Talk:Phobia/Archive 2

Rational Fear?
Phobia is many times defined as an irrational fear. So what is the correct term for a rational fear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianKarlsson.se (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Terms for prejudice or discrimination -- Non Neutral POV section
I would like to suggest that this section is largely non-neutral. Usage of "phobia" under the guise of "a neutral negativity" is frequently used as a way of name-calling and head-gaming. For example, "homophobia" is often asserted to be a neutral term (as suggested in this section), but for those labeled with the term it seems more like thinly-disguised name-calling (the homophobia article itself recognizes this controversy). That is, when used this way, "phobia" allows the user to essentially get away with calling someone "irrational" and "fearful" for simply holding a less-than-fully-supportive perspective, regardless of the rationale. Thus, legitimizing the use of "phobia" as "a neutral negativity" here in this section is non-neutral because is promotes name-calling and bullying under the guise of neutrality.

This idea may be difficult to see, especially when the user of "phobia" in this way has him/herself suffered historically from overt name-calling. However the "covertness" of name-calling in this way does not make it neutral, it simply makes it "covert", a head game, still non-neutral. Here's another example which may be more obvious: In the southern U.S., prior to the 1960's or so, some terms for blacks were perceived as neutral by the users of the terms, but they were not neutral terms. "Plausible deny-ability" makes the name-calling plausibly neutral, but not actually neutral.

I know this is a hot issue. I will wait for comment before making changes. I may simply add words suggesting that the usage in this way, while possibly intended to be neutral by the user, can sometimes be intended as a "name-calling-under-the-guise-of-neutrality", or words to those effect.

108.7.7.6 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Want to Join Me?
Hello, I'm a psychology undergraduate at UC Berkeley and have taken an interest in the renovation of this page. Because of this page's importance, I feel its neglect doesn't do the field of psychology justice so if you would like to collaborate with me join me! Gorozco1 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not qualified, but it's good that you'll be improving the article. A comment: the DSM is a copyrighted work, right? If so, the material quoted from it is anything but brief (and constitutes a significant proportion of the article), which means it's a WP:COPYVIO and must be replaced with a summary.  Rostz (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Outline
1. Areas involved a. Amygdala b. Lef insula c. Anterior cingulate cortex (or other cortexes-- medial prefrontal, extrastriate visual) d. Hippocampus 2. Neural circuit of fear a. Auditory info--> Basolateral region (amygdala)--> Central nucleus--> Cerebral cortex, Hypothalamus, and Gray matter 3. Activation of amygdala a. How stimuli activates it and releases hormones i. Types of stimuli ii. Types of hormones b. Hormone effect on body response i. Sympathetic nervous system-- Fight or flight response c. Conditioning of amygdala to threatening stimuli i.Disrupted by damage ii. What happens when stimulated iii. Neurons learn to respond to stimuli assoc. with fear

Our article will be focusing on the neuroscience of phobia, specifically the brain regions involved during fear. The outline consists of three main sections, the first being a discussion on the general brain structures and regions involved in fear acquisition. The second section shows the network of these structures and details how sensory information comes into the brain, is processed, and results in a fear response. The third section is specifically focused on the amygdala and the role it plays in phobic responses. This details how it responds to stimuli, the hormones involved, and the behavioral responses that occur when this area is damaged or lesioned. Hpilla15 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One question you should be thinking about as you do this -- though it's hard to address -- is why some types of stimuli are much more prone to cause phobias than other types of stimuli. For example, phobias to spiders and snakes are very common, phobias to guns are very rare, despite the fact that guns are a far more serious danger nowadays.  The answer must surely be that spiders and snakes have been threats to our primate ancestors for millions of years, while guns have not.  But how does that come into play at the level of brain circuitry?  You might look at http://www.pnas.org/content/104/42/16396.full for a starting point. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and the link! Hpilla15 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's comments
Neuropsychprof (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Group, I like your outline
 * Regarding your references below, you have a number of primary sources. For this topic, there should be plenty of secondary sources available. Remember your textbook is also an appropriate source. Aim to reference only secondary sources that are reliable in your article.
 * Keep up the good work!

