But the drug companies can make money off of it I am sure. Doctors and drug companies will not be happy until we are all druged and all act the same.

Wow, amazing, I never thought somebody who was shy might actually fear social contact.

FACE PALM moment.

I need to be medicated after having read about this study.

Sigh...just once I'd like to see a story about science without the armchair science critics coming out of the woodwork to critique scientific papers they've never even read. To address the comments above:

One-Eyed Undertaker:

Diagnosing 4 year olds with ADHD and medicating them. Homosexuality was a "disorder". Now shy teens have "social phobia".

People, it's what's called "the human experience". And, it's wonderful because everyone has a different one, not because everyone is alike or fits within some arbitrary definition of "normal" determined by some anonymous group of egomaniacal quasi-science PHDs.

When will we kick these charlatans preaching their cult of psychology to the curb? It's ridiculous.

First of all, the article didn't say that all shy people have social phobia. In fact, both the scientists themselves and the news article *BOTH* made it very clear that this refers only to a minority of people that are considered "shy". In the future, please read and understand before you criticize.

Secondly, you seem to have no understanding whatsoever of the criteria that psychologists use to determine whether something should be considered a diagnosable disorder. To quote from the introduction to DSM-IV: "In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g. painful symptom) or disability (i.e. impairment in one or more important areas of functioning or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one."

The introduction to DSM-IV includes a much longer discussion of what should and should not be considered a diagnosable to disorder. I would suggest that you read and make sure you fully understand all of this before you criticize.

@ doggiemom: Why do people automatically think that any medication that is intended to help with psychological symptoms automatically is some kind of scam? Many of the same people that write nonsense like you just did will take blood pressure medicine, insulin for diabetes, antibiotics, and a host of other medications. Why is it that medications are ok to help other organs but not the brain?

@ Richard-1971294: Ahhh yes. Once again, the old Science Story Rule applies: If a scientific result is something you expected, then you think the study was a waste of time because "everyone already knew that". If the scientific result is something you DIDN'T expect, then you think the study was a waste of time because, you know, it just isn't possible that your view of the world might have been wrong in some way.

Of course, if you had taken the time to read the peer reviewed research (heck, even the news story!) you would have learned that the term "social phobia" refers to a very specific set of symptoms. It's just a general catch-all term for anyone that is shy. In fact, the whole point of the peer reviewed paper (you know, the one you didn't bother to read) was to distinguish between social phobia and normal shyness. The authors did all sorts of sciency and mathy things that you wouldn't understand.

Junicon.

I see you're fully bought in. Do you make money diagnosing and/or treating people with "disorders"? I'd imagine you've at least thought about it if you're able to quote the DSM.

Regardless, all of your arguments assume the truth of your conclusion. That is, they're circular. Therefore, while they sound authoritative because you appeal to the "authority" of the DSM, they fail.

What you've done above is the secular equivalent of an Islamic person quoting to Qur'an to attempt to disprove the assertions of scientists debating evolution.

For example, everything you've said assumes:

(i) The validity of psychology. Your statement assumes we should give credence to the internally inconsistent pseudo-science, pseudo-religion that is psychology. I give it no such credence--which I made clear in my initial post.

Psychology resembles Greek mythology more than it resembles Western medicine or any empirical science.

For example, to which theorist demi-god do you ascribe, or do you give some credence to all? Are you a follower of the temple of Freud, demi-god of the ego and sex? Are you a follower of Jung, his rogue disciple? Are you a follower of Pavlov and Skinner with their legions of conditioned dogs and mice? Are you a follower of Bandura, Rogers, etc. I could go on.

Your demi-gods disagree. How do you differentiate and how do you rank?

Moreover, from where does a psychologist's/psychiatrist's "power" to disgnose another human being derive? Who gave you the power? The University of [____] in the form of a piece of paper? Where does their power derive? Does it derive from one of the above mentioned demi-gods? If so, where does your demi-gods power to diagnose derive--is ti from his theory that we all disagree about? At the end of the day, you're left with a man and an unproven, contested theory as your source of authority. As such, psychologists have no authority except the authority we sheep choose to give them.

Psychologists are bogeyman sophists. If we ignore them, they will go away. If we examine them, their house of cards collapses.

(ii) The concept of "disorder". "Disorder" is necessarily defined by reference to "order". "Order" in the realm of psychology is "normal". Therefore, talking about a psychological "disorder" necessarily assumes that (i) "normal" is knowable, (ii) that we can all agree what "normal" is, (iii) that we can all agree that deviations from "normal" are negative and why and (iv) the we can all agree on the magnitude of deviation to deem negative and why.

These assumptions obviously do not hold. Even if we assume, arbitrarily, that psychologists/psychiatrist are somehow ordained to determine "normal" for society (see above) and "abnormal", even they can't agree. Look at the recent attempt to include ephebophilia in the DSM-V for example. It comes down to a vote by the DSM editing body. Who the heck nominated these people to determine "normalcy"? I sure didn't.

Moreover, how is "normal" even objectively knowable if human existence is a steady stream of subjective experience and subjective response? Everyone experiences things differently. Everyone reacts differently. How can you draw a line and say "okay, you're experience/reaction is "normal"; yours is a "disorder". You can't other than by reference to the concept of "normal" defined as "x standard deviations from the mean". It's egomania to the nth degree to even think you're qualified to undertake such an operation, much less to actually undertake it.

And, again, what is the "mean" "normal" consciousness and why are we concerned with strict adherence to it?

(iii) Authority of DSM. This objection follows from the above. Why are we giving Biblical credence to the DSM? Who ordained its quasi-anonymous authors/editors? From where does it derive its authority?

..................

I could keep going, but I trust you now get the point.

I don't know what to think of it either, but I'm not so quick to judge as the others on this board. It's so easy to pooh-pooh a problem you don't have yourself, say it's not real and that people with mental problems are normal or making mountains out of molehills.

I wonder if there's a diagnosis for holier-than-thou disorder?

I'm also terrible with faces. And eye colors. And names. And at remembering anything they said to me. I also can't remember clothes (most of the time I don't have the foggiest clue what I'm wearing). I have a very hard time with eye contact, mainly because I can't figure out which eye I'm supposed to be staring at -- or am I supposed to look at the bridge of their nose? I end up staring at their lips, after all, those are the parts that are moving around when they talk so it's only natural they catch my attention.

Of course, most of the time my only goal in a conversation with a new person is how to end it before the other person realizes I'm having a panic attack, and without them thinking I'm too much of a frothing lunatic.

Gotta agree. I was a shy kid in high school. Went to my 5 year reunion, got hammered and danced on the tables. :-)

This is my daughter in a nutshell. She is 23 now and we struggled for years to find someway of treating this debilitating condition. She is considerably better now and no longer on medication. Without therapy and medication, I don't think she would have made it through her teen years. Selective Mutism and Social Phobia are what her problems were labelled as. She was like this from the time she was a small child. Many people want to believe this isn't real, or they will grow out of it. It is easy to downplay something you don't understand, don't have or don't have to watch someone you love going through. I fought indifference and disbelief for years to get her the help she needed.

See a therapist today! Don't waste another precious day of your life needlessly suffering. Bear in mind that it will probably take a combination of teatments, and several (maybe many) tries to find the right ones for you. And you may need to see several therapists before you find the "right" one. But don't give up! You get one go 'round, don't waste it! BTW-You may also benefit from trying out biofeedback.