PDA

View Full Version : Social Skills



Dag0n
03-21-2005, 06:28 PM
I've been reading a lot

of stuff on here about how confidence and strong socials skills are much more affective than mones alone, and i

totally agree. However, I'd like to present a theory. Today we are hearing a lot about a disorder called, "social

anxiety disorder". Now you ask, why are we just hearing about this now? Is it something new? Probably not... The

symptoms of this disorder have probably been seen in many people before, but nobody thought it was a true problem.

What usually happens is a dramactic spike in cases... Then doctors start to realize something isn't right and start

doing more research. Well, I'm sure most of you are aware that the internet first started gaining real popularity

about 10-15 years ago. hmm... coincidence? From my experience, jumping on the internet bandwagon about 11 years

ago, right as i was going into highschool was a very bad idea... for these years are a very important growth period

when it comes to our bodys and for developing the social skills we will later use as adults. Most of my time out of

school was either spent online or at parties getting wasted... So the only little skills i did recieve don't really

matter cause i was drunk. Keep in mind, this is just an theory and I'm not saying this has happened to everyone,

but it is definately something to think about for all you teenagers and parents out there...

TRock
03-21-2005, 08:39 PM
i wasn't heavy into computer use

til 2000 but yes it is a waste of my life. there really isn't a day that goes by that i'm not on the computer for

like half and hour. it's like crack i know it's bad for me but i can't help but use it.

Dag0n
03-21-2005, 09:17 PM
I just think that

being online and in chatrooms to much during those teenage years is what really can cause damage into adulthood.

Those are vital years for social interaction. I wish i would've known that then.

Pancho1188
03-21-2005, 09:33 PM
I highly doubt that being

online scarred your social development. Think about it: if you weren't online, you would've been watching TV. At

least you have the chance to interact with people on the 'net. Now, if you could honestly tell me you would've

done something productive instead of watching TV, I guess you would've developed more.

All that said, Social

Anxiety Disorder is like Depression. Nobody believed it existed, then once it was recognized as a legitimate

disorder, everybody has it. It's gone from neglected problem to copout. Have you heard this ad:

"Do you feel

down? Can't seem to get out of that 'funk'? Do you have trouble getting out of bed in the morning? You may be

experiencing depression."

That describes most people on a bad week. Social anxiety disorder is similar, but

probably not as exploited. I would say that just as some people misdiagnose themselves with depression, others are

misdiagnosed with SAD when they are either introverted or shy. I will be the first to tell you that introversion is

not a disorder. I can't be in large, chaotic crowds for more than a couple of hours without getting a little

agitated. On a bad day, a party situation can drive me crazy. I don't have a disorder, though, I am just

introverted, which means that I am easily stimulated by the outside world, and too much outside stimulation can

cause an overload and drain my battery.

In other words: don't worry about it. The beauty of the past is you can

learn from it. If you don't like how you acted, change it for the better now for a better tomorrow. I don't

believe the internet played as much of a role, though, because internet use cuts into what would've probably been

extra TV time, anyway.

a.k.a.
03-22-2005, 07:05 AM
Here’s a radical idea...
What

if social anxiety is on the rise because community life has broken down, the economy has become less secure, people

are under more pressure and society is a much more competitive place than when your parents were growing up?


Likewise, what if depression’s a big problem because jobs have become less fulfilling, the ecology has gone to pot,

and the future looks grimmer every day?

But I do agree that teenagers need to spend a lot more time

socializing.

HK45Mark23
03-22-2005, 01:33 PM
Well, actually you idea is not

radical. It is just misinformed.

Today we are more secure than any time in history. People just a hundred

years ago did not have enough to eat and no medical knowledge to speak

of.

It was

that many had to work all day just to supply them selves with the essential

necessities.



This idea that the world is so bad is a farce. What is true is that today’s

society is spoiled and just little cry babies.

The true injustice is not being on the computer, but the drugs, sex and

alcohol that children engage in at young ages. The pop culture is in part to blame for this moral degridation, as

it parents and schools.