A reflist


Hpilla15 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A comment on this list: Popular science can be used as a source of inspiration, but it is not a reliable source. So if they for instance write about LeDoux, you have to find LeDoux's article or book and use that as the source for your text. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   17:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've taken the liberty of reformatting the list to make it easier to read. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Smallman12q
Smallman12q (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to define the components of the brain so much. You can briefly introduce a cortex, and wikilink to it. Complete articles on the subject are only a click away.
 * Add more wikilinks.
 * You mention several cortexes and their roles. Has anything more specific, such as certain neurotransmitters or abnormal solute concentrations, been implicated in phobias?

Max Frazier Comments

 * I really like the overall presentation of your page. There is great detail and it seems well and thought out. However, i would like a bit more from some of the sections that seem a bit light. Non-psychological conditions was one that I would like to see further developed. I don't possess to much knowledge on phobias and that particular section sparked a lot of my interest. I looked at some of your references and the seemed to be pretty good as well. I could see their work in the information presented. Not in a bad way, just that i know your information has a home, and is truthful. Any-who, great job guys.! -Tothemax4  —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from alymp17

 * In the amygdala section, the grammar needs to be fixed a little. “an” instead of “a”
 * What is horseshoe paired? It is written in “Hippocampus” section. Actually, the whole hippocampus section needs to be revised because a lot of it isn’t understandable/correct grammar.
 * “Disruption” not “Distruption” in the section title!
 * Other than those specific items, your article flows very well. It is well-integrated and it was even difficult for me to find what was yours and what was from other people because so many people helped contribute! Just listen to what the other people have posted on the site, do not forget to include the words of those who posted before you.
 * Good job so far, though, guys. Alymp17 (talk)

Comments from VWBeetle23
VWBeetle23 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your additions to the article are very thorough and that shows an extensive knowedge of the subject which is great!
 * I would agree that making links to other wiki pages on the structures themselves would make it all the better
 * I see that although many of the structures are related to fear itself, is it possible to show how they play a role in the powerful fear of the phobia, which is more specfic?
 * The flow is good, but perhaps seperating the structures and making the sections of damage and those thereafter seperate would help show the different points in better organization.
 * Apart from that, great job!!!

Comments from sbenduha
sbenduha (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations are needed at the end of Neurobiology's first paragraph, end of the Amygdala section, and in the Hippocampus section.
 * Consider moving 'Amygdala's Role in Memory and Learned Fear Responses' to the Amygdala section, or just below it, so there is a more cohesive understanding of the amygdala.
 * I think a bit more can be expanded in the 'Left insula' section, particularly explaining more about 'detecting and interpreting threatening stimuli' or with the 'correlation between increased insular activation and anxiety.' If possible I think providing an example here, or more information from the study would be helpful for clarification purposes.
 * I would include hyperlinks to the different cortex's and lobes in that brain that are discussed. (cerebral cortex, frontal lobe)
 * Very good article though! Interesting, has smooth flow, and has clearly been critiqued and perfected over time.

Neurobiology
Hi Hpilla15 and Schandler91! Thank you both for your contributions to the Neurobiology section. It would be really nice if you could take your Wikipedia editing one step further and integrate what was written before with the text that you have added. Because at this moment they are like two separate parts... With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Aalwaraqi

 * I like the flow of your article and how you show knowledge of the subject and the different parts of the brain that relate to fear.


 * There should be a bit more wiki links added into your article which would cut out some of the information that isn't needed as much as the details about your topic. Make more room for the relevant information, thus making your article not drone on for so long. It will keep your article more organized and prevents from talking too much about definitions. It will give you more structure.


 * Watch the grammar. When you have errors it takes away the significance of your article. Remember to spell check.


 * Other than a few minor errors that can be quickly fixed, you guys are on the right track and doing good work. keep it up!

