Is brain revisiting something it already "solved" an attack on itself?

[EndogenousRebel]

I swear I started a thread with a similar theme but I don't know where it's at.

To illustrate what I mean, people with OCD, due to a variety of reasons fail to check off a task as done, or done correctly, so they feel the need to revisit something to ensure that it is done correctly. This is why for example someone with OCD might wash their hands several times before stopping, or why they will return home because they feel they forgot to lock their door.

From a "evolutionary perspective", things from the outside, not inside the brain's system is supposed to tell it that something is wrong. When something from the environment interferes with what the brain has done there is a dynamic that the brain is fighting with the environment.

In OCD, this dynamic with the environment becomes present inside the person's brain, creating internal vs internal dynamic. This dynamic is prevalent in many dysfunctional conditions.

Taking things back to the way conventional people behave, these behaviors do have some benefit, because human error is prone and memory isn't perfect. We will review before an exam, or make sure we ran errands we were supposed to do but almost forgot. But I do wonder where that line is drawn, and like most actions we take, we are trading something off when we engage in such behavior, and in fact for the simple ability to engage in that behavior.

In the end we can only review and perceive what we can review and perceive, but this is a complicated coordination with the complexities of life and how much effort we put in. In a sense I am questioning the very essence of this so by my own definition I am attacking my nervous system with something you'd think it would work out on its own. Perhaps this would lead/expose assumptions and questions about the role of consciousness?

I suppose it's a subjective value for what I think I get out of the experience but that isn't a clear cut answer. If I have to get this idea out of my mind so it can leave that is no better than getting it out on a whim, and what part of that makes it okay to invest time and effort looking into revising a possible error when I might just be doing things on a whim with little value in return?

Answering the question likely has many benefits. The hypothetical answer would be nice to have because then I get to not explore down rabbit holes of thought that yield little. But there likely isn't a clear answer and I know that. Am I so stupified by pondering endlessly into my existence and my own shortcomings. Absurd.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think it's just inefficiency unless it becomes pathological.

Depression, OCD, anxiety all have elements of this. Depression looks to the past, anxiety to the future, OCD to the present. We have these capacities for a reason, but generally, there are going to be useful and unuseful thought compositions.

For instance, anxious people study more for exams but perform the same. The increased stress scrambles processing. I wouldn't phrase it as an attack, but it's unfortunately pointless. What's worse is procrastination as a response to anxiety, because then you have a scrambled brain and nothing to show for it.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Maybe our brains are bored and need new challenges and we just need to try new things. Its like neuron paths that are now so well worn that the brain follows them automatically.

Maybe its just a deficiency in something. Here is an article on Bach Flower Remedies for Anxieties and OCD, not sure if it will help: http://www.flowersociety.org/anxiety-disorders-perez.htm

The 38 Remedies Quick Reference Guide - The Bach Centre

Read the Remedy Quick Reference Guide: A shorter version of The 38 Remedies page, names of remedies, important keywords - Discover more here!

www.bachcentre.com

Anyway, Crab Apple, White Chestnut and Rescue Remedy are a few of the Bach Flower Remedies that 'could' help. Put a few drops on your tongue whenever you are feeling the anxiety or ocd symptom.

 

[birdsnestfern]

It may also be a distraction so we aren't looking at an emotional event that was at the core of something we don't want to look at/face. Loneliness, Love, etc.

May or may not help.

Heal Inner Child: (Part of you that lives in unconscious mind).
First Chakra is about safety in the world/your tribe.

 

[ohshtt]

essentially, from what you've written, our brains internally inform themselves that something they've done is wrong, even when it may not be, thereby averting mistakes. or rather, the brain internally informs itself that being correct is not an absolute, which is different from informing itself that it is wrong.

many people submit work without checking. students are often taught to check their work. perhaps cultural influence? babies don't double-check their bibs and kids leave their toys behind all the time when taken out as they don't check before they leave. people also don't revise when they don't care. it's okay to invest time and effort into something that matters for your "survival", no? like that contract that the big boss will see, or the essay that is half your grade.

but anxiety about being wrong is an issue separate from normal revising. you could say the attack of the brain on itself is the same as the premeditated fear of the human propensity for error.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Looked into it a little, and supposedly the entirety of the brain operates at a level of balancing your metabolism throughout. Much like it balances temperature and food digestion, it's virtually the same dilemma to the brain, it just activates different systems.

