No. I'm saying you shouldn't deceptively use people for your personal benefit by interrupting whatever they're doing with a pretextual request as a form of therapy for yourself.
I hear you--I dealt with social anxiety severely for many years and still do to a lesser extent. But nothing about this justifies cynically exploiting people under false pretenses for selfish ends.
If you want to talk to strangers, great! Just don't deceive them for selfish ends.
Would it or does it? In fairness, I used to write like this too.
If the theory endorses selfish deceptions then its not worth adherence. If it doesn't endorse them, then it doesn't support the practice in the article, and its not worth discussing here.
You didn't have to read or respond to my comment. If you're suggesting that commenting on an article is equivalent to approaching a stranger in-person with a pretextual request calculated for your own therapeutic benefit... well if that's your suggestion then I suspect phrasing it directly instead of obscuring it with irony makes it perfectly obvious that your position isn't great
It wouldn't pass an IRB. This sort of thing is fundamentally selfish. At best de minimis but you can imagine how annoying public life would get if tacitly recruiting strangers as unpaid therapists was at all common.
I hear you--I dealt with social anxiety severely for many years and still do to a lesser extent. But nothing about this justifies cynically exploiting people under false pretenses for selfish ends.
If you want to talk to strangers, great! Just don't deceive them for selfish ends.