As per tarbin's response
Beacuse it reduces anxiety. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to grasp. As tarbin pointed out the brain notices or makes up patterns of behaviour which reduce the anxiety caused by the obsessions (which cannot be controlled). Since the person's primary aim is to not feel anxious it does not make any difference that there is no logical link between the compulsion and the obsession. As long as the compulsion reduces the anxiety, they will perform it.

Your description of CBT is about the least useful "stiff upper lip" style dismissal of mental illness and its treatment that I've ever seen. It's pretty clear that not everyone possesses your remarkable reserves of sense and judgement. Your example is also wide of the mark since being dumped is a one-off event (...per girlfriend ...hopefully) whereas obsessions occur repeatedly. Even if you can accept that they are merely thoughts you're still left with the question of why am I constantly having these thoughts about, for example, my family being killed?
(flimflam_machine, Fri 2 Jul 2010, 15:34, 1 reply)

No - I really do apologise - I'm still not getting it.
If the OCDist realises that the compulsion are irrational/over the top, then I still don't understand why they do them, as they're irrational.

As a result of them realising they're irrational, then they accept that they will have no bearing on the obsession at all - eg below - that if the curtains are the wrong way up then one's parents will not die, as thats an irrational thing to think, so you don't need to worry about whether or not the curtains are upside down, and if you do, then remind yourself that it has no bearing on whether or not your parents will die.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 9:17, closed)

People aren't rational.
This is paraphrasing what tarbin said. Your failure to get OCD appears to be based on your not believing a straightforward fact i.e., that acting out the compulsion reduces the anxiety caused by the obsession. Your refusal to accept this appears to be based on the erroneous belief that people think and act rationally. This is simply not true and I suggest that you reread and digest tarbin's reply to you a bit more thoroughly.
(flimflam_machine, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 10:34, closed)

No
Tarbin just pointed out we look for patterns and are quite lazy.

People are rational. I accept we are all prone to have moments of irrationality - girls and women especially so when in my vicinity - but that does not excuse us all naturally striving towards rationality.

I still don't understand why you would do something debilitating or personally annoying to you in full knowledge that to do so is irrational.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 10:44, closed)

Reread it again
There is a huge amount of evidence that people are not rational (temporal discounting off the top of my head). The brain/mind does a huge amount of work that you are not aware of and the conscious rational part of you is just a very thin veneer over that. If you reread tarbin's post as I suggested post you'll notice that he said that "*our minds* notice (or even make up) patterns very easily." and "The *mind* is generally quite lazy." Note "mind" not, as you said, "we".

There is a process at work here of which the conscious self is unaware. The brain/mind notices or makes up a link between your curtains' orientation and your parents wellbeing without your conscious self having any say at all. Consciously you realise that there is no link and that straightening your curtains will not save your parents but you consciously notice that straightening you curtains reduces the anxiety you feel and so makes you feel better. Since your aim is not to feel anxious is makes sense, consciously and rationally, to perform the action that reduces your anxiety, even if the action itself is illogical.
(flimflam_machine, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 11:13, closed)

This is what I have issue with.
I don't accept that people in general are irrational.

Indeed - I'd go so far as to say that if something you consciously do that you know is irrational is annoying you, then stop doing it.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 11:18, closed)

Quite bored now
You are simply wrong about that. You don't have conscious access to the vast majority of what your brain does and you might qualify much of it as 'irrational'. Your conscious self has much less control over you than you think.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's the *obsessions* that annoy (distress) you and the compulsions *reduce* that distress. To reduce distress *is rational*. If you actually want to understand this (and aren't just trolling) go and do some reading. Otherwise, carry on.
(flimflam_machine, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 11:33, closed)

Yes I understand that.
What I don't get is to take the compulsions to the level that they're annoying or debilitating - ie - stressful.

As for rationality - if that is the case, and we're all irrational, then what of reason, laws, mathematics, science? All just a load of mumbo-jumbo made up by irrational people?

It would be a very good argument for religion, this - the universe is chaos, life is meaningless and ultimately futile - believe in god and this system of understanding the world.

Or - y'know - keep closing and opening your living room door and saying "Fish" 20 times before going to the toilet, because otherwise your mother will explode.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 11:54, closed)

Look down there

(flimflam_machine, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 14:30, closed)

You still keep going off on the wrong tangent.
You're not describing OCD behaviour there. You're just making up some nutty example of strange behaviour. OCD people don't imagine their mothers are going to explode.

OCD people don't fear any consequences of failing to do something. The complusive door checker isn't thinking of what will happen if he forgets to lock the door. He's just simply compelled to check the door.

Their actions are exactly the same as the things we all do, all the time, but repeated and/or exagerated. We all check our doors and wash our hands. None of us repeatedly slam doors and worry about our mothers exploding.

You're either attention-whoring or trolling here.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 15:27, closed)

Ah - perhaps I was confused by Dissolved Mynci, who asked
"what's your take on having to have the curtains the right way or your parents will die? if drawers aren't shut in the right order then the house will burn down?"

I figured they were examples of OCD sufferers being in fear of consequences.

But you're right - I'm trolling and attention-whoring, it's nothing to do with discussion or exploring my original point - it's based entirely on my personally being a wanker.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 16:29, closed)

Aw,
come on, you're a big boy.

It's obvious you're doing a bit of trolling, but having managed to hook one or two of us, it's bad form to flounce off like that. I'm not calling you a wanker, so you don't need to get offended.

(edit) I didn't read the other post. What you said makes more sense. I don't think that's a valid example of OCD though.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 17:34, closed)

Thank you.
You're more than welcome.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 19:00, closed)

Ok, I'm biting. I know I shouldn't feed trolls, but here goes...
"If the OCDist realises that the compulsion are irrational/over the top, then I still don't understand why they do them, as they're irrational."

The person with OCD will realise that to a normal person their behaviour is over the top and not normal.

Take the example of a person locking the door and having to check twenty times in case they've not done it right. They're scared of the consequences if they get it wrong. Now, a normal person will check and when they do a little switch switches in their head and they stop worrying and get on with their lives. The person with OCD has a faulty switch that doesn't switch. They keep worrying, and the worry can be so strong it's completely debilitating. Just ignoring simply isn't an option.

If a normal person wasn't sure if they'd locked the door they'd worry. I know that for me it would be a distracting thought throughout the day. You wouldn't think it at all strange if that person went back to check to reassure themselves that the door was locked. But if we follow your logic they should just lock it right the first time and then learn to deal with the worry. Clearly, since people aren't right all the time, this worry mechanism has a rightful place in our heads. There's a good reason why we double check some things.

For the OCD sufferer it's the worry mechanism that doesn't work, or at least the mental switch that stops the worry. Just ignoring the worry doesn't make it go away, it makes it worse. The person knows they shouldn't worry, but that doesn't stop them worrying, so they do the thing that does stop them worrying.

Why do you not want to accept that some people find it harder to just stop doing these things than you do? Why is this such a problem for you?
(robbersdog, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 23:53, closed)

Starting with name-calling doesn't do your position much good in the PR/taking it seriously stakes.
I don't have a problem. I just don't understand why someone would evince a behaviour that they themselves found annoying or debilitating. To me it seems foolish.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 6 Jul 2010, 9:57, closed)

to most of
us it seems foolish. If it didn't, there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

But to say foolish behaviour shouldn't exist on the grounds it's foolish is a bit, er, foolish.

If you could stop people doing stupid things just by pointing out they're stupid, you'd be solving a lot of problems. Tell a herion addict, or even a smoker that he's being an idiot. See if that helps.

I think you made your point about 20 posts ago.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Tue 6 Jul 2010, 12:25, closed)