So if you perceive something that bugs you, it's your brain observing something it thinks is a threat and creating a imbalance in your neurochemistry until you do something that bring this metabolic system back into balance.

Very buggy system it seems, seeing as whatever your perceiving could potentially have zero correlation with your plight. It seems like it's very easy for this system to be dysfunctional, and realies heavily on intution, with a system that adapts to your surroundings. yet unperceptible to the person who may hold on to previous situational standards.

Also I found this clip, where they show a polar bear, which lacks a neocortex, dealing with a stressful situation in a bizarre way our "frontal lobe" prevents us from doing so.


So it just kinda seems like the brain has to resort to these means to ensure survival, and doesn't care about side effects. You can look at this as an attack, but it's only really a problem if the systems that govern it don't allow for the release and appropriate use of the other systems.

 

[scorpiomover]

I swear I started a thread with a similar theme but I don't know where it's at.

To illustrate what I mean, people with OCD, due to a variety of reasons fail to check off a task as done, or done correctly, so they feel the need to revisit something to ensure that it is done correctly. This is why for example someone with OCD might wash their hands several times before stopping, or why they will return home because they feel they forgot to lock their door.

From a "evolutionary perspective", things from the outside, not inside the brain's system is supposed to tell it that something is wrong. When something from the environment interferes with what the brain has done there is a dynamic that the brain is fighting with the environment.

In OCD, this dynamic with the environment becomes present inside the person's brain, creating internal vs internal dynamic. This dynamic is prevalent in many dysfunctional conditions.

Taking things back to the way conventional people behave, these behaviors do have some benefit, because human error is prone and memory isn't perfect. We will review before an exam, or make sure we ran errands we were supposed to do but almost forgot. But I do wonder where that line is drawn, and like most actions we take, we are trading something off when we engage in such behavior, and in fact for the simple ability to engage in that behavior.

In the end we can only review and perceive what we can review and perceive, but this is a complicated coordination with the complexities of life and how much effort we put in. In a sense I am questioning the very essence of this so by my own definition I am attacking my nervous system with something you'd think it would work out on its own. Perhaps this would lead/expose assumptions and questions about the role of consciousness?

Humans forget stuff. Computers don't.

However, so much of what we think, we are not absolutely certain about, that if humans evolved with a perfect memory like computers, it would be filled with very few things, and we could do very few things.

However, with the ability to tolerate uncertainty, humans can then evolve strategies to be fault-tolerant, and then can handle almost any information that is true in at least some way, which is the majority of data. So by humans being fault-tolerant, humans have a much, much wider capacity for humanity's advancement.

However, being fault tolerant, being able to not remember some things or get them wrong, could be very lethal, when much of the Earth was jungle, and a human might temporarily forget what a tiger looked like, or mistake a tiger for long grass.

So humans need to evolve an additional mechanism to stop faults becoming lethal enough that they would drive them to extinction.

Humans have a subconscious learning process, that picks up bad habits easily. This is because it learns from consistent data. So that also means that when a human is more afraid or less afraid of the environment than the physical data indicates over the long-term, the brain self-corrects automatically, merely by being exposed to lots of similar experiences over several weeks.

That works for the long term. But in the meantime, they can get eaten by a tiger, before their subconscious can self-correct.

Humans also evolved to be a social species. They communicate with each other regularly, and also seem to have a group survival instinct that points out when a human is going to do something stupid.

However, equally well, the same mechanism that lets us listen to others, can be corrupted, by particular individuals chronically feeding disinformation to someone, until his subconscious adopts that warped viewpoint as a habit.

