Confused about the Brain Lock controversy

[Ryukil]

I'm a little confused about the book Brain Lock. I know it's sort of "pop psychology," maybe, but it was written for people to try and help themselves, so...

What I'm confused about is that I see a lot of psychologists writing it off, essentially saying it's "garbage" and totally useless. That Jeffrey Schwartz is an uneducated hack who has no clue what he's talking about.

But then, all you have to do is look on the Internet to see so many people who have been helped (even to the point of complete recovery) by that book.

Okay, I understand that the book itself might not be perfect...I'm sure there are flaws and oversimplifications...but there's one thing that is extremely controversial, and that's the "relabeling" bit. Saying, "It's not me, it's OCD."  This is claimed to be reassurance. However, if this helps people to resist compulsions, I'm not sure what the problem is?

Let's say right now my problem is washing my hands in a ritualized manner. One day I get really frustrated with this waste of time, remember the phrase, "It's not me, it's OCD" which causes me to get angry at this "thing" ruining my life and then walk away from the sink. I do this more and more until the point where the handwashing is not a problem. I don't think this is an unrealistic story. So, what, saying "it's not me, it's my OCD" is going to remain even though I don't have a compulsion anymore? I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd be bothered by the phrase "it's not me, it's my OCD" remaining in my head for a couple of weeks or something...seems an okay trade-off for not having to ritualistically wash my hands for two hours now.

I know Shannon Shy, president of the IOCDF and all-around awesome guy,  basically recovered this way. He doesn't mention Brain Lock, but he got therapy in 1997 I think so the time-frame fits...Brain Lock was a very big deal when it first came out I guess. I saw a review of his book on Amazon saying, "No one can recover this way," I assume by someone who has been taught that disassociating yourself from OCD is a form of reassurance. And it's like...the sheer arrogance...do they think Shannon Shy is lying about what he did to recover? The evidence that some people can recover this way is staring you straight in the face!

So, is it possible that there is just no one "right way" to recover from OCD and slightly different approaches work for different people? I mean, the only common thread in all OCD success stories is resisting compulsions, I think. So my questions to you all would be...

 

1) Why is reminding yourself that your OCD is giving you these thoughts, feelings, and compulsions a problem if it helps you to ignore the compulsions? Why is it "reassurance?" Is ALL reassurance harmful? I always understood reassurance more as, if you're worried you'll catch a disease, researching incessantly on the Internet for symptoms of that disease, or making forum posts about it. In that example, I feel like a person telling themselves that their urge to Google is being caused by OCD and thereby finding the willpower to ignore it would be better than them actually Googling for reassurance.

 

2) What do you think of the many anecdotes of people who have found the book (or similar methods) helpful, even to the point of recovery? Why is Brain Lock rated so highly on Amazon with glowing reviews? Are many of these people who don't actually have OCD, or just found the book informative and posted a review immediately after reading it? Okay, I'll admit the Amazon reviews being positive is a weak argument now that I think about it, but the stories of people who actually improved or recovered stand.

 

Anyway...just wondering.

[PolarBear]

You're still stuck, trying to figure out which way to go. You're always comparing one method to another. You have a therapist, stick with him and put your efforts into his method.

The problem that cam arise from relabling is that the relabling itself can become a compulsions, so you're trading one compulsion for another.

[Ryukil]

I don't see how acknowledging a fact is a compulsion? It really depends. I guess if a person's only problem were intrusive thoughts, then saying "that thought is just my OCD" would be a compulsion if it's for seeking relief. However, if you're using it to motivate you to not wash your hands 30 times...I think it could be a powerful tool.

[Ashley]

53 minutes ago, Ryukil said:

I don't see how acknowledging a fact is a compulsion? It really depends. I guess if a person's only problem were intrusive thoughts, then saying "that thought is just my OCD" would be a compulsion if it's for seeking relief. However, if you're using it to motivate you to not wash your hands 30 times...I think it could be a powerful tool.

But the danger is its avoidance to the uncertainty. 

[Ryukil]

So would saying something like "Maybe it was my OCD, maybe it wasn't" be better?

[Ryukil]

Also, have there been any studies using the Four Steps? I'm curious.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Ryukil

[Orwell1984]

All the proof I need is in that picture. I used to relabel stuff as OCD and it did sound repetitive and incessant in my head and raised the question 'what if this is reassurance' but I kept doing it and then I didn't need to do it anymore. Realising it was OCD became a habit and treating it like stuff I could ignore became habit and everything improved. Go figure. Nothing is perfect because I still have OCD but the obsessions don't stick which is a bonus. The brain scans show relabeling MUST work.   Controversial topic but how can the brain scans be refuted?

