New OCD Book Club - May - Break free from OCD

[gingerbreadgirl]

12 minutes ago, taurean said:

I think the concept is theory A the OCD belief is true, theory B is that we are really worried that the OCD belief is true. 

The OCD core belief carries the behavioural response of fear threat or revulsion.

Theory B is saying that we can review the evidence and see our problem rather as a fear that the OCD core belief is true. 

By accepting that we are seeing the OCD for what it is - a falsehood or exaggeration of nil or minimum threat, or an unnecessary revulsion reaction - we take the fear /threat out of it. 

Thanks Roy, that makes sense, although honestly I am still not totally convinced of the benefits of the evidence-gathering exercise (although I can see the benefit of using it as a guide for setting up behavioural changes).

[Gemma7]

6 minutes ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

OK so am I right in thinking it is something like "Theory A is that the primary problem is one of danger" and "Theory B is that the primary problem is one of worry" and that they can't both be true?

You don't need the word primary. The problem it is referencing is the struggles someone has day to day. Are they because of actual danger or worry about danger. 

[gingerbreadgirl]

But... OK so say someone has a problem with checking.  Say that naturally they are quite clumsy and be careful - as a result they develop a checking compulsion.  Their primary problem is one of worry.  But there is also the issue that without this hypervigilance, they would likely be naturally careless and clumsy if they have this trait in other parts of their life, and they would likely leave something unlocked/a fire risk or whatever.  So there is a problem of danger as well.

I use this example because I think it applies to me partly, I can be clumsy and careless and I do think a checking impulse has probably prevented me setting fire to the house or whatever.  So although OCD is my primary problem, there can also plausibly be an element of theory A too.

Sorry I am not meaning to pick it apart I have just never been totally convinced by this.

[Gemma7]

5 minutes ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

But there is also the issue that without this hypervigilance, they would likely be naturally careless and clumsy if they have this trait in other parts of their life, and they would likely leave something unlocked/a fire risk or whatever.

Ok so what evidence does the person have that performing these checks has kept them safe. Well nothing bad has happened? But have they tried not performing these checks? Are they as likely as everyone else of leaving something unlocked, do they use double standards for themselves, not expecting other people to act the same way? 

It is not a problem of danger at any point. It is a worry about danger at all levels. How do you know how things turn out if you don't do these checks? You have to find out. 

This is dealt with in Break free from OCD. Risks are a part of life, the cost of having OCD is too much, one little check feels like nothing but when is one check enough, but being free frome OCD is worth so much more. 

See the insurance saleman metaphor in the book 

[gingerbreadgirl]

yeah I have read the book and I think I am grasping what it says.  And I'm not saying that the person who checks is definitely protecting themselves.  I'm just saying I don't believe it's impossible for both those scenarios to be true.  And the whole theoryA/theoryB premise is base on the idea that only one of them can be true, and the book didn't totally convince me of that.

[Gemma7]

They are two opposing concepts, your problem isn't danger and worry about danger, because you have no evidence to suggest there is any real danger that you are preventing. Also, anything could go wrong for anyone at any point, you can't avoid all risk, but it's no more likely to go wrong for you than anyone else, so doing loads of checks is living by a double standard and greatly affecting your mental health. 

[gingerbreadgirl]

3 minutes ago, Gemma7 said:

They are two opposing concepts, your problem isn't danger and worry about danger, because you have no evidence to suggest there is any real danger that you are preventing. Also, anything could go wrong for anyone at any point, you can't avoid all risk, but it's no more likely to go wrong for you than anyone else, so doing loads of checks is living by a double standard and greatly affecting your mental health. 

I agree with all this - I agree that doing loads of checks is a double standard, affecting mental health, etc - except the part where they are two opposing concepts, which I don't think logically they are. 

[Gemma7]

11 minutes ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

except the part where they are two opposing concepts, which I don't think logically they are. 

But how can there both be a danger and you be worried there's a danger? Either there is or there isn't a danger. 

[Ashley]

Keep going guys, this is exactly one of the things I wanted the book club to do, see you guys helping each other work stuff out.  P.S. if you cant work this one out, I know one of the authors so I can always ask him. 

[gingerbreadgirl]

8 minutes ago, Gemma7 said:

 Either there is or there isn't a danger. 

Yeah but that's not what theoryA/B is saying, it's either either's there's danger or your worried, but you can be both - they are not logicaly opposed - which is why I asked if it's about what the primary problem in.  The lion example you gave is a good one.  You could have OCD about lions and be totally unaware that there is a lion in your room, but it doesn't mean there is no lion in the room - that's what I mean when I say they're not logically opposed, and this is where I don't grasp it because its power comes from the insight that only one or the other can be true. 

[Gemma7]

I get what you're saying, it's really difficult and i think that one of the authors would be better answering your questions 

But if you expand theory A/B, what it's saying is that either you need to do all your compulsions to stay safe, or that they are a waste of time and make no difference, all they do is make you feel unsafe. So they are either necessary or they aren't, that's what you test out in experiments. 

[gingerbreadgirl]

38 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Keep going guys, this is exactly one of the things I wanted the book club to do, see you guys helping each other work stuff out.  P.S. if you cant work this one out, I know one of the authors so I can always ask him. 

I think Gemma has  it worked out, I think it's just me scratching my head!

 

[gingerbreadgirl]

27 minutes ago, Gemma7 said:

I get what you're saying, it's really difficult and i think that one of the authors would be better answering your questions 

But if you expand theory A/B, what it's saying is that either you need to do all your compulsions to stay safe, or that they are a waste of time and make no difference, all they do is make you feel unsafe. So they are either necessary or they aren't, that's what you test out in experiments. 

