Maybe it would be useful to think of learning the skill of socializing while anxious as a little like learning the skill of ice skating.
Can you teach yourself ice skating from scratch? Maybe, it’s possible to just use pure trial and error and figure it out for yourself with no guidance or feedback. It might become frustrating and the temptation might be to give up because it seems impossible, and takes forever to even get the basics down, if that ever happens at all.
But what if you had an ice skating manual and youtube videos? Probably better than purely figuring it out on your own. But what if you have a question in the moment as you are, for example, trying to skate backwards? How should your left leg move if you have a soar right knee, or what happens if you keep spinning to the left whenever you try to turn right, or your ankles are soar after every practice and you aren’t sure if the type of skates you bought are really the best for your own body, experience, and needs?
If these questions arise, you could read the manual, go on youtube, ask the community. But then there are different opinions, bias, misinformation. Who to trust? How many hours do you want to spend researching a question when an expert could tell you there in the moment in like 2 seconds? What if you have 25 questions? How many days and weeks of research is that? Or could an expert answer all of them in like half an hour?
So skating coaches are not mandatory, but very strongly encouraged ;)
I think that if you don’t have a phylogenetically (history of species) and ontogenetically (development of individual) sensible approach to consciousness, how it evolved, and how it develops… then you are shouting at ghosts.
This is the most cogent and satisfying account I’ve found:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36937548/
Hope it’s ok to share sus dropbox link?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/niz2t7kzl0av4wp9nqw2r/a-biphasic-relational-approach-to-the-evolution-of-human-consciousness-un-enfoque-relacional-bifasico-para-la-evolucion-de-la-conciencia-humana.pdf?dl=0&rlkey=x0mapqjo4ohzbbw2w5rigtzw3
[edit] There is a whiff of ableism when the authors discuss extensions of their model to “developmentally delayed” children. I think they are mistaken here; and I don’t think this mistake undermines the core argument.
In other words, I think it’s easy to take the core argument and use it in a neurodiversity affirming (even celebrating!) way.
But just a heads up that most folks here interested in science and philosophy, I imagine, will delight in 97% of this, and cringe / get pissed off at 3%.
At least that’s my reading.