Social anxiety again

I literally didn’t give a second thought to “”self-diagnosing”” social anxiety (as a teenager, before I spent much time online, before I’d ever heard the term “self-diagnosis.”) It seemed pretty foolproof. I had anxiety about social situations: social anxiety.

But the more I read in-depth stuff by and about people with social anxiety, the more convinced I am that I acutally kind of don’t have it. I don’t have the same kind of anxiety about social situations that most people mean when they say “social anxiety”, anyway.

One of the big differences is, social anxiety is supposed to have “self-monitoring” as a big component– like, wondering how other people are perceiving you, what-iffing about negative ways you might be perceived, doing extra careful things to make sure people perceive you the way you want them to. And with the post about bars, I got to thinking about the fact that I do the self-monitoring thing sometimes (see the points about dancing), but I don’t really do it that much.

And when I do, there’s either an anxiety/shame snowball effect where I very quickly worry myself into total incapability, or it sort of dead-ends because I have no fucking idea how people actually perceive me, what I might be doing “wrong,” or what I might need to do to “fix” it, so I just exist in this state of tense balance/calm given-up-ness where I think I should probably be doing X, but I’m probably failing, but I’m going to keep trying to do X anyway.

I’m not smart enough to what-if during social situations (and I don’t really do it outside them either.) I’m not quick enough. I don’t have enough extra brain capacity. If I really start what-iffing, I stop talking (and probably start crying.)

It’s all in how you frame it

So. This article.

It’s about identifying, at a young age, children who are likely to be Drains On Society’s Resources throughout their lives, so that Targeted Interventions can be done to prevent that from happening. “Social disadvantage” is mentioned as a factor in the kind of prediction, but the overall thrust of the article is that this is about something inherent to these children. Brain function and intelligence are mentioned.

The way this article tells the story, it’s a story about identifying problem people and keeping them from messing up society for the good people by using up resources.

It would be very easy for this same set of facts to tell a different story.


Please consider:

A family on welfare– which means their children get more and better food to eat and have a safer place to live, which means those children are healthier physically and mentally, and better equipped to do well in school, with all the attendant good effects on their adult lives that a happier childhood and a better education provide–

… is nonetheless an undesirable thing according to this article. Welfare is Those 20% Of People using more than their fair share of resources and costing the government money.

But who’s going to pay for the Interventions to fix those children so that they won’t cost the government money? The government, right?

What are those Interventions going to be, if not, basically, better healthcare, better food, better education? What are welfare benefits and the NHS if not interventions paid for by the government to improve the lives of people who are poor?


As written, this is a story about saving the government money, based on the assumption that the government urgently needs to stop spending so much money on its people. It’s a story about protecting good people who produce from bad people who take. Or at best, it’s a story about pitying bad people instead of fearing them. It’s a story where spending money on social programs is a drain on society, but (spending money to) Intervene and Take Action to Fix People is good. It’s a story about taking control, to prevent bad people from doing something wrong.

It could have been a story about people who need help– who deserve help, both because helping them will help society as a whole and also because they are human beings who are struggling and they deserve not to have to struggle so hard. It could have been a story about how hard it is to thrive when you start life without a solid foundation, and what an immense positive change we can create by providing better care for all our young children. It could have been a story about how much good the government does by providing healthcare and education and all the various benefits it provides, and which of those programs are most essential, and how they could be improved.

Why did the first story get written and not the second? What makes that first story more palatable?

Pay attention to this difference of mindset, between controlling a problem and helping a person in trouble. It underlies a lot of discussions about government spending, healthcare, charity, and class and disability in general.

Do Neurotypical People Stim?

This is another Tumblr autism community controversy that I’m like a month late to.

The question isn’t really “Do neurotpyical people do stim/fidget-like things?” because obviously the answer to that is yes; the question is, should we call those things by the same name when neurotypical (or, non-autistic) (or, non-cognitively/learning disabled) people do them, as when autistic people do? Or should there be separate words?

Continue reading “Do Neurotypical People Stim?”