In the case of OCD, the person locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

Then the person goes back, locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

The loop repeats, because nothing is different about the 2nd time than the 1st, that might make the brain more likely to remember the 2nd time more than the 1st.

Why would the OCD sufferer not do something more memorable the 2nd time? Because the impression he has is that there's nothing more to be done, than he already did the 1st time.

But if he usually does not lock the door the 1st time, then he would have noticed the 2nd time and locked it. So there would not be a 3rd time, not unless he would start to doubt himself even when he did it right, and remembered that he did it right.

So the root of it is self-doubt in performing a task competently, that he did competently.

In other words, some outside influence, some person or other source, kept saying that he did things wrong when he did them competently, until the person starts to doubt their own ability to even know if they did the thing competently.

Then they have no mechanism to tell if they locked the door correctly. So no matter how many times they locked the door, a little part of them keeps saying "but you can't trust your own judgement."

So whenever they do something right, they think they must have done it wrong, and keep going back to check.

However, then the same self-learning mechaism of the brain would self-correct with the new data from daily life anyway, unless the majority of society already slightly reinforces that habit, not enough to make the manipulators develop OCD, but enough to keep those with OCD's brains from self-correcting.

So there still needs to be lots of media claiming that lots of people in the country are incompetent without realising, in very important ways. E.g. saying that only a madman would vote for Trump, and then reporting that millions of people voted for Trump, and keeping on repeating that only a madman would vote for Trump.

Anything really, that makes it seem like lots of the people are being dangerously and incompetently stupid, while thinking they are not, would then impress much greater on the mind of someone who has already been conditioned to think like that.

Then the OCD sufferer's self-belief that he cannot trust his own mind, gets reinforced by the news, people criticising people for unconscious incompetency on the internet, and making lots of jokes in real life about people being stupid without realising.

That's not enough to make people with a healthy self-esteem doubt themselves. But it's enough to keep reinforcing OCD in those that already have developed the weakness.

It's like a virus that only kills the sick, and no-one wears enough facial protection or does enough social distancing to stop the spread of the virus.

It seems like the manipulators win, and they do in the short term. But when a hive's bees starts attacking each other, it's all over for the hive. It's just a matter of time until the hive collapses completely from infighting, or that so many are fighting each other or acting for their own interests, and so few are protecting the hive for the same of them all, that it becomes easy for a small group of wasps to take over. Same for human societies.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

OCD seems be an overacting frontal cortex. At least according to brainscans. I would think that because it's used to doing so many things in certain people, that when it has nothing to do, it creates tasks and draws a minor reward from these tasks.

These behaviors are only bad if they are parasitic. Maybe someone who is a computer systems security manager would benefit from this, but if you're an overwhelmed normal person, then it seems like I would call this the brain attacking itself.

Rather I wouldn't use those words anymore, but yes I understand what you are saying with the hive of bees.

What I wrote is likely the OCD symptoms that develop in normal people. I'm not sure about the behavioral catalysts to OCD, just that there is a genetic component that makes one more susceptible to it. Thus things like trauma might over stimulate these survival mechanisms built in to such people with the genetic traits.

Seems like mindfulness is one way to address the problem, but if your stress systems are dysfunctional on top of just behavioral dysfunctions, you will have trouble identifying and detecting what is a threatening behavior and what is not.

Not so much an attack on itself unless the threat detection systems somehow starts seeing the brains own functional operations as a threat, which I think happens a lot in schizophrenia, which is to say that dissociation and threat assessment are big indicators if the brain is, metaphorically having an autoimmune response.

 

[PiedPiper]

I swear I started a thread with a similar theme but I don't know where it's at.

To illustrate what I mean, people with OCD, due to a variety of reasons fail to check off a task as done, or done correctly, so they feel the need to revisit something to ensure that it is done correctly. This is why for example someone with OCD might wash their hands several times before stopping, or why they will return home because they feel they forgot to lock their door.

From a "evolutionary perspective", things from the outside, not inside the brain's system is supposed to tell it that something is wrong. When something from the environment interferes with what the brain has done there is a dynamic that the brain is fighting with the environment.