The true injustice is the propaganda of the media and that the schools teach. Free thinkers are oppressed

in this society of “enlightenment.”

As a matter of fact the computer is a great source of information and it is

not passive like a TV. I think TV is also good if you are learning from an educational source, even games are good

if not corrupted with negative influence.

Social skills are formed early with parental interaction. Have you seen a

father that will not hold his baby and young children? How will that affect the

child?



How about the work environment today, in the

past children and parents had to work hand in hand support the whole family. Be it hunting and gathering from the

fields or inside weaving and sowing all had purpose and bonded through hardship and necessity in order to

survive.



I have said it before, we are not in tune with nature, our selves or others compared to just one century

ago.



But the base is not the internet. It is a loss of basic social skills due to improper child rearing and

socially ignorant and emotional intellectual un-education.
Well there it is.

HK45Mark23

Mtnjim
03-22-2005, 07:01 PM
"Today we are more secure than any time in history."

Only a slight

disagreement -- A few years ago, this was true.

Pancho1188
03-22-2005, 07:50 PM
"Today we are more secure

than any time in history."

Only a slight disagreement -- A few years ago, this was

true.

What, you don't think the Patriot Act makes us more secure

than before it? :run:

HK45Mark23
03-23-2005, 02:37 PM
War has always been and will always be. But the ease at witch we live

our lives, and the ease of daily support of our essential necessities is unmatched in

history.

It is true

that we are now and have always been threatened with invasion and outside forces who wish to do harm to us. But in

what society did they not have such threats.

Matter of fact some of the most famous stories are dealing with cities

and the basic need for security like the movie Troy. Back in history they not only had to prepare for daily life

support but also protection from animals or warring invaders.

The sense of security I was referring to was economic and social.

Today we have economic security. The mechanisms are in place to insure

that.

The

economic loss from 911 was far greater even relative to the cause of the Great Depression. The magnitude of damage

to our economy may not be fully understood by laypersons. But with out the programs instituted in our economic

institutions and our great strength today we all would be crippled financially from 911

alone.

It is

unfortunate that the media thrives on bad news and they are the biggest bunch of wolves out there. They will twist

truths into lies and then mis and dis inform the

public.

It reminds

me of the leavening of the Pharisees. If you are familiar with the story it referred to baking. If you are baking

and you yeasten a batch of dough it takes a small amount of yeast to yeasten a whole

batch.

I know

that a batch of pizza dough may be a volume of 45 quarts and the necessary amount of yeast is ¾ cups. So relative

to the volume of dough there is a small amount of yeast.

It is also so in information and mis/dis-information. Many sly and

slick people will use 90-95% facts and truths to invoke some persons or peoples emotions. They then will interject

an untruth in order to gain the psychological advantage and manipulate the ignorant masses. This data usually is

not able to be proven or unproven easily or at least not in that immediate moment. Then they will use that

ill-informed point to try and persuade one to act or think in a specific

manner.

The

problem is that the bulk of the information is accurate and the one little part that is not is hard to pick out of

the batch. It is just like taking raw leavened dough and trying to separate the yeast. You will be hard pressed to

do so. It is as trying to separate the tea or coffee from the water after it has been brewed, it has become one and

the whole batch of dough is leavened or the tea and coffee is tea and

coffee.

Therefore beware of the leavening of the Pharisees. And know

that we are truly more secure today than any time in history. Also remember you are what you think and you are

where you are because of you beliefs and society will be its collaborative thoughts.





HK45Mark23

HK45Mark23
03-23-2005, 02:48 PM
"Today we are more secure

than any time in history."

Only a slight disagreement -- A few years ago, this was

true.

Well it is obvious that we were not as secure as

we needed to be. Well we also were not as secure at Pear harbor as we needed to be but with experience should come

knowledge and wisdom. So I would say that we may not have been as secure as we needed to be but that we should be

better educated and more secure now than then, even if it still is not enough.



Remember that it takes mistakes to learn. Who learned to ride a bike with out falling off? And

didn’t falling off teach you to not fall off.

