This is such an abstract, storybook way of talking about fear. There's just no point to talking about processing fear without talking about causes and relations

This is such an abstract, storybook way of talking about fear. There's just no point to talking about processing fear without talking about causes and relations between things. The article attempted to legitimate itself by excluding "trauma" from the definition but it's still more porous than that. Things like White Flight don't happen because people failed to let fear "pass over and through them", they're social praxis. The celebration of FOMO in amorous relationships (at least in milieus I've been party to) is bordering on celebrated to disastrous societal effects, again, social praxis. Many of the fears people deal with aren't of the class of fears that "fear of skydiving" or "fear of bees" belongs to. This pseudo-existentialist take hand waives the complexity of the problem. Fear is often cultivated in our social milieus in ways which can avoid critical introspection. And saying the "hard stuff" is "trauma" makes the solution easier to describe when in reality everything classed as "trauma" is a gradient that overlaps with whatever it is this litany deems to address. Better than telling me how little risk-averse you are, how fearless you are (since our society has overcorrected and its popular to stamp yourself as 'fearless' in some way), I'd be more convinced if someone told me what the substance of their commitment to some value or goal was that carries them over and against fearful outcomes. These are the people that historically have truly been fearless. But abstract fearlessness as it abounds in society today is opaque and uncritical in its value. We have enough examples of subcultures that revolve around this abstract brand of fearlessness and yet you find these milieus bound by all sorts of unwritten social rules they dare not break.