Why I started this blog, 4 months later

Oh yeah, I was going to write about OCD/OC spectrum (because I went to the International OCD Foundation's annual conference over the summer and it was really interesting)! So, OCD: persistent, unwanted thoughts plus repeated, undesirable actions in order to reduce the anxiety caused by those thoughts, but the actions have no logical connections to the thoughts or are excessive. OC spectrum: includes everything from eating disorders and Body Dysmorphic Disorder to pathological gambling and trichotillomania (hair pulling) and even autism and Tourette's Syndrome. All characterized by varying degrees of impulsivity and compulsivity. Say what? Basically, an impulsive behavior is one that provides pleasure or gratification, and a compulsive behavior is one performed to reduce anxiety. The two represent opposite ends of a spectrum (impulsivity is associated with decreased frontal lobe and serotonergic activity, while compulsivity is associated with increased frontal lobe and serotonergic activity), but they both refer to an inability to delay or inhibit repetitive (and ultimately unwanted) behaviors.

To illustrate, let's look at the completely random example of skin picking. I have concluded by highly unscientific measures that most people have popped a pimple or picked at a scab at some point in their lives. It's not hard to see why--you have a blemish, you get rid of it, you feel better. And for most people, it stops there. For some, however, there's more work to be done. If you look really closely, you can see tons of little blackheads on your face, and you must get rid of all of them if your face is to be truly clean. If doing so takes an hour and results in severe redness, so be it. At this point, picking is more than a bad habit--it is a compulsion.

The healthy majority who occasionally pick may even admit getting a sense of gratification from the activity--not just the satisfaction of knowing that you eliminated an imperfection from your skin, but the actual sensation of doing so. You may even look forward to the time when a pimple has grown enough so that you may pop it. But do you actively seek these opportunities, searching your skin for any little bump that you may squeeze in order to experience that sensation again? If so, then you may have an impulse control disorder.

Hold up now. Searching for blemishes? That sounds more like compulsivity. Indeed, searching might be a compulsive element that develops from an impulsive activity. And the impulsivity may evolve in the first place from compulsivity--the discovery of a pleasurable activity resulting from an initial desire to reduce anxiety. But now, are we talking about anxiety caused by the imperfection, which may be reduced by eliminating the blemish? Or anxiety from some other source which may be temporarily reduced by engaging in a pleasurable activity such as picking? And which of these corresponds to impulsivity and which to compulsivity? These questions are popping up as I write this, and honestly I'm not sure what the answer is. All I really know is that this stuff is complicated. And really interesting, in my opinion.

If any of this hits close to home for anyone, there's lots of help out there, including these online support groups: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/OCDSupportGroups/links
I will also try to answer any questions you may have. You can even comment anonymously!

Also, this is not related to OCD but it's related to mental health: See the movie It's Kind of a Funny Story for an honest, humorous, sensitive look at mental illness. Not that I'm an expert on mental illness, but I hope to be one someday. And I know that a big part of being an expert will be acknowledging that people are individuals, and I can never fully be an "expert" on anyone other than myself. A big part of understanding OCD, OC spectrum, and other mental health problems is putting aside preconceived notions about how people think.

Blog to restore sanity

Language is interesting. In Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes, Daniel Everett recounts his experiences as a missionary living among the Pirahã, a small tribe in Brazil. Everett eventually realizes that it would be impossible to translate the Bible into Pirahã because the language lacks the words to describe anything that was not personally witnessed or told to the speaker by a witness. This is consistent with their culture; the Pirahãs place importance on immediate experience. Claims necessitate evidence. There is no story of the earth's creation, and no sense of sin. As we say in one of my languages, "no day but today." Religion is incompatible with their culture and, consequently, their language.

Let's take a look at some other language that is incompatible with religion. Taken from my own comment on my own blog: I get my values "from progressive thinking rather than ancient, dogmatic works of fiction." I guess you could say I have strong feelings about this. I use these words to get my point across, which is important, but so is productive discourse. So perhaps I can use some more neutral words (as a side note--is "dogmatic" not a neutral word? It's a simple fact that many religions contain dogmas--principles that are not to be disputed--but the word is used disparagingly these days): I don't consider the Bible to be an authoritative source due to its unverifiable claims. I view science as a reliable source of information because it provides evidence and makes its methods known. So, what about morality? Thanks to innate characteristics and personal experience, I have a general desire to be nice and not kill people. Science doesn't tell us how we should act, but it can shed light on why we tend to act certain ways. For an example, see the Veritas Forum's discussion on altruism from last year.