Aalwaraqi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tturner4411

 * Some of the grammar is sub-par. The article needs to be better edited to be taken seriously.


 * More organization is in order. You could do this by using wiki links.

Tturner4411 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from ilsetap08
It is very understanding to read, but should be broken up more to explain the results afterwards. You guys show a great deal of information making it easy to read. I enjoyed reading this article and learning so much more information apart from our class. ilsetap08Ilsetap08 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Daniadams9121
I like the organization of the article. You guys did a good job with that. Make sure to check your grammar though, it could stand to be improved. It was a very easy to read article and I think that is very important, great job there. Make sure to explain the results more afterwards. I really enjoyed reading the neurobiology section of this article and I think you guys did a great job. With a few minor adjustments this article is going to look great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.20.25 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from NikolazSalinas
Great organization with the article guys. You guys did an amazing job with giving the background of what a phobia is and what causes them and all that jazz. The only thing I would say to add is like different type of phobias. Like add a list of phobias like near the end of the page. I mean that is just a minor thing I don't know if it needs to be added but it seems like it wold be nice. The Diagnosis section was well written and really enjoyed that. Everything seems to be fine and awesome so that is good, great grammar and spelling. keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolazSalinas (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's feedback
You're doing a really nice job adding to this Neurobiology section. Keep up the good work! Neuropsychprof (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you gals didn't write the first 2 paragraphs in the Neurobiology section. Because you're working on this section, be bold and edit so the section flows well. For example, the first paragraph can be deleted (doesn't provide info not included elsewhere; repetitive with some sections above). The amygdala is not located behind the pituitary. Add amygdala's relationship to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in the discussion on fight-or-flight response.
 * Amygdala: "The amydala associates itself with fear by decoding emotions, and threatening stimuli" need to be more specific. I recommend that you merge into this section the info in The amygdala's role in memory and learned fear responses (i.e., conditioning). It is not clear what the end of this paragraph (i.e., "When it comes to fear...") is trying to communicate. I recommend that you give an example of a classical conditioning scenario that explains the amygdala's role in classical conditioning.
 * Anterior cingulate, extrastriate, and medial prefrontal cortices: I recommend that you remove the extrastriate info from this paragraph. The reason is the strastriate region is in the occipital lobe, which does not fit with your opening sentence in this paragraph. It's great that you're including processing of fearful expressions and extinction!
 * Hippocampus: Hippocampus does not help with maintaining posture. The role of the hippocampus in phobia is not clear. Perhaps you discuss its role in modulating fear responses via the HPA axis. The last sentence of this paragraph is poorly written. Please clarify your message. Remember you are only allowed one grammatical error in the entire edited section (i.e., Neurobiology). This sentence alone has multiple grammatical errors.
 * Disruption by damage: I think it would be better if you integrate the info in this section into relevant sections above. For example, put Kluver-Bucy syndrome and Urbach-Wiethe disease in the section on amygdala. However, do note that these are conditions involving medial temporal damage, which includes the hippocampus (it's a good idea to put the hippocampus section immediately after the amygdala section). By the way, Urbach-Wiethe disease is not defined by damage to the amygdala, which you incorrectly implied. You also need to explain that the basolateral nuclei are a section of the amygdala. I don't think this article needs a reference to Phinease Gage, because he did not have a problem with phobia.

Changes Based on Feedback
Thank you all for your suggestions! While we tried to incorporate as much of the suggested changes as possible, here is the gist of what we focused on editing:

- Add more wikilinks and shorten the introduction of brain components

- Grammatical errors, rewording of sentences

- Flow in previous writing in the section to our contributions

- Delete unnecessary information or off topic information

- Include discussion of HPA Axis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.27 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as organizing the sections, there were several different suggestions, so we were unable to implement everyone’s comments. However, we did organize our section around the basic outline of:

1. Brain regions involved

2. What they do in relation to phobia

3. A closer look at the amygdala

4. What happens when these areas are damaged

The only changes we have yet to make are in relation to the Disruption by Damage section. While it was advised by the instructor to integrate this info to the section above, we found it difficult to keep our sections organized according to the outline by rearranging the section. We wanted to put all information in relation to lesions and damage in the last paragraph, so we can first present how the brain regions work, and then what happens when they’re damaged. Thank you for all your helpful advice!