In OCD, this dynamic with the environment becomes present inside the person's brain, creating internal vs internal dynamic. This dynamic is prevalent in many dysfunctional conditions.

Taking things back to the way conventional people behave, these behaviors do have some benefit, because human error is prone and memory isn't perfect. We will review before an exam, or make sure we ran errands we were supposed to do but almost forgot. But I do wonder where that line is drawn, and like most actions we take, we are trading something off when we engage in such behavior, and in fact for the simple ability to engage in that behavior.

In the end we can only review and perceive what we can review and perceive, but this is a complicated coordination with the complexities of life and how much effort we put in. In a sense I am questioning the very essence of this so by my own definition I am attacking my nervous system with something you'd think it would work out on its own. Perhaps this would lead/expose assumptions and questions about the role of consciousness?

In the case of OCD, the person locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

Then the person goes back, locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

The loop repeats, because nothing is different about the 2nd time than the 1st, that might make the brain more likely to remember the 2nd time more than the 1st.

Why would the OCD sufferer not do something more memorable the 2nd time? Because the impression he has is that there's nothing more to be done, than he already did the 1st time.



So whenever they do something right, they think they must have done it wrong, and keep going back to check.

However, then the same self-learning mechaism of the brain would self-correct with the new data from daily life anyway, unless the majority of society already slightly reinforces that habit, not enough to make the manipulators develop OCD, but enough to keep those with OCD's brains from self-correcting.

Then the OCD sufferer's self-belief that he cannot trust his own mind, gets reinforced by the news, people criticising people for unconscious incompetency on the internet, and making lots of jokes in real life about people being stupid without realising.

((((((It's like a virus that only kills the sick, and no-one wears enough facial protection or does enough social distancing to stop the spread of the virus. ))))))

It seems like the manipulators win))))

I debated for some time on replying to this post. As I concluded it would benefit the discussion, I have decided to relay what I know.

I have major OCD, and have for years after a severe string of traumas that left little space for my mind to recover, and instead fractured. When I say you have no idea of this demon called OCD, imagine spending a night, a day, and the next night doing the same thing over and over and over again. Think that's bad? You do it for every single thing, every action, and every thought. "Oh so you want to sleep tonight?" Just imagine this for a second...

You will never lay down and sleep again without checking the stove, the gas, the power, any chemicals in the house, the fridge, the paint can you may have left open, the bugs that could be in your bed and crawl into your nose. And you will do this, many, many times in the same night. And the thing about OCD is its not just the act of making sure its settled, its the 'feel' of it. Here's a little tidbit on how it 'communicates'.

"I'm tired, yet I know I'd rather stay up for as long as possible, I dread the moment I need to sleep, I will expend the last few remnants of my energy checking and doing rituals. Who knows how long it'll demand of me."

*I walk to my bed and climb in, desperately clinging to the covers in hopes my mind will let me rest, just this once.*
*NOPE* Get your ass out of bed and check the stove again.*
*checks*
*Walks back to bed, but pauses in tracks as the realization I need to check the stove AGAIN hits me.* Checks again,* "Shit, I know its off but it doesn't 'feel' right. I feel oddly shaped *Checks again, making sure to complete the necessary mental loopholes to attain the right shape of a human body. *Feels good now, goes back to bed* *MOTHER - FFFF I got the feel right but I can't remember if I checked that it was off. *Holly mother of christ save my soul.* *Proceeds to do it over again.

Now just imagine how your life would change if everything you take for granted as being smooth and without second thought wasn't. You don't even own your own brain. Combine this with a few other disorders and you are in for a good time. Drugs help, but only for a while. It is exhausting, painful, and not funny in the slightest, slightest, slightest, slightest.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. But make no mistake, there is nothing romantic or 'quirky' about this. It is the definition of Agony and it is truly a virus. I'd place it up there with cancer and chronic pain. God save you if you ever give into this heinous demon.

 

[scorpiomover]

In the case of OCD, the person locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."


