I’ve been having this debate with someone who is a bit of a germaphobe in my view.
Say I have a paper cut on my finger. It’s deep enough to bleed initially, but it stops within a couple minutes. Maybe I need a bandaid at first, but after a day or 2, it is past the point where it starts bleeding again if I accidentally hit it or rub it on something. A couple days on, it still has the little flap of skin on it. Later, that goes away, but you can still see where it was. Finally, there is no trace. At what point in this process is the wound effectively closed?
When can you resume normal activities (dish washing, food prep, go in a pool/hot tub, have a dog lick your hand) and not worry about infection?
If your friend is actually a germaphobe, then just because something is safe, that doesn’t mean they won’t worry about infection.
Yes, a germophobe won’t be swayed by facts or logic.
Agreed, but I am. Some of the specific points of the concern were not easily searchable.
A phobia is an unusually high level of salience applied to the fear generated by an object.
It has nothing to do with an inability to see logic.
A germophobe is extremely motivated to avoid germs. In the service of that mission they are perfectly capable of seeing and using logic.
A phobia is defined by being irrational.
Simply being terrified isn’t a phobia if you have a valid reason to be terrified.
Hmm. So a germaphobe could learn that there aren’t germs on a particular surface or watch it be thoroughly cleaned, and that help them feel better. But, I could not convince them that a surface that is known to have germs is harmless.
Am I understanding this right?