Jump to content

Let's Remember There Are Other Stakeholders In Our Recovery


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Avo said:

For me a good description of OCD is that is makes me very self-absorbed. If I am really caught up in an OCD episode of anxiety /  rumination I can go very distant and my wife often asks me 'where have I gone' as in mentally.

I fail to properly engage with life and others I become a passenger at home - almost like I am on autopilot not living just existing. This can have a massive impact on those close to us. 

 

 

This is me too avo to a T. 

Link to comment

Yes for many people it makes us self absorbed. This is for OCD and the other mental health conditions I have experienced. The autopilot metaphor is a good one.  It relates to any extreme preoccupation with your own thoughts.  And social functioning being regulated to an automated process. Do you explain your autopilot mode or emotional distance to your significant others?

Edited by Angst
Link to comment

I definitely agree that others can be (and often are) negatively affected by our illness, and that it is a good thing to want to get better for those around us as well as for ourselves.

I just feel that too much emphasis on this can create overwhelming feelings of guilt, shame and being a failure in the sufferer, which are not helpful to recovery. Also feelings of resentment from others if recovery is slow.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Ashley said:

Actually I would dispute that part.  Many, many people with OCD go to great lengths, including inflicting pain on themselves in order not to inflect OCD on others.

I wasn't suggesting that people with OCD are any more or less selfish (or necessarily heroic) than anyone else. I was referring to the disorder itself.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, OCDhavenobrain said:

I have to agree even if it can sound hard to some. Also the "morality" OCD offerd is falsehood. We shouldn't really say that people with OCD tends to be more lind and morale because that just fuel the fire AND all those who have totally delfish obsessions will be exkluded. 

But it is not like persons with OCD can't be good people, all I am saying is that one really should wait till recovery before judging ones true stand.

Absolutely agree with all of this. There is nothing altruistic about OCD. 

Link to comment
Guest OCDhavenobrain

Also want to point to the reality. While we worry our lives away, about in some way being defective, harmed or endangered we worry AND worry is a REAL threat to your health and life. 

Another fine example of how all of us say we have one priority but in reality we don't. It is not about getting ourselves in safety, OCD is ALL about putting out anxiety and it is 100% illogical. You would never advice a perspn who had got stuck in addiction ro keep on with the same old. Even if tha right thing will make him, in some cases, sick for months.

Edited by OCDhavenobrain
Link to comment

I feel at an age where I’ve realised I’ve pretty mush wasted my life,sure there are things I can do but my passion lies with things I miss doing when I was younger. 

I suppose I’m a way I never really grew up,I still crave going out partying on a Saturday night when people my age are in the village pub discussing the weather and brexit ??

guess I never grew up! 

Link to comment
On 26/05/2019 at 04:31, Angst said:

No comment. I do not have the evidence in front of me. Do you? Insurance is built up from probability and statistics. Is it all a con?

Statistics themselves are not a con, they are a tool, but like any tool they can be used properly for great benefit or improperly and cause great harm.

Unfortunately most people have very poor understanding of statistics (and relatedly probability) and thus are susceptible to the harm part, either through negligence or intent.

But statistics underlie important advances as well, such as medicine and other sciences.

It would take a long thread to go in to the details of statistics, the good, the bad, etc. and I don't want to derail this post, but a few things to keep in mind when talking about statistics:

  1. Anyone can claim a statistic.  For example, did you know that 73% of statistics are made up? :D. Its a good idea to look for (or ask for) a source.
  2. Even with a source, a statistic can still be of poor quality.  Maybe the sample size was too small.  Maybe it was not truly random.  Maybe it did not adjust for the overall population.  Maybe the question asked vs. the data presented don't exactly match (ex. If asked to pick their favorite type of international cuisine only 10% pick Greek, that doesn't mean 90% of people hate Greek food, wording matters.)
  3. Even with a valid statistic, even if its completely well formed, that doesn't guarantee future results.  Statistics have margins of error.  Circumstances can change over time. Outside factors that the model didn't know about/consider can be impacting the results.
  4. Group statistics don't equal individual results.  A statistical analysis can be 100% valid, but individuals within that group can (and almost certainly will) show varying individual values, thats the whole point.


So again, used properly statistics are an important, necessary and valuable tool.
But they can and are used improperly.

A hammer is a great and important tool for building things, like houses.  You can also kill someone with a hammer.  How useful and/or dangerous the hammer is depends on the circumstances.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bruces said:

I feel at an age where I’ve realised I’ve pretty mush wasted my life,sure there are things I can do but my passion lies with things I miss doing when I was younger. 

