Book Breaking free from OCD by Challacombe, Bream Oldfield and Salkovskis

[Martin]

I am currently reading this book. In it the authors describe a method for starting to tackle OCD by reinterpreting the intrusive thoughts that provoke checking, cleaning et al.

The authors state that there are two theories with OCD. If I understand these correctly, Theory A proposes that OCD concerns:

danger and you must spend all your time preventing it.

Whereas Theory B defines OCD as a:

problem of worry about danger

However, I am having some difficulty accepting this hypothesis as a practical, or perhaps empirical, first step to cure, or at least combat, my own checking-based variety of OCD. I think that I am trying to determine if these two theories are effectively the same thing or not? After all, do we not perform the rituals of Theory A because of the worry about danger in Theory B?

Or are the authors simply trying to say that these are separate but related theories, e.g. when I lock my front door when going out, that there is no danger inherent in this action, or that me and mine, so to speak, are not in danger in doing so (Theory A), and that any rumination or checking is simply to do with worry about danger (Theory B), despite it being unlikely due to a lack of it in the past?

My apologies if my writing appears somewhat laboured, I'm just trying to understand the theories presented by the authors but, as usual, I may be reading too much into what is probably something very straightforward.

What do you all think?

Thanks

Martin.

[Guest Sisyphus]

Surely it bopils down to if there is an apparent immediate threat or not. A lot of my OCD is definitely not in response to immediate threats but an intermittent anxiety caused by certain triggers, which in themselves pose no danger or threat to me whatsoever but it's like they are hard wired back to certain traumatic things in my life - so the trauma/anxiety is echoed through them.

Maybe that's what he means? In which case I would argue your door scenario is a bit of both. Unless you live in a crime free area, then it's at least partly a rational response to a real danger. But if you've never been robbed, haven't heard of neighbours being robbed fairly recently, and have no other reason to be hyper vigilant about security, then surely this is more fear of the idea of being robbed as theroy B suggests. Or even(and I'm way out of my depth here so forgive me if it sounds ridiculous) something more complex, like the security of the house is a metaphor for something else. But that's for a psychologist to determine.

[Guest legend]

Hyper responsibilty is the main ingredient of all ocd , so the feelings one gets from the disorder makes them

carry out the compulsion

regardless of where what why if when what , the trigger point is the unwanted thoughts that got stuck

is it ok to check a door once ? no not on recovery, what makes you check ...... the uneasiness due to ocd.

when we do exposures then the danger and uneasiness occurs , an continues ....... but one then works at not

going over whether its shut or not mentally

does that kind of make sense ?

[carolina]

Hi Martin

Thanks for asking this question as I am struggling with this too.

After decades of checking I am determined to beat this and finally, very, very slowly, starting to understand the relabelling of thoughts, miniscule difference at the moment but it's a start!

I have read this book cover to cover and in particular the bits on Theory A and Theory B several times (including this evening) and am hoping if I can understand this it will help me immeasurably.

Sometimes I think (maybe hope) it just takes someone to put it a certain way and it hits home.

Here's hoping

[taurean]

I love this book, its in my collection and I think it is a helpful approach to treatment

Perhaps you are taking it too literally, and then you are getting stuck because of that.

I take the view that we are being told to look at what OCD is telling us - theory A - against a rational response to that - theory B.

OCD comes in various "flavours " e.g. paedophile, relationship, harm, checking, perfectionism, looping recurrent thoughts, false memories, sexual preference - and involves intrusions built around an inherrent bedrock of fear;. fear we will lose control and hurt someone, fear that we may not lock a bolt and a thief will burgle our house, fear that we are a closet paedophile, fear our partner is cheating/may cheat on us, fear we are in fact gay - it thrives on then suggesting doubt, uncertainty, what ifs, buts, maybes about these fears..

It basically fabricates material or spreads misinformation.

So if you look for and uncloak the OCD, you can then stop listening to it, stop ruminating and stop getting anxious.

Then comparing Theory A - following what OCD is saying to you - with theory B, the rational response, is then a great way of realising what OCD is up to, and addressing it.

[Martin]

Thanks to the respondents for your various replies to my original question. Rumination and I old friends so on the basis of what has been said, it seems that I may well be thinking too much into the theories, when they do actually seem straightforward.

Thinking about this over the last few days, I believe that my own OCD does to some extent operate in terms of perceived (Theory B), rather than actual, dangers (Theory A). But the rituals are so deeply engrained after thirty years or thereabouts of OCD in various forms, even when I know them to be unnecessary, that breaking the cycle may well be difficult.

Does this make sense?

In her post, Carolina said:

Sometimes I think (maybe hope) it just takes someone to put it a certain way and it hits home.

So I suppose I'm just trying to work matters out for myself. But if my posts help anyone else against their own OCD, so much the better.

However, if it is possible to hope where OCD is concerned, this clarification, or realisation, of Theory B, i.e. that the dangers are only perceived, and attempts to validate this as the book advises, then perhaps, perhaps I will have the tools required to begin combating the OCD scourge.

So validating Theory B over the next few weeks becomes an important first step.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Martin

[taurean]

Yes Martin, proving theory B right is the way forward, together with using ERP to remove compulsive rituals.

Edited July 29, 2014 by taurean

[Martin]

Thanks Taurean.