OK so the penny has dropped now I think! That makes much more sense to me - thank you!

[taurean]

I think the behavioural experiment has a use, and may well be best presented in one to one therapy, since the therapist would pick up the questions and explain the answers - and the book itself can't do that. Happens we were able specifically to do that here. 

It gets an especial focus in the book, maybe too much importance - I am not sure. 

But what our views on simply this thread have shown is it creates a thinking, a debate, about the validity of obsessions and our response to them. Maybe that has taken place in the support groups - or maybe not. 

(I came to the book after a lot of one to one CBT therapy so it made more sense to me armed with that knowledge). 

[lostinme]

I think I’m also leaning towards gbg here, there is a very slight difference between theory A& theory B, I’m not totally convinced that these theories are that helpful, because sometimes your fear is only one of worry? 

[Ashley]

1 hour ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

I think Gemma has  it worked out, I think it's just me scratching my head!

 

But that's the point, Gemma is helping you work it out   And next time maybe you will help someone else, I mean you already have by encouraging Snowbear to read June's book.

[Gemma7]

1 hour ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

I think Gemma has  it worked out, I think it's just me scratching my head!

 

Actually i was the one scratching my head trying to think why they were opposing. You've helped me understand more myself why they are 

[taurean]

22 minutes ago, lostinme said:

I think I’m also leaning towards gbg here, there is a very slight difference between theory A& theory B, I’m not totally convinced that these theories are that helpful, because sometimes your fear is only one of worry? 

If you look at it as either A the OCD is true or B it's really the worry about the OCD being true that's the intention. 

If we try to read more into it we cloud the issue away from the intended purpose of the experiment. 

As we have discussed on the forum before, having OCD may be only one issue a sufferer has. In my own case I was (originally)  also a compulsive worrier - which I worked hard at overcoming with self-help - and also had four different types of negative anxiety-inducing thinking distortions that have also been addressed with CBT. 

[Lynz]

2 hours ago, gingerbreadgirl said:

Yeah but that's not what theoryA/B is saying, it's either either's there's danger or your worried, but you can be both - they are not logicaly opposed - which is why I asked if it's about what the primary problem in.  The lion example you gave is a good one.  You could have OCD about lions and be totally unaware that there is a lion in your room, but it doesn't mean there is no lion in the room - that's what I mean when I say they're not logically opposed, and this is where I don't grasp it because its power comes from the insight that only one or the other can be true. 

I struggled with this too GBG. I often thought that Theory A/Theory B was flawed in that they say only one is true and the other false, but that's not always the case. For example, if my OCD centred around worrying about having cancer for example, then Theory A would say that my fears are true i.e. I have cancer, whereas Theory B would say no I have OCD which is making me worry a lot about having cancer. Well, that still doesn't mean that I don't have cancer or that I won't get it in the future, hence why I think the concept is flawed and is possibly an example of all or nothing thinking that we are supposed to do away with.

I don't know, I mean I could have interpreted it wrongly but I think it doesn't always work. It may work better for OCD worries centred around things that are illogical like worrying I may end up murdering my family for example, as that is very much unlikely to happen, but if your fears are based on something that could potentially happen or be true then that's where I think the theory falls short.

[snowbear]

23 minutes ago, taurean said:

If you look at it as either A the OCD is true or B it's really the worry about the OCD being true that's the intention. 

But what if your starting point is that you know without a shadow of a doubt the OCD isn't true, that it's all a load of baloney?

What if you aren't even worried about the OCD being true (making B irrelevant)? 

That's why theory A/B just doesn't help to move me forward in any way.  

[beckyboo]

i read this book cover to cover yesterday. 

for someone struggling with alot of doubt into wether or not particular thoughts are ocd or not it put alot into perspective & also highlighted some of the unhelpful things ive been doing thats keeping the cycle going. i certainley found the flower diagram very helpful at firsr i only wrote a few things by the time id finished i had quite the page full, Theory A & B is work in progress that i think il need to do more im depth once im put forward for CBT it certainley highlighted why reasurrence & doubt goes hand in hand for me. probably one of the better books ive read on OCD so far. its helped me to recognise my triggers, memory triggers. just need to fully understand what habits i need to work on and put in place safely. 

[Lynz]

11 minutes ago, snowbear said:

But what if your starting point is that you know without a shadow of a doubt the OCD isn't true, that it's all a load of baloney?

What if you aren't even worried about the OCD being true (making B irrelevant)? 

That's why theory A/B just doesn't help to move me forward in any way.  

I was like this too Snowbear. I used to say to myself "I know the OCD isn't true at all but I'm still worried about it!" Logically that doesn't make any sense I know but OCD isn't always very logical!

[taurean]

16 minutes ago, snowbear said:

But what if your starting point is that you know without a shadow of a doubt the OCD isn't true, that it's all a load of baloney?

What if you aren't even worried about the OCD being true (making B irrelevant)? 

That's why theory A/B just doesn't help to move me forward in any way.  

Then you don't need that particular tool (the behavioural experiment).  It's use is for those struggling to accept that the OCD isn't true. 

It's a tool for a specific use, but I agree it is a tricky one to get the benefit from - confirmed by this debate. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by taurean

[taurean]

10 minutes ago, Lynz said:

I was like this too Snowbear. I used to say to myself "I know the OCD isn't true at all but I'm still worried about it!" Logically that doesn't make any sense I know but OCD isn't always very logical!

Knowing the OCD isn't true is not the answer, but the start of the answer. 

From that cognition we can move on to looking to change our behavioural response. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by taurean

[Ashley]

23 minutes ago, beckyboo said:

i read this book cover to cover yesterday. 

Wow you're a quick reader, I think the quickest ive ever finished a book is about 10 days