Its unfortunate that OCD can cause us to miss out on significant portions of our lives, and its understandable to have some regrets, and in a way mourn those losses, but you can't change the past, only the future.  You regret wasting your life up to this point, fine, understandable, but why continue to waste your life now?  Why not change things now? 

Which would be worse?
To look back in 10 years and say "wow I have wasted 50 years of my life"
OR
To look back in 10 years and say "wow, I wasted 40 years of my life, but the last 10 have been much better".

Seems like a no brainer to me!

Link to comment

Yup, yup. I was innocent and free from 0 to 11. At 11, the reignn of OCD began. A nightmarish hell. I didn't really live for the next 38 years. Then I took charge and did something. I worked and I recovered. And I started to live again. 6 years and counting. And it's great.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, PolarBear said:

Yup, yup. I was innocent and free from 0 to 11. At 11, the reignn of OCD began. A nightmarish hell. I didn't really live for the next 38 years. Then I took charge and did something. I worked and I recovered. And I started to live again. 6 years and counting. And it's great.

Congratulations ?

Link to comment

We have to take on the responsibility ourselves in order to make recovery happen - to benefit ourselves and our stakeholders. 

As PB says, and I truly know now, the results of recovery are spectacular, stupendous. 

We take back control of our lives, and we leave the obsessing and compulsing behind. 

We can do things that before were restricted by OCD's rules. 

Many many more of us here can do this if they decide to actually make it happen. 

OK there will be "lost years" when OCD controlled us. 

Acceptance is a crucial part of CBT - leaving what's gone before behind, and moving on. 

It's still the way forward whether we are 23 or 63. 

I lost a nephew in the war in Afghanistan. The army's psychologist advised us to evaluate only the great things he had achieved during his lifespan of 25, not focus on anything else. His life was shortened, yes, but we lengthened it in our perception by considering it complete within that time band. 

It was great advice and really helped. 

Do I worry about the loss of time and "life" before I began to get better? 

No, it would be silly. I just remember the good that went before, and the joy of the present. 

One of those sheer joys is spending some time as a helper here. When someone I have assisted in helping reports in that they are doing much better, it's just like I have won an accumulator bet at the races. 

In a funny way there is that element to it. I am "betting" that if a sufferer follows our guidance I know they will improve. 

At the moment the odds are long - too many sufferers don't commit to making the necessary thinking and behavioural changes in order to recover. 

I would like to be seeing those odds dramatically shorten. 

If we can't commit to doing this just for ourselves, then let's also do it for our loved ones family friends and co-workers, all who suffer at the hands of our OCD. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, dksea said:

Statistics themselves are not a con, they are a tool, but like any tool they can be used properly for great benefit or improperly and cause great harm.

Unfortunately most people have very poor understanding of statistics (and relatedly probability) and thus are susceptible to the harm part, either through negligence or intent.

But statistics underlie important advances as well, such as medicine and other sciences.

It would take a long thread to go in to the details of statistics, the good, the bad, etc. and I don't want to derail this post, but a few things to keep in mind when talking about statistics:

  1. Anyone can claim a statistic.  For example, did you know that 73% of statistics are made up? :D. Its a good idea to look for (or ask for) a source.
  2. Even with a source, a statistic can still be of poor quality.  Maybe the sample size was too small.  Maybe it was not truly random.  Maybe it did not adjust for the overall population.  Maybe the question asked vs. the data presented don't exactly match (ex. If asked to pick their favorite type of international cuisine only 10% pick Greek, that doesn't mean 90% of people hate Greek food, wording matters.)
  3. Even with a valid statistic, even if its completely well formed, that doesn't guarantee future results.  Statistics have margins of error.  Circumstances can change over time. Outside factors that the model didn't know about/consider can be impacting the results.
  4. Group statistics don't equal individual results.  A statistical analysis can be 100% valid, but individuals within that group can (and almost certainly will) show varying individual values, thats the whole point.


So again, used properly statistics are an important, necessary and valuable tool.
But they can and are used improperly.

A hammer is a great and important tool for building things, like houses.  You can also kill someone with a hammer.  How useful and/or dangerous the hammer is depends on the circumstances.

Agree. Evidence based medicine is based on statistics. The rationale this site uses to legitimate CBT. The research cited by NICE has evidential virtue.   Statistics reveal that CBT does not work for everybody.  No therapy or medical intervention ever has. But careful framing of questions and good data analysis can uncover evidence that certain forms of CBT work better than others. For example the IAPT figures reveal that certain areas have better results than others. We can investigate the reasons why this is so. We know that surgical procedures have more success in certain centres than others. The reason the more times a surgical team performs a procedure the better the result. This may seem obvious but we need the evidence.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...