It gets interesting at the end of that discussion when someone asks what happens when science and religion conflict. In my opinion, Sussman's answer--basically, that they don't conflict--is a cop-out. Of course they conflict. Now, is conflict inevitable? I have long been inclined to think so. However, the fact remains that in our society, both science and religion exist. In order for them to coexist peacefully, we have to find a common language. True, there are plenty of scientists who are also religious, and have attempted to bridge the gap, but belief is complicated, and there are always people who remain dissatisfied with some detail. So, are people's various beliefs so fundamentally different that they must conflict? Maybe, but it's still fun to look for that common ground. Philip Clayton does a pretty good job, I think, in this Assembly Series talk from 2008. Sure, I yelled at the computer a few times while listening to it, but it was better than anything I'd heard on the topic before. My main issue was with his use of the word "spirituality." He seems to imply that spirituality is a requirement for being human. But guess what? I don't need to be spiritual in order to enjoy life or appreciate nature. I have emotions. I just don't believe in anything supernatural. Can we expand the definition of spirituality or find another word that is more inclusive in describing the human experience?

Sometimes when I think about it too much, I become convinced that we are all saying the same thing, just in different words.

Sometimes, I think not.

And other times, I wonder how pushy I should be in advancing my cause. And then my dad sends me an article about a conference at which that very question was addressed.

Also, sometimes I have lots to say but can't figure out how to tie it in with everything else, but if you're like me and just can't enough of this stuff, check out this article, then follow the link to the author's blog and read the comments. That should keep you busy for a while.

So, in conclusion, language is interesting, I'm not sure if sanity was restored but I tried, and I like to write about religion.

What if god were one of us?

I don't even know what that question means, really; I'm just quoting that song, but with proper grammar. Anyway, Grilled Cheesus lived up to my expectations. It was hilarious and touched on a lot of important issues. I just hope the episode's warm and fuzzy ending doesn't overshadow the fact that there are issues.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the warmth and fuzziness. Like Kurt, I don't believe in god, but I believe in friends and family, and I am grateful that we can put aside our differences and hold hands and sing, literally and figuratively.

But, you know, there are still issues.

Okay, I think that's quite enough for now. But if you ever want to discuss/debate, just holler...

Return of the... METABLOG!

Bad thing: I discovered the page that shows me how many times my blog has been viewed.

So now I know that people are viewing it and choosing not to comment.
Here she goes with the obsessing...
Okay, but the thing is, with my last post I'm not looking for reassurance; I'm looking for other points of view. Mostly. It's true, though; the desire for reassurance is always there. Of course, I could interpret the silence as reassurance that everyone either agrees with me or has failed to come up with a strong rebuttal. But it is also quite possible that people are refusing to engage me in a conversation because they view my claims as radical or ignorant and doubt that I would understand any explanation that draws upon a religious perspective. Or maybe people are still thinking about how they would answer, and maybe they won't tell me, but would still think about it, which would be cool too.

Anyway, my main point is this: Reassurance feeds the OCD monster, but discussion feeds the intellectual monster. And maybe the OCD monster as well, actually.

What would you do if you made a grilled Cheesus?

I have a question, but that's not it. That was just a trick to get Glee fans to read my blog. But in all seriousness, I really am curious what people think about the issue I'm about to discuss. Of course I have an agenda--don't we all?--but we can still converse and learn from each other. I'll go ahead and give my disclosures for the hypothetical readers who don't know me, or those who have managed to interact with me without learning my stance: I am a humanist. To clarify, as there are many different humanisms, the humanism I speak of is secular and rejects supernatural explanations of the world.

Now, my question concerns the holy text of the three major monotheisms. If I were to read the whole Bible, I'm sure I would generate an enormous list of passages that trouble me, but for now I will focus on Leviticus 20:13. (That's right, Jews. You are not exempt from this question. This shit is in the Torah.) Leviticus 20:13 is the verse that says that sex between two men is an abomination punishable by death. My question is, what does one do with such a statement? It's kind of a big issue, but I haven't been able to find an adequate answer. As I see it, there are four ways to go:

1. Uphold the holy word and sentence gay men to death. Lesbians, too, if you think that was implied. In this case, I would have to respectfully disagree. Scratch that--disrespectfully disagree.