Then the person goes back, locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

The loop repeats, because nothing is different about the 2nd time than the 1st, that might make the brain more likely to remember the 2nd time more than the 1st.

Why would the OCD sufferer not do something more memorable the 2nd time? Because the impression he has is that there's nothing more to be done, than he already did the 1st time.



So whenever they do something right, they think they must have done it wrong, and keep going back to check.

However, then the same self-learning mechaism of the brain would self-correct with the new data from daily life anyway, unless the majority of society already slightly reinforces that habit, not enough to make the manipulators develop OCD, but enough to keep those with OCD's brains from self-correcting.

Then the OCD sufferer's self-belief that he cannot trust his own mind, gets reinforced by the news, people criticising people for unconscious incompetency on the internet, and making lots of jokes in real life about people being stupid without realising.

((((((It's like a virus that only kills the sick, and no-one wears enough facial protection or does enough social distancing to stop the spread of the virus. ))))))

It seems like the manipulators win))))

I debated for some time on replying to this post. As I concluded it would benefit the discussion, I have decided to relay what I know.

I have major OCD, and have for years after a severe string of traumas that left little space for my mind to recover, and instead fractured. When I say you have no idea of this demon called OCD, imagine spending a night, a day, and the next night doing the same thing over and over and over again.

I'm unsure what you meant here: Are you:

1) Agreeing with my post, and expounding on how difficult OCD is for sufferers?

2) Disagreeing with my post, and giving an explanation of OCD as a means of suggesting disagreement?

3) Not commenting on my post, and simply giving your own experiences as a post independent to my own?

Not sure which one you mean.

 

[PiedPiper]

In the case of OCD, the person locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."


Then the person goes back, locks the door, and then walks down the road. Halfway down the road, the brain says to itself "I remember locking the door. Did I really lock the door, or did I only think I did it. There's a good chance I didn't do it, enough that it's worth going back and checking."

The loop repeats, because nothing is different about the 2nd time than the 1st, that might make the brain more likely to remember the 2nd time more than the 1st.

Why would the OCD sufferer not do something more memorable the 2nd time? Because the impression he has is that there's nothing more to be done, than he already did the 1st time.



So whenever they do something right, they think they must have done it wrong, and keep going back to check.

However, then the same self-learning mechaism of the brain would self-correct with the new data from daily life anyway, unless the majority of society already slightly reinforces that habit, not enough to make the manipulators develop OCD, but enough to keep those with OCD's brains from self-correcting.

Then the OCD sufferer's self-belief that he cannot trust his own mind, gets reinforced by the news, people criticising people for unconscious incompetency on the internet, and making lots of jokes in real life about people being stupid without realising.

((((((It's like a virus that only kills the sick, and no-one wears enough facial protection or does enough social distancing to stop the spread of the virus. ))))))

It seems like the manipulators win))))

I debated for some time on replying to this post. As I concluded it would benefit the discussion, I have decided to relay what I know.

I have major OCD, and have for years after a severe string of traumas that left little space for my mind to recover, and instead fractured. When I say you have no idea of this demon called OCD, imagine spending a night, a day, and the next night doing the same thing over and over and over again.

I'm unsure what you meant here: Are you:

1) Agreeing with my post, and expounding on how difficult OCD is for sufferers?

2) Disagreeing with my post, and giving an explanation of OCD as a means of suggesting disagreement?

3) Not commenting on my post, and simply giving your own experiences as a post independent to my own?

Not sure which one you mean.

I was simply giving an in-depth point of view and flicking a few lines you quoted into the argument. Not sure how that warrants these questions. Tends to be a vastly misunderstood aspect of the psyche. And especially within the margins of capability. We have a remarkable ability to adapt to environmental stimuli. Relaying that the mind can't possible function up to ideal standards given a set of setbacks is inanely faulty. Who's calling the shots on 'ideal'? So in that sense I was agreeing partially to what you pointed out in the paragraphs provided. There's a wealth of reason why the mind functions as key to what it perceives. You can take it from an evolutionary standpoint, spiritual, genetic, nihilistic, or whatever you care to approach. , it's describing the same phenomena. You quoted' It's a virus that only kills the sick' Well that may be partially true, however I differ in that the brain does what it needs to survive, healthy or not. Trials only serve to teach and correct, in my opinion. And where one meets with 'faults' one develops a resilience unknown to those never tested.

