to ´steal` ´your` resources and you tell them to **** off), decreases trust in others (the same thing here, decreases the probability that those at the bottom steal your resources), increases positive feelings like confidence, reduces fear,... In fact to summarize all the scientific literature on testosterone: testosterone increases the need to achieve social status, makes it easier to achieve social status and makes it easier to defend that social status once you have achieved it.

b 
Voila, this is a little theory of mine that tries to explain social anxiety by looking at it as something that arises because of the need of humans to try to get control over limited resources. I (and some scientists) believe that social anxiety is a mechanism to reduce attacks from others who are fighting for social dominance and see you as a target in their way for social dominance. By making yourself small, avoiding eye contact, having and showing signs of low self-confidence you use a mechanism that also primates use. You make clear to other competitors that you are no threat for them (and their struggle to get control over the limited resources) in the hope that the competitor will then leave you alone and focus on someone else who is a threat for their social status.

b
I´m not extremely good at explaining things to other people but if you have found something in my theory that you like/dislike, are interested about,... then please leave a comment behind so that I can talk with you more about it .


----------



## Deadly Assassin (Jun 19, 2015)

The struggle for social dominance is the basis of every interaction no matter how subtle. I disagree with you that social anxiety is a strategy designed to avoid conflict with the alphas at the top; social anxiety is a weakness and is more of an illness than a suitable defense mechanism for social survival. If what you claim is true, then social anxiety would be universal, and anyone who wishes to avoid conflict would induce 'social anxiety' into their minds instinctively in an attempt to survive. I do however concur with the importance of testosterone, which is a hormone that seems to be highly abundant in the many *******s and douche bags that we meet in daily life. Of course, many of these jerks not so coincidentally are well liked by everyone and have a high social standing, while the nice, shy guy who is nice to everyone and clearly has low testosterone is at the bottom of the totem pole. So through observation alone, one can clearly see how important testosterone is.


----------



## mitch70 (May 12, 2016)

Not sure I agree very much with the statement about importance of testosterone. That is an issue which is very much industry-driven as they just want to sell more. There is quite some literature out there, see e.g., some of the publications of Ben Goldacre in Bad Pharma, or also http://www.navarra.es/NR/rdonlyres/F5697AC2-06CB-440F-954A-55BD5D9A68A2/238297/Bit_v20n4_e1.pdf


----------



## Aleida (Jun 11, 2013)

matthias10000 said:


> For most of human life (and even in our days) there were resources that everyone wanted to have: women, money, food, social popularity, being accepted, and plenty of others...


sure all humans just want their equal share of the woman resource ...



matthias10000 said:


> b I (and some scientists) believe that social anxiety is a mechanism to reduce attacks from others who are fighting for social dominance and see you as a target in their way for social dominance. By making yourself small, avoiding eye contact, having and showing signs of low self-confidence you use a mechanism that also primates use. You make clear to other competitors that you are no threat for them (and their struggle to get control over the limited resources) in the hope that the competitor will then leave you alone and focus on someone else who is a threat for their social status.


 contradicts my own experience. i've always been the perfect target for bullies because of my low confidence. i didn't even want those resources from them (women, food, money, social popularity, acceptance). i didn't threaten their social status either. they could have just left me alone. if i'd display signs of confidence, i'm sure they would leave me alone and pick on someone else. they pick on the weakest to keep the weakest in their place.


----------



## matthias10000 (Oct 1, 2014)

mitch70 said:


> Not sure I agree very much with the statement about importance of testosterone. That is an issue which is very much industry-driven as they just want to sell more. There is quite some literature out there, see e.g., some of the publications of Ben Goldacre in Bad Pharma, or also http://www.navarra.es/NR/rdonlyres/F5697AC2-06CB-440F-954A-55BD5D9A68A2/238297/Bit_v20n4_e1.pdf


I totally agree with you that the pharmaceutical industry is trying to sell us TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) and tell us that we then will become healthier, have more of a sex drive,...