Hpilla15 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in intro
The intro contains the following sentence: "Proximity and the degree to which escape from the phobic stimulus should also be considered." It seems to be missing some bits; possibly it should be "...to which escape is impossible..." or "...to which escape is possible..." or something. I'm not actually certain what the content here should be, but it does need attention. Kierkkadon (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quite right! Please add either is possible or is impossible.  Lova Falk     talk   16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kierkkadontalk/contribs 16:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lova Falk    talk   16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University
"I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 (talk • contribs)
 * Once more, welcome! When adding a new comment (that is not an answer to other comments or questions), click on New section. And, please sign! Otherwise, you're doing great! Face-smile.svg  Lova Falk     talk   20:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hypnosis
Hello, I'm editing this article as part of my History & Systems of Psychology course at Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I'll be adding a new section on hypnosis since is now being often use to cure or help phobias. I'll be using reliable resources. Below is my bibliography: David Goode. (undefined). Hypnotherapy-Service. In Phobias and Fears. Retrieved Feburary 18, 2013, from http://www.hypnotherapy-services.com/downloads/Fears_and_phobias.pdf. Kraft, D. (2010). THE PLACE OF HYPNOSIS IN PSYCHIATRY, PART 4: ITS APPLICATION TO THE TREATMENT OF AGORAPHOBIA AND SOCIAL PHOBIA. Australian Journal Of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 38(2), 91-110. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Wmiguel! Your David Goode article is not a reliable source according to WP:MEDRS. Goode is not a scientist, he is a practitioner and the article he has written has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. To the best of my judgement, however, the second source found here is a good WP:secondary source. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias.
I found a good source on the incidence of phobias at. I don't have time to incorporate it into the article at the moment but wanted to add the source here.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright thank you very much for your input..this source would be a good addition to my section of hypnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmiguel08 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Doubts about new edits
The article has just seen massive new edits that, as far as I can tell, are mainly concerned with describing rather obscure ideas that come from a researcher named H. N. Levinson. My view, I'm afraid, is that these edits give greatly undue weight to ideas that have achieved minor notability at best, and probably will need to be reverted. Looie496 (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I have reverted those edits. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why have images?
When searching a phobia, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN IMAGE OF THE PHOBIA!!! There are probably plenty floating around on the net. People who have phobias who come searching for it to see what triggers it get b,asked with a face full of it as they browse the page. Come on. Won't a description simply suffice? 120.148.168.247 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC) (Extreme arachnophobic and trypophobic. If you don't know what it is, search up an image of it. You'll be delighted.)

Confusing opening sentence
The first sentence of this article is a little bit of a mess:

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

1. The clause "when used in the context of clinical psychology" is a little clumsy and breaks up the sentence. Why can't we just say "A phobia . . . is a term in clinical psychology"? I assume the author wished to avoid the implication that it is only a clinical psychology term. But since the entire article is about the term as used in clinical psychology, I don't think it would be a problem to begin that way.

2. "persistent fear of an object or situation in which . . ."--What is the antecedent of the word which in this clause? Is it fear or is it object or situation? Neither one seems grammatically consistent with the rest of the sentence.

3. " . . . in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ." In avoiding what? The transitive verb "avoiding" requires an object. My intuition is that the intended object was the which earlier in the sentence. This would have the meaning: "The sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding [the object or situation]", which is sensible and comprehensible, but it is not a possible parsing of the sentence as written. If this is indeed the intended meaning, it should read: ". . . an object or situation which [not in which] the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding. . ."

