#questions about ocd

[fitzs-trained-monkey]

So, apparently I'm OCD...

Just got diagnosed today. Professionally. But I just want to make sure I'm not getting screwed over by capitalism. (Wouldn't be the first time. Thank you America.)

So, for my peace of mind...

I'm not looking to start a fight or offend anyone. I'm just weary of the American healthcare system because it's screwed me over in the past. I'm not paying $150 per appointment for giggles, okay?

Spread this around please? I really want to know.

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[yappacadaver]

Crazy wild shit man

[in-sufficientdata]

Why the Konmari method is pretty useless for people with genuine problems with hoarding and OCD, or OCD tendencies, at least without some caveats and definitions:

Hoarding is defined by a persistent emotional attachment to inanimate objects. Clutterers and hoarders often have an unconscious need to save items, whether for an imagined future ideal use, or just because otherwise they would end up in the landfill.

People with these issues often have difficulty discerning the difference between a truly useful item and something that should be given or thrown away because of their emotional attachment to the item.

They see themselves as the best curator of the items, which may range from useful items like craft supplies, display items, sentimental items, and stuff that is truly just junk.

"Sunk costs" is a term from economics that means that a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Although the original term refers to finances, the sunk costs of the time and effort someone has put into an item can influence their decision to keep the item.

Therefore, another factor in this attachment is the sunk costs of money, effort, and time that a person has put into an item. A person may no longer be personally attached to an item, but will keep it because they have always meant to use it or simply because it's not yet ruined.

This is also a reason those with fewer economic advantage tend to be hoarders more than those with a comfortable financial situation. Someone like this realizing they've obtained two of an item will take on the responsibility of curating both instead of getting rid of one.

Because of all these factors, the expression that was translated as "sparks joy" in the English version is too easy for a clutterer to confuse or redefine in their own mind as they work to sort through their items.

In my case, for example, I had a situation where the basement, which was full of our excess saved items, needed to be cleared so the cracked foundation could be repaired. I had to decide what to save in the limited storage space we still had, and what to throw out or donate.

If Konmari had been in vogue at the time (this was in 2004) I'm certain I would have kept far more items than I should have. This language is too easy for a clutterer to massage and redefine in their own mind based on what the item is.

First, clutterers need to be clear-eyed about the fact that they suffer from excess emotional attachment to objects. Flylady's declutter method was in vogue at the time I engaged in this declutter session, and she has a whole checklist of questions to ask oneself about an object:

Do I love this item?

Have I used it in the past year?

Is it really garbage?

Do I have another one that is better?

Should I really keep two?

Does it have sentimental value that causes me to love it?

Or does it give me guilt and make me sad when I see the item?

This may seem needlessly complex to someone who is not a hoarder or clutterer but this addresses many of the reasons that a sufferer would keep an item that they shouldn't.

Another factor is that they are perfectionists. This seems at odds with the idea that they may have a huge mess in their home, but what happens is they often can't deal with their persistent need to have a perfectly clean home that matches their vision.

Because of this they put off starting on the project until it can be done perfectly.

This is why methods like Flylady and Unfuck Your Habitat (which is really just Flylady without the cutesy rhetoric) help these people so much, because people with differences such as ADHD become clutterers because they don't know how to regulate their own time or how to organize.

The emotional attachment to their possessions is, incidentally, why decluttering on behalf of your hoarder friend is a very bad idea. The person will need to work through this process on their own, in order for it to stick.

Getting rid of these items can be intensely emotional and difficult for someone with these tendencies.

Time limits, routines, consistency, and persistence are the best tools for someone who needs to declutter. Don't try to do this all in an afternoon. Not only is it a difficult process, it should become a consistent habit.

For resources and further reading please check out Squalor Survivors (archive.org link).

[catkin-morgs-kookaburralover]

questioning sexuality is so exhausting

[crimson--freak]

@ people who’ve been professionally diagnosed with ocd:

This question comes from my (second-hand) knowledge of the way in which diagnoses such as autism can impact on a person’s life, such as potentially barring them from accessing gender-affirming healthcare, or immigrating to certain countries, or other things like that.

Do any of you think there are particular problems like this that arise from an ocd diagnosis? For example, could getting an ocd diagnosis lead to similar problems with accessing healthcare and the like? I know having a diagnosis will most likely significantly impact the way people around me, such as coworkers and employers and health professionals, treat me as opposed to if I don’t get a diagnosis.

On the other hand, are there any benefits to getting a diagnosis (besides that you know that there’s a confirmed second opinion that you do in fact have ocd)?

[keshetchai]

As someone who enjoys religion blogging/discussions, I've come to realize that it's a good practice to be aware of the general signs/symptoms of religious-OCD thinking (aka scrupulosity), because if the conversation is taking on all the hallmarks of scrupulosity, it's actually a definitive sign that we cannot meaningfully and compassionately engage in a conversation about religion in a healthy way. I've actually had this play out a significant number of times online, and when I realized what it was, I also began to realize that the intrusive thoughts/obsessive and compulsive thinking are only ever fed by continuing the discussion with that person.