But I´m not sure which point you are trying to make in relation with the text that I wrote. I am talking here about social dominance/social status and its relationship with testosterone. I have never seen the pharmaceutical industry advertize TRT for becoming more ´socially dominant.`


----------



## Umpalumpa (Jan 26, 2014)

Dont know, it plays a role yeah, jealousy for social dominance can create more anxiety, but i dont think that its the root of sa
Sa is fear based, you develop fears after certain experiences, some are rational some are irrational.

I dont think that in the perfect utopi'sh world everyone would have it all equal, there is hierarchy in everything, i dont like the idea of others being as awesome as me


----------



## matthias10000 (Oct 1, 2014)

Aleida said:


> sure all humans just want their equal share of the woman resource ...
> 
> contradicts my own experience. i've always been the perfect target for bullies because of my low confidence. i didn't even want those resources from them (women, food, money, social popularity, acceptance). i didn't threaten their social status either. they could have just left me alone. if i'd display signs of confidence, i'm sure they would leave me alone and pick on someone else. they pick on the weakest to keep the weakest in their place.


I think you know what I mean. It´s men who want some of the women ´resource`. Women also participate in social dominance struggles but less than men and for different reasons (getting the best mate, being well-liked by other women/men, having friends,...)

My theory isn´t perfect but I have read another study that explains why your bullies wouldn´t let you alone. It basically tells you that submissive/socially anxious people are viewed by their peers as likely targets of exclusion, ridicule and aggression. Here´s the study (hope the link works): https://books.google.be/books?hl=nl...hgl0uoMenbFaFPx5NcnVtRUdY#v=onepage&q&f=false

And if you´re really interested, this is the ultimate study I base my theories on, I personally believe that this study explains social anxiety for at least 90 % of the people on this site: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ial_phobia/links/53e394280cf23a7ff749673f.pdf

To summarize it, it basically talks about two systems that are present in every human and makes the human view (and react) to social interactions in a different way: the first system is the *hedonic system* which is a system that operates in environments of low external threat (from others) in the social system and lets you bond with the others by having fun, doing things together,.. This system is special in that when this system is active in the group members they don´t seek dominance/submission but rather seek appreciation from others.

This system is associated with feeling good and reinforcing properties (that means you like it and want more of it, that´s the reason why most people socialize)(this system works on rewards)

The other system is the *defensive system* which is a system that operates in environments of high (perceived) threat from others. (This is interesting because people with (social) anxiety have been observed to have a bigger amygdala/more reactive amygdala, the part of the brain that is associated with threat processing)

This system makes sure that you ,or defend yourself aggressively against the aggressor (more likely if you have high social status) ,or make yourself submissive (more likely if you have low social status) so that the aggressor hopefully won´t think that you are a threat for him.

The researchers then say that they think that social anxiety is the result of the hedonic system (or threat system) that isn´t working how it´s supposed to be working. Therefore in social situations (especially with unfamiliar people) your attention will not be focused on all the positive, rewarding things that happen but rather on the threats (or perceived threats) that the other can give you.
(Other study says that insecure attachment to others can make you become focussed on the competitive dynamics of groups (= threat system is working harder) and the power of others to shame, hurt or reject you and the need to defend against these possibilities)

The researchers then argue that there are four levels on which the the defensive (threat) system operates.

The *First Level* (or goal) is to achieve/mantain the dominant position in a new or existing relationship. The strategy used is RAB (ritual agonistic behaviour, like staring, making jokes about the other, confident display, verbally/physically threatening/attacking the other,...). In an existing relationship this strategy is used when the other is perceived to be behaving in an insufficiently subordinate manner.

The *Second Level* (or goal) is both to avoid harm and rejection/expulsion by a dominant and to maintain a position next to the dominant (to be dutifully submissive). The strategy used is reverted escape = submissive appeasement and the adoption of a subordinate position. (THIS STRATEGY ONLY WORKS IF YOU HAVE GOOD SOCIAL SKILLS THE RESEARCHERS CLAIM)

The *Third Level* (or goal) is to avoid a perceived threat from a dominant, when the strategy of submission is not working. The strategy used in this situation is escape, fight, freeze, faint, camouflage (=hide) or a combination of these or avoidance of the others (people).