We are all weak and sick in this sick world. There is no 'idyllic universal' mindset that will get you much farther than your own front porch when you're dealing with real shit. Expect no less than utter annihilation should you 'attack' instead of mold those said atrocities. In cases where OCD may be a benefit and not a drawback, in which aspect making one simple mistake could cost you. And humans have been prone to those for whatever reason. There is never one way to look at things, there is the phenomena and how we perceive and reconcile. Who knows if in future we decipher a better understanding. After all, if every fault was nothing but total weakness we'd have wiped out a good majority of those by now, wouldn't you think?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

For clarity on my post- I'm not trying to compare what people colloquially call OCD symptoms to legit OCD. I was more or less trying to say that these behaviors are healthy behaviors when "appropriate", but that (genes) + (experience) can push you one direction or the other. OCD isn't just a matter of frequency like I was showing in a one-sided way.

Generally I take the "you know when you see it approach" but I know that people are very good at hiding things under the surface.

Also separate from OCD, I was abstracting an internal vs internal dynamic. I think a concept like that is easy to miss for many people. There's many quotes about the ought of conquering the self, but so few on how. How does conquering yourself work and how does it feel when youre doing it? I'm trying to address the what I'm pointing at but I'm doing a bad job. "Let the water clear itself" is often said. Which is mindfulness on some level, but getting to that point must consist of certain actions and behaviors and I want to verbalize that.


I was also confused about your comment Instrident, but I realized you were more trying to give feedback/perspective. Thanks for it. I find myself always ungrateful whenever I catch a flu, feel awful all the the time, realizing that I take my health for granted. Yet it's the type of thing that kinda illustrates why illness is so easy to take us down. Knowing what to appreciate is difficult.

 

[PiedPiper]

The post itself did rather confuse me, correct in that I wanted to provide a little feedback. I mistook it for being a /psychology post. Plus, we thinkers tend to trail off easily into space in order to connect previous ideas. Either way, interesting topic and plenty in-depth. Respect.

 

[scorpiomover]

I debated for some time on replying to this post. As I concluded it would benefit the discussion, I have decided to relay what I know.


I have major OCD, and have for years after a severe string of traumas that left little space for my mind to recover, and instead fractured. When I say you have no idea of this demon called OCD, imagine spending a night, a day, and the next night doing the same thing over and over and over again.

I'm unsure what you meant here: Are you:

1) Agreeing with my post, and expounding on how difficult OCD is for sufferers?

2) Disagreeing with my post, and giving an explanation of OCD as a means of suggesting disagreement?

3) Not commenting on my post, and simply giving your own experiences as a post independent to my own?

Not sure which one you mean.

I was simply giving an in-depth point of view and flicking a few lines you quoted into the argument.

That sounds like #3.

Not sure how that warrants these questions.

Might be that you were saying #1.

In which case, you might have been teaching me something important that I need to pay attention to.

Or you might have been wrong, and then if I didn't correct you, you would be sticking to false views and suffering unnecessarily.

Tends to be a vastly misunderstood aspect of the psyche. And especially within the margins of capability.

Most people are relying on psychologists to come up with the answers, when psychology is only a bit over 100 years old, and so is at the same stage of development as physics was in 2400 BCE.

We have a remarkable ability to adapt to environmental stimuli.

Yes.

That has pros and cons, as you can change for the positive and change for the negative. So because you have a remarkable ability to change, you can make changes that would make you much better, or much worse.

Relaying that the mind can't possible function up to ideal standards given a set of setbacks is inanely faulty. Who's calling the shots on 'ideal'? So in that sense I was agreeing partially to what you pointed out in the paragraphs provided. There's a wealth of reason why the mind functions as key to what it perceives. You can take it from an evolutionary standpoint, spiritual, genetic, nihilistic, or whatever you care to approach. , it's describing the same phenomena. You quoted' It's a virus that only kills the sick' Well that may be partially true, however I differ in that the brain does what it needs to survive, healthy or not.