Re: ‘The word dissociation is overused nowadays’

1. Blame it on the psychologists who use the word dissociation to describe a continuum of stuff, from what you think of as “real” dissociation down to things that are totally normal occasional experiences for everybody. If somebody reads an authoritative-sounding informational thing that says “Most people experience mild dissocation once in a while, and that’s normal, but for a few people it’s more severe or more often,” it is not at all unreasonable that they would then use the word dissociation to describe normal/mild things.

2. It might help if we could come up with more specific words for things that are dissociation-ish but not exactly. It might also help if we could use the existing words for specific types of dissociation more often (e.g. depersonalization), instead of grouping them all together.


I’m thinking about portrayals of trauma and phobias in fiction. (Well, because I was recently reading one specific one, but the details aren’t really relevant.) The thing is, I found myself feeling really unsympathetic towards this one character, even as I recognized her reaction (to something that reminded her of a near-death experience) as both a Serious Trauma Thing and similar to how I sometimes react to things related to my phobia.

So I was wondering about why I felt that way, and I came up with a couple of things.

1. She doesn’t describe what happened in detail

2. She doesn’t describe how she felt/feels about it in detail

3. She reacts in an avoiding/shutting-down sort of way rather than a straightforwardly fearful or hurt or sad way

And like. Those are all things I do, but apparently they still strike me as unsympathetic and overreacting when someone else does them, so that’s educational I guess.

More about femininity

Ok I think I have some more feels about the posts I’ve seen that I need to set down before I can go into detail about myself. I’m going to go bullet-point style here for a bit.


  • For the people who like femininity it’s not just about safety/camouflage/being more socially acceptable. That’s definitely a factor for some people but also:
    • Some people just actually enjoy it and think it’s fun??? Like knitting is stereotypically feminine too but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for me to enjoy it on its own merits?
    • For some people, doing femme fashion in a way that makes it their own is sort of like reclaiming a slur. It’s taking something that was used against you and taking back control of it.
    • Femininity is simultaneously required and devalued. Some people want to push back against that by showing that it has value, that e.g. makeup takes skill and artistic talent.
    • Believe it or not there are afab people in the world who were discouraged from being feminine (in one sense of the word or another) by their culture/their parents/etc. For some of us, being feminine is a rebellion and a rejection of limits put on us.
  • The idea that femininity (or makeup in particular) is inherently tied to body shame is another thing I don’t get.
    • Like obviously I get the straightforward connection that being expected to cover up/”fix” your skin is kind of inherently body shame
    • and obviously a lot of marketing towards girls/women takes advantage of body shame to make people think they Need various products to be acceptable
    • It’s just not what I experienced. I felt like I didn’t deserve to be feminine. I felt like I was so… just generically bad… that I couldn’t possibly wear makeup or really feminine clothes because I would obviously do it wrong and look bad and I would just be embarrassing myself.
  • “…the idea behind that skirt you bought in tenth grade (maybe if I stop wearing so many loose jeans the girls in my class will want to talk to me)” And this is why I experienced it differently. Something something my sins are too numerous to mention etc. etc.
  • The rhetoric that socially enforced femininity is an irresistible power, a death threat, “conform or die” is incredibly alienating for me and idk, I’ve now seen both straight femme women and butch lesbians use it so apparently I’m in the minority but I just don’t get it.
    • I’m not dead.
    • How am I supposed to describe my experiences and how my life fits into these ideas if the only position open for me is “dead or mostly dead”.
    • The thing where people assume that people like you are just too outside the norm to exist is really unpleasant. really disorienting. really saddening. Why would you want to focus on your deadness-to-society when you could do anything else.
    • This person probably doesn’t even mean that argh she probably means like actual harrassment and violence not rhetorical non-humanity
    • I am so! far! from being on the same page with anyone about this and btw this is why there’s no such thing as a single universal female socialization.


You know come to think of it I sometimes do the opposite of infodumping? I give a really brief and vague summary of an idea and then wait to see if the other person wants to hear more?

And like 75% of the time, rather then responding with either  “Oh really, tell me more,” or a non-interested response and a change of topic. Instead, they go into Debate Mode immediately and start trying to pick holes in my super vague and simplified summary.

Instead of letting me go into detail.

Whatever it is I’m doing, it’s not sending the “this is a preview, and now, the details…” message.