= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Because I think people with OCD do have, contra Caplan, a compulsion to do those specific acts, not a compulsion to be 99.99999% sure of certain things. Wanting that much certainty in such a narrow area is a very unlikely state, and if it were just about certainty, they would come up with different ways to achieve that certainty, not just do the same thing over and over.
"Because I think people with OCD do have, contra Caplan, a compulsion to do those specific acts, not a compulsion to be 99.99999% sure of certain things. "
Person with OCD here, reporting late to the party (I'm always behind in my reading).
SilasBarta, you are correct.
It must be remembered that sometimes what OCD people do is not check the lock nine times, but touch the red dish every time we go out the back door. Sometimes we have a nagging doubt that our mom will die if we don't (magical thinking). This isn't to be read as a preference for being more sure that mom won't die, since we know damn well that if she does it won't be because we didn't touch the dish. It's, as someone said, crazy.
The compulsion and the attempt to satisfy it are uncomfortable.
In response to
Pain
I have chronic pain, and I could tell you what's bad about that, which I think might be applicable to pain more broadly.
Pain doesn't always serve its purpose of keeping one out of trouble, and when it doesn't, it's distracting. It sometimes makes it difficult to get up and go, much less do anything great. It can be a spirit breaker when it goes on too long, affecting mental stamina and usefulness as well as physical.
Depending on where the pain is, it can make it difficult to complete tasks in a much more specific way too, by making it difficult to walk or use ones hands. I don't have kids but I imagine it would put a big ole damper on raising them.
In response to
The Nature of Offense
"If such research does exist..."
Perhaps tangentially related:
Conservatives are more easily digusted http://www.livescience.com/culture/090604-conservative-disgust.html
In response to
It's all in your head-land
First off, welcome to Less Wrong! Check out the welcome thread if you haven't already.
You have a good writing style, but I hope you'll pardon me if I make a few suggestions based on the usual audience for Less Wrong posts:
Typically, a post of this length should be broken up into a sequence; you run the risk of "too long; didn't read" reactions after 1000 words, let alone 3000, and the conversation in the comments is usually sharper if the post has a single narrow focus. Usually, the analysis of a situation and the recommendations become separate posts if both are substantial.
Secondly, with the notable exception (sometimes) of P.J. Eby, we're often mistrustful of theories borne of introspection and anecdotes, and especially of recommendations based on such theories. There's therefore a norm of looking for and linking to experimental confirmation where it exists, and being doubly cautious if it doesn't. In this case, for instance, you could find some experimental evidence on choking that supports your thesis. This also forces you to think carefully about what sort of things your model predicts and doesn't predict, since at first glance it seems vague to the point of danger. The more specific you can get about these phenomena, the more useful your post will be.
"Typically, a post of this length should be broken up into a sequence; you run the risk of 'too long; didn't read' "
Possibly true in general, but I found this article so fascinating I didn't have any trouble getting through it.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
A while back I read that a great many political and religious debates of our time arise out of these two competing axioms:
There's nothing more important than children and family.
There's nothing more important than personal autonomy and choice.
These competing intuitions are responsible for arguments about abortion, gay rights, birth control, feminism, religion, and so many other things. It stands to reason that competing axioms are why no one ever wins these arguments.