Yes. However, it does seem as if the OCD makes those with OCD worse off, but does not also make those without OCD worse off.

Trials only serve to teach and correct, in my opinion.

Sure. But what is correct? What YOU say is correct? How do YOU know what is right?

Trials can correct you to become better, and trials can correct you to become worse.

And where one meets with 'faults' one develops a resilience unknown to those never tested.

Sure. But that resilience can also make you resilient enough that you resist change even more than you did before.

We are all weak and sick in this sick world.

Then no-one is strong, and no-one is healthy. There is just stronger and weaker, healthier and sicker.

So there's no point in worrying about if you are sick or weak. All we can do is try to improve.

In cases where OCD may be a benefit and not a drawback, in which aspect making one simple mistake could cost you. And humans have been prone to those for whatever reason.

Then it's likely that OCD sufferers experienced situations in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, so often in their childhoods, that their brains adapted remarkably well to those environments.

Then when they became adults, left home and went to college, etc, they were no longer in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, and so OCD behaviours would now be a drawback. Then the mind might take as long to adapt to the new environment, as it took to adapt to the old environment, and that could take 18 years.

On top, if the media keep pumping stories that give the impression that the OCD sufferer is still in an environment in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, then the OCD sufferer will continue to remain adapted to environments in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, when you're in an environment in which making one simple mistake wouldn't cost you much, and when not trying things that offer great opportunities would cost you greatly instead.

There is never one way to look at things, there is the phenomena and how we perceive and reconcile.

There are often multiple interpretations of the facts.

But these days, I often read of posts, internet articles and news reports that say clearly that there's only one way to look at things. Are they always right? If not, then aren't they misleading people?

Who knows if in future we decipher a better understanding.

That's the point. We don't know. We might. Or we might not. So if you rely on the future, then you're betting on something as if it's a sure thing, when it's not.

After all, if every fault was nothing but total weakness we'd have wiped out a good majority of those by now, wouldn't you think?

Only if things were always getting better and better.

Considering that in the OT, it writes that the average lifespan is 60 to 70 years, and we're only up to 80 now, that means that over more than 2,000 years of fixing weaknesses, we've only gained 80 years.

At the current rate, the average lifespan will reach 100 in the year 4022, 120 in the year 6022, and 140 in the yer 8022.

Doesn't seem like we wiped out the majority of weaknesses by now.

 

[PiedPiper]

I debated for some time on replying to this post. As I concluded it would benefit the discussion, I have decided to relay what I know.


I have major OCD, and have for years after a severe string of traumas that left little space for my mind to recover, and instead fractured. When I say you have no idea of this demon called OCD, imagine spending a night, a day, and the next night doing the same thing over and over and over again.

I'm unsure what you meant here: Are you:

1) Agreeing with my post, and expounding on how difficult OCD is for sufferers?

2) Disagreeing with my post, and giving an explanation of OCD as a means of suggesting disagreement?

3) Not commenting on my post, and simply giving your own experiences as a post independent to my own?

Not sure which one you mean.

I was simply giving an in-depth point of view and flicking a few lines you quoted into the argument.

That sounds like #3.

Not sure how that warrants these questions.

Might be that you were saying #1.

In which case, you might have been teaching me something important that I need to pay attention to.

Or you might have been wrong, and then if I didn't correct you, you would be sticking to false views and suffering unnecessarily.

Tends to be a vastly misunderstood aspect of the psyche. And especially within the margins of capability.

Most people are relying on psychologists to come up with the answers, when psychology is only a bit over 100 years old, and so is at the same stage of development as physics was in 2400 BCE.

We have a remarkable ability to adapt to environmental stimuli.

Yes.

That has pros and cons, as you can change for the positive and change for the negative. So because you have a remarkable ability to change, you can make changes that would make you much better, or much worse.