[[ Important edit to clarify why I am saying it's not healthy — made after I went back to look for more concrete facts about OCD or anxiety (I have GAD, not OCD, but many resources overlap since they're both anxiety disorders):

When Reassurance is Harmful — this explains how/why reassurance-seeking specifically about an OCD fear is a compulsive behavior, and engaging with reassurance-seeking interferes with recovery/management/treatment.

This table from the Anxiety Disorders Center lists key differences between Information Seeking and Reassurance Seeking.

This IOCDF page on Scrupulosity info for Faith Leaders identifies "symptom accommodation" as enabling. Two of the examples of doing this by participating in the OCD behavior are: "Engage in excessive conversation focused on if-then scenarios (e.g., "If I did this, then would X or Y happen? And what if Z was involved? How about W?")" And, "Repeatedly answering questions about ‘correct’ religious or faith practices."

That page also goes on to outline more info about reassurance seeking. "Although providing answers to (often simple!) questions may seem harmless, providing reassurance serves to maintain the anxiety disorder cycle." (This BMC psychiatry article cites a lot of related studies establishing this.)

The IOCDF page on What is OCD and Scrupulosity? ]]

Imo, the responsible thing to do is to recognize that (even if the other person hasn't outright stated it/isn't diagnosed)* the conversation is not about religion, it is about needing mental health support from professionals and experts. Talking to me, the layperson who enjoys chatting theology and my religion — is not only not helping, but is actively harmful. I'm not just talking about the person who I replied to today, either. Like I've said, I've seen this happen dozens of times in various online forums.

*[while I am against diagnosing strangers on the internet, it's important to realize A) lots of people don't know what Scrupulosity is, so it's possible they've never considered this is a mental health concern that could be treated, and that B) for the purposes of my concern, it doesn't matter if they actually have diagnosed OCD. The only thing that matters is that their thought-process causes them genuine distress/fear, and every response given to them seems to only incite new/additional distressing questions/thoughts, or further entrenches the original distress.]

Ultimately, any discussion aside from "you might want to speak to a mental health professional about scrupulosity OCD" seemingly puts me in the position of feeling as if I am being used for their self-harm. I hate that feeling. I do not want to be leverage for fear and pain. I have GAD, I despise the idea that I am making things worse.

No matter how much I love religious discussion, the answer in these cases is always "please reach out to an OCD specialist/mental health professional. I am not qualified to discuss this." And then to stop there. I have never once seen anyone stuck in this compulsive thought spiral be reassured or feel any better by hearing from someone else's approach to theology handled with things like empathy, compassion, logic, or even atheism. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, or how we relate to our own religion. The urge to engage in this kind of conversation in order to chat about religion is a sign that we are not equipped to help.

You can't have a conversation here, because intentionally or not, ten times out of ten, you are adding fuel to the fire. Just like people can't simply tell me something that would erase/talk me out of my ADHD/depression/anxiety disorder, you also cannot simply argue/reassure/persuade people out of scrupulosity. We should not try. We have a responsibility to consider that it's outright harmful to do so, and to disengage.

[icewindandboringhorror]

proofreading an email for 2 hours straight just on the off chance that sometime between the 14th and 15th rereading the text has magically been replaced with a bunch of slurs and images of dead animals or something that I somehow entirely missed before

[garlic-and-cloves]

I think I might have OCD.

I really have no other explanation for any of this. But I'm also already diagnosed with plenty of other things and I can't possibly have everything in the DSM so I feel like I'm making it up. But every time I research anything about it I just feel like it matches and I have no reason against it.

I have been told by at this point 6 unrelated people that I should consider it and I feel like that's a little ridiculous for something I've been denying any possibility of having. And I'm able to function much better than my aunt so I must be fine right? (Except I know I'm not functioning and it's genetic)

And I know in the end it doesn't really matter and I'm definitely overthinking this and have no reason for the panic attack but if it is OCD I think I need to change the way I'm engaging with this (maybe I do anyway). Maybe some of these things I'm doing are actually harmful to me (I know they are). Now I'm not sure what to do about that but it definitely can't be blamed on not liking changes in routine when how did it get this way in the first place

[caitas-cooing]

Okay so context to this question is that I was playing persona 3 reload and my littlest brother was watching me and I said something about how I have to level up characters as evenly as possible or else it made my brain itch, and he did not understand what I meant by that. So like do you know what that means or should I find another way to explain this

[psalm40speakstome]

Day after tomorrow I have a phone call with a potential OCD Therapist that I’ve been emailing.

Any thoughts, prayers, good vibes, really anything would be appreciated.

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[seapiglet]

it's ironic how many people I've seen absolutely up in arms over michael sheen being asked about his age gap relationship, claiming that it "infantilises" his partner, anna.

there is nothing infantalising about being curious about the relationship dynamics between two people at different stages of their life. there's nothing inherently judgmental or disapproving in asking about it.

however, it is infantilising to treat a middle-aged man as if he's so fragile he needs to be protected from any potentially uncomfortable questions (which is something he knowingly signed up for in this case).

I think people's brains are so addled from needing-to-fuck-that-old-man-disease they're creating problems where there are none.

[privatejoker]

dude im so okay right now

[pitohuimaki]

god you guys make all the bullshit worth it <3 love u

[kyorru-remade]

personality psych is fun but it will Never be abnormal psychology