4. The last phrase: ". . . often being recognized as irrational." What is recognized as irrational? (The fear? The avoidance? The actual danger posed? The sufferer? The great lengths?) Also, by whom is it recognized as irrational? (By the sufferer? By the general population? By clinical psychologists?) (The sentence can be read to mean that it's only a phobia if the sufferer him/herself recognizes its irrationality. To an outsider like me, knowing little about clinical psychology, that is a plausible and conceivable reading. But I don't know if it's what is intended. It could equally well mean that everyone but the sufferer recognizes the irrationality of the phobia.)

I propose the following re-written sentence:

'''Phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is a term in clinical psychology for a type of anxiety disorder. It is usually defined as a persistent fear, recognized [by the sufferer?] as irrational, of some object or situation which the sufferer takes great lengths to avoid, typically out of proportion to the actual danger.''' Chalkieperfect (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the point that the wording about clinical psychology was trying to account for is that the term "phobia" is also used outside that context in a much looser way, to mean any sort of intense dislike -- for example homophobia is not really a fear of people of the same sex. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Common phobias
Could someone with access to reliable sources add some statistical information on which sorts of phobias are particularly common? -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Terms for prejudice all POV?
This section is completely unreferenced and uses a clinical term in a non-clinical way to justify insulting people who oppose some of the lifestyles listed here. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the section documents the fact that these terms are used non-clinically to describe people who oppose some of the lifestyles listed. That is a very different thing.--Srleffler (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating Clinical Classification
Hello all! I was looking over the clinical section under classification and I realized that it could be updated. The information is using the DSM-IV and with the DSM-V being recently released, some of the information has changed. It's very important to keep up with this because many psychological definitions can change from one manual to the next. These are my proposed edits (I didn't change the agoraphobia section, except for changing the numbering. I copied the rest of the paragraph):

Most phobias are classified into two categories and, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), such phobias are considered to be sub-types of anxiety disorder. The two categories are:

1. Specific phobias: Fear of particular objects or social situations that immediately results in anxiety and can sometimes lead to panic attacks. Specific phobia may be further subdivided into five categories: animal type, natural environment type, situational type, blood-injection-injury type, and other.

2. Agoraphobia: a generalized fear of leaving home or a small familiar 'safe' area, and of possible panic attacks that might follow. It may also be caused by various specific phobias such as fear of open spaces, social embarrassment (social agoraphobia), fear of contamination (fear of germs, possibly complicated by obsessive-compulsive disorder) or PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) related to a trauma that occurred out of doors.S.koltun (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Systematic Desensitization
Another method that is used in the treatment of a phobia is systematic desensitization, a process in which the patients seeking help slowly become accustomed to their phobia, and ultimately overcome it. For example, a woman who is afraid of snakes could start the process by looking at pictures of snakes, transition to videos of snakes, then possibly to seeing snakes in a cage, touching the snake, and then finally being able to hold it without fear. Melissadinkin (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)MelissaDinkin

Linquistical masking errors.
Phobia: greek (fovia): lack of definite aperture/focal point/focus stability reference.

Claustrophobia and agoraphobia are in reality not phobias at all, but space-time, position, differencial reference focal point asimetries, which lead to balance desquilibriums. These experienced desquilibriums are taken up in PLL reference to be non-wanted (survival mode), within the context of overal events, and actively NOT sought out. When the neuronal threshold firing level of a detect event is set to high, then that becomes debilitating in interaction.

Many phobias are defacto survival drives, but outside of the stability criterea of usefullness in context, EXCEPT, if there IS a definite focal asimetry, such a those found in far and nearsightedness, at which point they are not debilitating, but actively in direct relation to personal survivalbility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.8.124 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This talk page is only for discussion of how to improve the Wikipedia article, and any improvements need to be based on reputable published sources. The material above clearly does not meet those criteria, and does not belong here. (Also "phobia" comes from Greek phobos, meaning "fear", not from fovea, which was a Latin word meaning "ditch" or "pit".) Looie496 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)