[Orwell1984]

16 minutes ago, Ryukil said:

Also, have there been any studies using the Four Steps? I'm curious.

They're bound to be here somewhere https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=9euqeU0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984893/

Edited February 4, 2018 by Orwell1984

[Franklin12]

There are no ‘laws’ of OCD therapy. People have different opinions. People try things, and what works for one doesn’t always work for another. There are differing opinions about the labelling issue. I personally have a preference for one method over another. The thing is, no one here or in therapy has any authority over you to tell you what to do. And no one has responsibility for your recovery more than you do. I know that taking responsibility is difficult. You might get it wrong. But it feels as though you are struggling to take responsibility for making decisions. We are all in the same boat. People suggest things. We try them out, they work, they don’t work. What seems to be a fact is that most people don’t recover by repeatedly doing compulsions over and over again. They don’t seem to just suddenly find an answer after months of trying to work things out. Just make a decision about what approach you will take and stick with it. Take responsibility for it. And persevere with it. Then if it works, great. If it doesn’t work, allow yourself to admit that you took the wrong decision, and try a different way. That is fine. 

[Caramoole]

I think the problem simply lies with his explanation.  I don't think he ever probably meant it to be used as a mantra as such, a spoken, chanted (or thought) "It's not me, it's my OCD".....more a "knowing" or internal acknowledgement of what is causing the problem, which is OCD.  Whichever book or article you read, whichever therapist you see, whatever advice you receive on a forum....at some point it will be pointed out that the cause of your intrusive thoughts are not because you're mad or a danger but because you suffer from OCD.  I think he meant "acknowledge what the cause of your problem actually is"....but don't use it as a form of reassurance, simply a fact.  That happens whatever form of education you've had on the problem.

I think he doesn't explain it fully, thus I think sufferers misuse the advice and other professionals rubbish it.

[taurean]

I loved the book. For the first time someone explained to me why I get repeating vile intrusive thoughts that just keep on and on. 

And I have never seen labelling, followed by reattribution, as a potential compulsion. Why? Because I think Jeffrey is telling us to train our minds into a new way of responding to an intrusion caused by our illness. If we see it as OCD,  and not our true character, it takes the sting out of the thoughts, and helps us ease away from them in the refocus step. 

Once we are used to it, it's purpose eases away along with the intrusions

As for studies in the use of the technique, well I would say this place is a pretty good one to consider the effectiveness of the approach. A number of us have found it beneficial. 

And I think that, as an add-on to CBT, it is really useful. 

[Ryukil]

7 minutes ago, taurean said:

I loved the book. For the first time someone explained to me why I get repeating vile intrusive thoughts that just keep on and on. 

And I have never seen labelling, followed by reattribution, as a potential compulsion. Why? Because I think Jeffrey is telling us to train our minds into a new way of responding to an intrusion caused by our illness. If we see it as OCD,  and not our true character, it takes the sting out of the thoughts, and helps us ease away from them in the refocus step. 

Once we are used to it, it's purpose eases away along with the intrusions

As for studies in the use of the technique, well I would say this place is a pretty good one to consider the effectiveness of the approach. A number of us have found it beneficial. 

And I think that, as an add-on to CBT, it is really useful. 

I pretty much agree, I think.

[Ashley]

12 hours ago, Franklin12 said:

The thing is, no one here or in therapy has any authority over you to tell you what to do. And no one has responsibility for your recovery more than you do. I know that taking responsibility is difficult. You might get it wrong. But it feels as though you are struggling to take responsibility for making decisions. We are all in the same boat. People suggest things. We try them out, they work, they don’t work.

Just make a decision about what approach you will take and stick with it. Take responsibility for it. And persevere with it. Then if it works, great. If it doesn’t work, allow yourself to admit that you took the wrong decision, and try a different way. That is fine. 

Based off my experience of your posts Ryukil, I would suggest Franklin's response is the most important one here.  Choose a method and just go for it for a few weeks, stop seeking alternatives.