Every thing in life

takes mistakes to learn it is the nature of learning and it is also why teachers have deep understanding of their

topics of instruction, they get to see all the mistakes made by others and in return they also instill that

information into their life experience.

HK45Mark23

Pancho1188
03-23-2005, 06:57 PM
The sense of

security I was referring to was economic and social. Today we have economic security. The mechanisms are in place to

insure that.

The economic

loss from 911 was far greater even relative to the cause of the Great Depression. The magnitude of damage to our

economy may not be fully understood by laypersons. But with out the programs instituted in our economic institutions

and our great strength today we all would be crippled financially from 911

alone.




I'm not sure how you can even begin to compare

the destruction of two large buildings and a few planes to the rush on thousands of financial institutions for money

they did not have, leading to a nationwide economic panic and thousands of banks going under for the inability to

repay lenders and the inability of borrowers to repay them. As the travel industry took a nose dive, the security

industry increased. That's why it was a recession, not a depression. The unemployment rate never hit 25 percent.

September 11th also had assistance from the burst of the internet bubble and inethical actions from shady

executives. Still, I would not even compare the two periods economically. Yes, the regulations and safety

precautions in place softened the blow, but I think September 11th itself caused more of an emotional panic than an

economic one.

Ironically, my disagreement with your statement only makes your main argument stronger because it

supports the notion that we are more economically and socially secure today than ever before. That I agree with.

People who don't believe so are subject to the "action/reaction" or probability fallacy in psychology (note:

that's not a technical term; I can't remember the actual term). In other words, one doesn't believe something is

very probable until it happens, then people overreact and believe that it's much more of a threat than it really

is. In reality, the odds are very similar if not less. It works the opposite of the lottery or coin-flip

probability fallacy that if a coin lands on tails 100 times the next one has a high probably of being heads when

it's really still 50-50.

HK45Mark23
03-24-2005, 10:19 PM
Well actually it is a very valid comparison. Matter of fact the securities industry makes the comparison in

the securities text books.

You greatly underestimated the

losses.

By the way there were many buildings that were totally

damaged, not just the towers.

My home town is 165,000 people and the

metropolitan aria is 300,000 total. I said this because the twin towers employed over 160,000

people.The hit on New York was the equivalent of 1/10th of an atomic

bomb.It shut down Wall Street. People did start to sell all their paper

assets and it did trigger a panic in the markets. It was the programs that were in place that prohibited a total

break down.

Let’s not

forget we were in a full swing recession when Bush took office.

The

air lines were shut down for like a week.

Our great strength as a

nation and the support all Americans showed by pulling together and helping in the ways we could it why we can

sustain such a blow.

Well really I will get into this later; I will

get all the facts.

The accumulation of the total losses was greater

than most people realize.

As intelligent as you are I really can’t

believe you devalued the hit on our economy and security.

Shortly after all of that we also have sustained the constant

bombardment from the hurricanes, the war efforts, Tsunami relief as well as the cost of oil. Yet we are still

strong.

Holmes
03-24-2005, 10:39 PM
I like the idea of social skills.

Studies show they might be helpful.

DrSmellThis
03-25-2005, 11:14 AM
...more barnburning analysis

from Holmes. :)

Mtnjim
03-25-2005, 12:27 PM
This is a tad tardy, I was "away" from this thread yesterday.

"It is

true that we are now and have always been threatened with invasion and outside forces who wish to do harm to us. But

in what society did they not have such threats."

In truth, we (like China and Russia) will never be

successfully invaded, we're just too large ( think Napoleon in Russia).




"The sense of security I was referring to was

economic and social. Today we have economic security. The mechanisms are in place to insure that."

Mostly,

this was exactly what I was referring to. The national surplus has again been turned into a deficit, one of the

largest, if not the largest, in history. This leads to a weak $ vs other currencies (not just the Euro, but also the

Yen). Good for big international business, not so good for the rest of us. The high paying manufacturing and

technology jobs are being "out sourced" to the lower paying areas. India and China used to be the favorite places,

but now even they are becoming "too expensive" for big business. Meanwhile Mr. Bush's "extraordinarly robust" job

growth consists of jobs that entail flipping burgers and stocking shelves at Wal Mart, real high paying, those jobs.