Relaying that the mind can't possible function up to ideal standards given a set of setbacks is inanely faulty. Who's calling the shots on 'ideal'? So in that sense I was agreeing partially to what you pointed out in the paragraphs provided. There's a wealth of reason why the mind functions as key to what it perceives. You can take it from an evolutionary standpoint, spiritual, genetic, nihilistic, or whatever you care to approach. , it's describing the same phenomena. You quoted' It's a virus that only kills the sick' Well that may be partially true, however I differ in that the brain does what it needs to survive, healthy or not.

Yes. However, it does seem as if the OCD makes those with OCD worse off, but does not also make those without OCD worse off.

{Yin and yang, correct}

Trials only serve to teach and correct, in my opinion.

Sure. But what is correct? What YOU say is correct? How do YOU know what is right?

Trials can correct you to become better, and trials can correct you to become worse.

{Again, yin and yang} I don't know, I go by instinct.

And where one meets with 'faults' one develops a resilience unknown to those never tested.

Sure. But that resilience can also make you resilient enough that you resist change even more than you did before.


Very true. And this leads back to a previous discussion on 'resilience'.

We are all weak and sick in this sick world.

Then no-one is strong, and no-one is healthy. There is just stronger and weaker, healthier and sicker.

So there's no point in worrying about if you are sick or weak. All we can do is try to improve.

We have strength and weakness. Where one builds strength in one area, one creates a void in which weakness can enter, another.

In cases where OCD may be a benefit and not a drawback, in which aspect making one simple mistake could cost you. And humans have been prone to those for whatever reason.

Then it's likely that OCD sufferers experienced situations in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, so often in their childhoods, that their brains adapted remarkably well to those environments.

Then when they became adults, left home and went to college, etc, they were no longer in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, and so OCD behaviours would now be a drawback. Then the mind might take as long to adapt to the new environment, as it took to adapt to the old environment, and that could take 18 years.

On top, if the media keep pumping stories that give the impression that the OCD sufferer is still in an environment in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, then the OCD sufferer will continue to remain adapted to environments in which making one simple mistake could cost you greatly, when you're in an environment in which making one simple mistake wouldn't cost you much, and when not trying things that offer great opportunities would cost you greatly instead.


Who says that one mistake couldn't still cost you, and to a greater extent than it did in childhood. Perhaps now, a myriad of mistakes could add to an even greater catastrophe. Very little leeway or sympathy is granted.

There is never one way to look at things, there is the phenomena and how we perceive and reconcile.

There are often multiple interpretations of the facts.

But these days, I often read of posts, internet articles and news reports that say clearly that there's only one way to look at things. Are they always right? If not, then aren't they misleading people?

There is much deception going on abouts. Hard to know what's true anymore. How can the truth set us free if lies are all we have.

Who knows if in future we decipher a better understanding.

That's the point. We don't know. We might. Or we might not. So if you rely on the future, then you're betting on something as if it's a sure thing, when it's not.

After all, if every fault was nothing but total weakness we'd have wiped out a good majority of those by now, wouldn't you think?

Only if things were always getting better and better.

Considering that in the OT, it writes that the average lifespan is 60 to 70 years, and we're only up to 80 now, that means that over more than 2,000 years of fixing weaknesses, we've only gained 80 years.

At the current rate, the average lifespan will reach 100 in the year 4022, 120 in the year 6022, and 140 in the yer 8022.

Doesn't seem like we wiped out the majority of weaknesses by now.

You speak much of the OT. I do hope it provides you with sufficient explanation and fulfillment.

 

[scorpiomover]

You speak much of the OT.

I read some every week, to keep up with the weekly readings. So I've read the whole thing every year, for every year of my life since I started doing this at 18. Been doing it for about 34 years now. So I've been through it about 34 years.

I do hope it provides you with sufficient explanation and fulfillment.

I don't know about sufficient. But I now see the benefits of much of it, so much so, that I wish that I had followed it a lot more than I have, especially the things that are about how to treat people.

We learn. We grow. Hopefully, we improve as well.