It's become very clear that you dismiss pretty much most of the suggestions the forums offered you, from self-help advice (about not changing usernames on websites) to therapy approaches, which is absolutely your prerogative, but what I find concerning for you is the fact you now have a therapist who is fairly knowledgeable about OCD and you are dismissing their therapy advice and focussing on what others have done or other self-help.  Now I don't know if that's because FP has not fully explained the therapy exercise to you, not done the right cognitive work to lay the foundations for the exercise or if the problem is you're just plain scared to commit, if it's the latter then I am with you and most of us here have been,

But it will not help you, in fact it will damage you if you keep seeking alternative therapy / self-help solutions.  

Like Franklin suggested, make a decision and stick with it. 

 

[Ashley]

10 hours ago, taurean said:

And I think that, as an add-on to CBT, it is really useful. 

I disagree, I think once therapy starts we need to put the self-help book down and focus on the therapy.  It's a great tool for starting out with dealing with OCD, but this thread alone demonstrates the confusions if misinterpreted. 

Brain Lock is a fine tool, but if it's starting to conflict with therapy (and I think it does with CBT) then time to put the book to one side. 

12 hours ago, Caramoole said:

I think the problem simply lies with his explanation.  I don't think he ever probably meant it to be used as a mantra as such, a spoken, chanted (or thought) "It's not me, it's my OCD".....more a "knowing" or internal acknowledgement of what is causing the problem, which is OCD. 

This is right, and when we start our journey with OCD it is a great way of recognising what's going on. But in the videos on our website I am pretty sure Jeff says that it was not meant to be said every time you get an intrusive thought. 

[njb]

13 hours ago, Caramoole said:

I think the problem simply lies with his explanation.  I don't think he ever probably meant it to be used as a mantra as such, a spoken, chanted (or thought) "It's not me, it's my OCD".....more a "knowing" or internal acknowledgement of what is causing the problem, which is OCD.  Whichever book or article you read, whichever therapist you see, whatever advice you receive on a forum....at some point it will be pointed out that the cause of your intrusive thoughts are not because you're mad or a danger but because you suffer from OCD.  I think he meant "acknowledge what the cause of your problem actually is"....but don't use it as a form of reassurance, simply a fact.  That happens whatever form of education you've had on the problem.

I think he doesn't explain it fully, thus I think sufferers misuse the advice and other professionals rubbish it.

I think as always the forum users have provided well thought out balanced perspectives. I think Caramoole nails it for me. I haven't read the book only what is on this site and other anecdotal bits. 

I think the point is to do all 4 steps and maybe the it's not me ought be 'I am reacting like this due to ocd'...

I don't know anything - I work in investments like Chandler Bing :-)

Edited February 4, 2018 by njb

[Caramoole]

11 hours ago, taurean said:

If we see it as OCD,  and not our true character, it takes the sting out of the thoughts, and helps us ease away from them in the refocus step. 

I think this is one of the tricky areas that professionals have a problem with.  Yes, we need to know it's OCD but need to be very careful that using this to take the sting out of things often becomes a subtle form of comfort, of self-reassurance and that is a compulsion.

 

 

 

[Ashley]

Out of interest as anyone read the 20th anniversary updated version?

[Caramoole]

 Nope

[gingerbreadgirl]

I really liked Brain Lock when I first read it but I have listened to the audio recently and I'm not so sure now.  The whole thing seems to brush very close to carrying out avoidance/compulsions. 

Like others I think Ryukil you should stick to whatever this therapist is telling you, even if you're not convinced by it, because I believe your biggest problem right now is not sticking to any particular strategy for long enough for it to work. 

[taurean]

28 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Out of interest as anyone read the 20th anniversary updated version?

Yes I think it came via your goodself at the OCD shop. 

It was some little while ago that I had a read through the update areas, and since then for me I have been concentrating on house renovation sale and purchase , so I can't specifically recall exactly what I thought of it, but I remember Jeffrey had reworked one part of the thinking to good effect, he thought - perhaps someone else can recall what it was? 

Coming back to using the four steps, I found it helped  to move into a better mindset and a retrained way of thinking away from the OCD and resultant intrusions. 

On its own, I agree it would not be tackling the reasons for the OCD - which would therefore be latent and unresolved. 

Hence yes, once learned we need to move away from the book and focus on CBT. 

[Ryukil]

6 hours ago, Ashley said:

Based off my experience of your posts Ryukil, I would suggest Franklin's response is the most important one here.  Choose a method and just go for it for a few weeks, stop seeking alternatives.