Good for big international business, not so good for the rest of us.

The "social safety net" for the poor,

infirm, and elderly is being slashed to shreds. Project Headstart and the school meal programs are being massively

under funded. MediCare and Medicaid are facing the threat of elimination. Social Security, well, I'm safe, I am way

old and born before 1958, but most of the rest of you on this board might as well die at 65, unless you are one of

the millionaire CEO buddies of Mr. Bush and friends.

Large corporations are stealing millions from customers

and investors, shifting the wealth to their Officers and other "insiders" and leaving it up to the taxpayers to foot

the bill (Think Enron and World Com/MCI). Meanwhile the CEO's, corperations, and other "favorites" of this

administration are getting huge tax cuts, while the rest of us--well, I paid more in taxes last year than the

previous year, "nuff said.

This stuff isn't just happening on the Federal level. I work for the California

State University system. We have a retirement system called "CalPERS", one of the largest investment powers in the

country. The board of directors has always been careful to make "ethical" investments, and apparently this is

disturbing some in big business. They have convinced "The Arnold" (he!! no, I'm not even going to attempt to spell

his last name:hammer: ) to end CalPERS' influence, and take the retirement funds for other uses. He is now claiming

that State employees get $80,000 a year retirements. Sorry, but not counting the few who's well placed lips to

buttocks landed them 6 figure salaries from political appointments, the average state employee earns $30,000 a year

and gets an $18,000 a year retirement.

This was only meant as an example of practices happening all over,

not just to state employees, and not just in California.
After all, how many private companies have suddenly

told their employees and retirees that they no longer have pensions?
How many manufaturing plant have suddenly

closed after the workers were "assured" their jobs were safe?


So Much for "security"!:frustrate

Holmes
03-25-2005, 12:37 PM
...more

barnburning analysis from Holmes. :)

Au contraire! My days as an arsonist are well behind

me.

Pancho1188
03-25-2005, 02:06 PM
Well actually it is a very valid comparison. Matter of fact the

securities industry makes the comparison in the securities text books.

You greatly underestimated the losses.

By the way there were

many buildings that were totally damaged, not just the towers.

My

home town is 165,000 people and the metropolitan aria is 300,000 total. I said this because the twin towers employed

over 160,000 people.The hit on New York was the equivalent of 1/10th of

an atomic bomb.It shut down Wall Street. People did start to sell all

their paper assets and it did trigger a panic in the markets. It was the programs that were in place that prohibited

a total break down.

Let’s not forget we were in a full swing recession when Bush took office.



The air lines were shut down for like a week.

Our great strength as a nation and the support all Americans showed by pulling together and helping in the

ways we could it why we can sustain such a blow.

Well really I will

get into this later; I will get all the facts.

The accumulation of

the total losses was greater than most people realize.

As

intelligent as you are I really can’t believe you devalued the hit on our economy and security.



Shortly after all of that we also have sustained the constant

bombardment from the hurricanes, the war efforts, Tsunami relief as well as the cost of oil. Yet we are still

strong. You can compare the numbers on Wall Street to the panic that led to the Great

Depression, but you cannot by any means compare the overall economic welfare of individual's ability to provide

food and shelter for themselves and their families. That's the only reason I argued your point because that's what

I believed you were referring to when you talk about the overall economic security of the people of the United

States being at an all-time high.

Yes, the buildings were gone...but the jobs were still there. People just

relocated. In the Great Depression, there were no jobs. The insurance companies were the ones that got hit by the

disaster. The travel industry got hit by the fear to fly. The disaster hit specific industries...the emotional

response hit the entire economy. What happened? As time went on, people regained confidence. The Great Depression

hit every industry, people had no money, and everyone was worried about how they were going to survive economically

for the next day, week, or month. I didn't see anyone afraid of that in 2001...just afraid that they wouldn't have

the money they might have had for retirement. In my opinion, that's not as much of an impact economically.