The *Fourth Level* is not a goal but a state of resignation/despair in which depression is the predominant mood and helplesness the ´strategy`.

I really recommend that you read the study, if you understand what the researchers are trying to say, it gives a very interesting and convincing read on the cause of social anxiety.


----------



## mitch70 (May 12, 2016)

Your theory contains some truth, but it is at the same time extremely reductionist. You ignore that people are multi-faceted. I will never be a Schwarzenegger as I don't have the genetic predisposition for that. I will never be the most popular guy in the room as I am a shy more nerdy type of guy. 
Now, I could of course try to do all kind of bodybuilding activities or take steroids or so, or take alcohol of pills to overcome my shyness, but I would know myself that I am a fake. It's probably better to work on talents I have, i.e. my nerdiness. Bill Gates or Elon Musk also arrived at the top of the food chain, if you see what I mean:smile2:
In addition, I don't live only through others. Yes, humans are social animals, but that doesn't mean that value can only be found through others. Certain activities bring value, satisfaction in their own right.


----------



## Pretty queen (Feb 15, 2016)

Well, I have a friend who used testosterone for bodybuilding purposes and he was the same guy on testosterone. Yeah, he was more happy and horny but that's it.


----------



## marsia (Mar 22, 2016)

I don't think SA is about scarcity and dominance in the social hierarchy directly. Some of the things you mention, "resources that everyone wanted to have: women, money, food, social popularity, being accepted, and plenty of others..." are not in short supply in an evolutionary perspective: women are over half the population; money was not important in a social evolutionarily way until just recently - we were an agricultural and self-supporting species until money came along; there is enough food for everyone on the planet - we just need a decent delivery method to get the food to everyone; and social popularity and being accepted theoretically do not have a limit - these are not scarce resources, they are coping strategies that are rewarded and there are many ways to achieve these, not just having the most testosterone or the firmest handshake (example - women are over half the population and do not generally have these qualities but can be popular and accepted in other ways.) Also SA is not just a disorder of the lower classes who have less resources - look at the US with unprecedented resources - we are among the most depressed and fearful societies ever.

Social anxiety (in my way of thinking) is being psychologically stuck in maladaptive thoughts, and creating amplified fear and avoidance by avoiding painful feelings (because anything you resist persists) instead of feeling universal feelings that because they are painful are considered negative. If our competitive society valued being psychologically strong (being able to learn and grow from all types of feelings, negative and painful or not) we would have the resources to overcome fear, shame, embarrassment, and other negative emotions. We probably would not even see them as negative, but just as reminders to learn and grow from our experiences. 

Think of an athlete. If he ignored pain and learned to fear it and shrink from it, he would not push himself to excel because he was avoiding the pain that comes as part of tearing down and building muscle, and if he was injured and had pain that needed tending and tried to avoid and ignore it, he would never learn to nurture his body when it got injured or out of whack. We avoid fear and don't learn to overcome it or to nurture ourselves after interacting in psychologically painful social situations. We don't find our own healthy self-esteem, but instead hope others will hold us in esteem though we often don't know how to ourselves. 

I do agree that living in a society that perceives scarcity and lack is making the society unhealthy and uncooperative. We are designed as cooperative animals (look at language and our ability to abstract and make symbols so we can collaborate and share ideas), but our social and societal politics are geared toward competition and "getting ahead" which means we leave others behind and don't care about them. In this environment it is harder to not focus too much on ourselves in a fearful way and try to control things that are not controllable like having "negative emotions." But really it is up to each of us to learn that we can't control what human emotions we have or how other people treat us, but we can learn to choose what reaction we have to them. We can't do this by pushing fear away, doing that just amplifies the fear.


----------