It's become very clear that you dismiss pretty much most of the suggestions the forums offered you, from self-help advice (about not changing usernames on websites) to therapy approaches, which is absolutely your prerogative, but what I find concerning for you is the fact you now have a therapist who is fairly knowledgeable about OCD and you are dismissing their therapy advice and focussing on what others have done or other self-help.  Now I don't know if that's because FP has not fully explained the therapy exercise to you, not done the right cognitive work to lay the foundations for the exercise or if the problem is you're just plain scared to commit, if it's the latter then I am with you and most of us here have been,

But it will not help you, in fact it will damage you if you keep seeking alternative therapy / self-help solutions.  

Like Franklin suggested, make a decision and stick with it. 

 

Yes, you're right. That's a big part of my OCD right now, not being able to stick with a decision I make. But it's only decisions related to recovery from anxiety, because that's so important to me. FP actually has an article related to this, showing I'm not the only one who's had this: http://www.wsps.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145%3Aboth-ends-against-the-middle-when-ocd-tries-to-disrupt-its-own-treatment&catid=0%3A&Itemid=68

5 hours ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

Like others I think Ryukil you should stick to whatever this therapist is telling you, even if you're not convinced by it, because I believe your biggest problem right now is not sticking to any particular strategy for long enough for it to work. 

2

Yeah, I agree I need to stick with a treatment. It's just, right now he's having me listen to recordings, and I know eventually this is going to move onto scripts and then he's going to have me read actual accounts of incest or pedophilia, possibly (most likely) graphic, and I don't know if I can handle that. I mean, I had intrusive thoughts when I was younger, and they really just went away on their own when my mind finally got tired of them. Not that I'm saying I should just sit around and do nothing about them, just that exposing myself to intense scripts and reading about this stuff was not necessary back then. And they went away for like...more than a decade. Honestly, my knowledge that they were just OCD helped me understand it better and fear them less, I think, or at least in retrospect. 

 

Gah. I mean, no amount of reassurance that I'm doing the right thing by doing these scripts or reading graphic stories is the right thing to do will satisfy me in the end. I at least wish he would give me a midele ground of saying that "Maybe, I enjoyed those thoughts, maybe I didn't" as opposed to "I definitely did!" The latter is just way too terrible. 

[Caramoole]

2 hours ago, Ryukil said:

Gah. I mean, no amount of reassurance that I'm doing the right thing by doing these scripts or reading graphic stories is the right thing to do will satisfy me in the end. I at least wish he would give me a midele ground of saying that "Maybe, I enjoyed those thoughts, maybe I didn't" as opposed to "I definitely did!" The latter is just way too terrible. 

I think the above shows that you are still opting for avoidance of feeling uncomfortable, probably a good reason to trust and work with your therapist maybe

[Ryukil]

Is it totally unreasonable to ask him if we can start by saying "Maybe the thoughts are true," though? Seriously...as far as I've seen most other people who had what's called "pure O" (mine isn't "pure O," but those are good examples of people with intrusive thoughts) had to accept the uncertainity that maybe their thoughts were a true reflection of them...they didn't have to say that they DEFINITELY ARE a true reflection of them. Isn't this like jumping in at the deep end of the pool? My therapist tells me saying "maybe they're true, maybe they aren't" is more like a half-step and won't be as effective, but I thought the whole treatment for OCD was accepting uncertainity (which means I should be able to say maybe the thoughts are true, maybe they aren't). Whatever, I really can't take all this convoluted thinking anymore. I'll probably just drop out, unless we can come to some kind of middle ground exposure, and then I'll try and treat myself by saying "maybe the thoughts / feelings are genuine, maybe they aren't. Guess I'll never know!" I don't see why that wouldn't be effective. Can anyone come up with some reason why that's reassurance? I mean, telling myself that they definitely are not true IS reassurance, but why should saying "maybe they aren't, maybe they are" be reassurance?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ryukil

[PolarBear]

So you don't want to do what your therapist suggests. You want to go half way. Here's the question: do you want to recover from OCD or just go half way?

 

[Ryukil]

Doing what he asks is not the only way to recover from OCD. I'm pretty sure there are many people who had intrusive thoughts in the past who can attest to that.

But just forget it. None of us are going to agree. I mean, don't tell me that there's no such thing as a therapist doing intense exposures too quickly...hence the concept of a hierarchy...

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ryukil