How

many people were worried about getting enough food for their families after September 11th? Did you see lines of

people waiting to buy a loaf of bread or get some soup? No, because although the effect was great on Wall Street,

the average person didn't lose their source of income or economic well-being from it. I think more companies filed

Chapter 11 from the recession, scandals, and internet bubble than from the disaster.

Yes, we lost billions of

dollars because the Pentagon, the towers, the travel industry, fear, a recession, the internet bubble burst, and

anything else you can think of...but you don't see the individual economic impact you did in the Great Depression.

Again, that's why one is a recession and the other was a depression. You can't consider them in the same league.

I'm not trying to devalue what happened. I think you're comparing something recent that you experienced to

something that happened a long time ago, so it's easy to look back and say, "Oh, this was almost as bad as that."

Yes, the numbers make it look nice and comparable, but qualitatively with regards to the individual American, I

refuse to buy into the belief that you could even begin to compare the two.

In other words, we may just be

looking at this from two different perspectives. You're looking at the numbers, I'm looking at the numbers in

relation to the average person, which I thought was more relevant because we're talking about the economic

well-being of the general population, not companies and industries. To use Mtnjim's reference, we're talking

losing your pension (today) vs. losing your job and funds in the bank (Great Depression). Speaking of pension, back

in the day, people worked until they died. Now, people expect to get almost 20 years of retirement on both savings

and the taxpayer's dime! How's that for economic security?

Mtnjim
03-25-2005, 02:26 PM
"Speaking of pension, back in the

day, people worked until they died. Now, people expect to get almost 20 years of retirement on both savings and the

taxpayer's dime! How's that for economic security?"

And back, back in the day, the lucky and wealthy died

in their late 40's or early 50's. Then in the 1930's (Waaaay before my time) society began the process of

teaching us about "retirement", not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class. So my generation's parents grew

up expecting retirement, my generation grew up expecting retirement, and your generation grew up expecting

retirement. Today, things are a little different. People are retireing for a year or two, then returning to work for

various reasons (just look at the "greeters" at Wal Mart), not always economic. Additionally, there is the talk of

the "boomer echo", where there will be a shortage of labor and industry will be actively recruiting "retirees" not

only for the "greeter" part time job, but for full and part time jobs in their old fields.


Dang, look how

far we've come from the original post on "social skills" and "social anxiety disorder"!!:angel:

Holmes
03-25-2005, 03:41 PM
Dang, look how far

we've come from the original post on "social skills" and "social anxiety disorder"!!:angel:

Hey, I

tried to reel it back in! :lol:

Mtnjim
03-25-2005, 03:45 PM
Hey, I tried

to reel it back in! :lol: Oh! That's what you were doing. I thought you were threating to burn down

someone's barn.:cheers:

OH! Wait, that was the good Doctor!

Happy Friday!!

Pancho1188
03-25-2005, 04:00 PM
Social anxiety disorder is

real for some, and an excuse for others. It has nothing to do with Internet usage. If you think about it,

technology has allowed us to communicate more often...wouldn't you say? You're talking to someone, the phone

rings...you pick it up and talk to them...then you go home to the internet...you chat on Instant Messenger while

you're e-mailing a friend, talking on the phone, and hanging out with a buddy. Social anxiety disorder?!?!? More

like ADHD... ;) ;)

Mtnjim
03-25-2005, 04:05 PM
"Social anxiety disorder is real

for some, and an excuse for others."

True, someone with "social anxiety disorder" wouldn't be able to answer

the phone.

chronic
04-07-2005, 04:58 AM
any known cure for social

anxiety then????

Pancho1188
04-07-2005, 06:06 PM
You can take pills, practice

relaxation techniques, or use NLP to associate social situations with positive feelings. If you're introverted,

though, you just have to learn how to spend your extroverted energy wisely because extroverted activities drain your

batteries.