2. Say that this is a misinterpretation; the real meaning of the verse is x. In which case I say, speak up!!! Tell me what it means! Tell everyone what it means! Stop the hate!

3. Reject this verse, but keep the rest. Which, of course, brings me to my preferred solution...

4. Reject the whole book. If you reject one verse because it doesn't fit in with your values, why do you even need the Bible? Clearly you are able to derive your values from other sources. Also consider, for a moment, creation myths. Why trust a source that has so much false information and hatred? If modern science and ethics shape your interpretation of the Bible, I don't see why the Bible is necessary. Some of the teachings of religion might turn out to be true, or good, but given how much we've already disproved or rejected, we know its methods are flawed. Allow science and your instincts to shape your understanding of the world. That's my two cents. But I want to hear yours.

Simply for your enjoyment

This has nothing to do with anything. It is a draft of an essay I wrote for one of my applications. Enjoy.

Briefly describe your most satisfying experience related to community service.

As I lugged cartfuls of food to my car through the pouring rain, I thought about how unfortunate it was that none of the other volunteers had shown up. I was tempted to back down, to say that I could not handle all of that food by myself and that a lot of it would probably get thrown out at the shelter anyway. But the shelter was counting on receiving food from Wash U that night—maybe not so freaking much food, but I couldn’t be sure. All I knew for sure was that I had a responsibility to Dining Services, to Feed St. Louis, to the shelter, and to its clients. Inclement weather and lack of help were hardly excuses to evade my duty. The woman who answered the door at the shelter was impressed by my dedication, but delivering that food was the least I could do in the noble effort to reduce waste and give to those in need.

So imagine my dismay when I learned that Feed St. Louis would no longer be collecting leftover food from the dining halls. In fact, they would no longer exist. They were now a Campus Kitchen. I regained my sense of purpose, however, when I learned that the Campus Kitchen group desperately needed someone to pick up donated food from a local grocery store on Thursday mornings. I didn’t start class until 1 on Thursdays, and I could not think of a better way to spend my mornings than contributing to the worthy cause of feeding the hungry in St. Louis. Except perhaps sleeping or studying, but I volunteered anyway. I began to regret that decision as I struggled to see out the back of my car, which was practically exploding with perfectly good bread that had not been sold by its sell by date. Still, there was something satisfying about dragging two bags of buns behind me down the stairs to the kitchen—thump, thump, thump. "It’s going to bruise," someone warned me. "It’s already smushed from the journey in my car," I said. "Besides, I don’t give a fuck." The freezer was still packed with bread from the previous week, so I left the new batch sprawled across the floor. "Bread—50 solar masses" I wrote on the food log. I came to the unfortunate realization that much of the food I was salvaging would eventually be thrown out anyway. "Are there other groups that can use some of this bread?" I asked one of the Campus Kitchen coordinators. "There is an abundance of bread everywhere, but we are working on it," she assured me. For the time being, all I could do was keep lugging that bread, with the hope that one day bread production in St. Louis would decrease to reasonable levels and funds would be redirected to areas in need, like the production and distribution of other kinds of food.

Where do I go from here?

Do you ever feel... stuck?



In OCD, there's a problem with the feedback loop that tells us that we are no longer in danger, or that it's okay to move on.

People with "obsessive slowness" may take 20 minutes to walk through their front door.

I get stuck on tasks like writing an essay. Or an email. Or a blog post.

I don't know what to write about. I don't know how to word it. That's not good enough. Sentence by sentence, I recite and revise in my head what I want to say. Too much effort. I am getting sleepy. Time for a break.

I am stuck in the molasses swamp, waiting to draw the card that will get me unstuck. (I just came up with that one. Clever, eh? No? I don't care. I am tired.)

*Wait a minute, are you saying that if I struggle with writing essays, then I have OCD?* No. *But you are implying that you have OCD, right?* No. Many behaviors are best characterized as lying somewhere along a continuum. For any given behavior, most of us fall somewhere in the middle. So how do we decide what's pathological? Good question. Stay tuned for DSM-V.



Now what?

Meet the OCD monster fetus

I really want to have a blog! Why? Because I have a sub-clinical obsessive-compulsive need to let people know what I think (have I ever told you my thoughts on religion?) and to be funny (I know people think I'm funny; it's because it's true). So I'd like to write about whatever the hell I want and get constant feedback from hundreds of admirers. But it doesn't work like that. People have their own lives and don't necessarily want to read my nonsense. Or maybe they'll read it but won't feel like commenting. So then I face the menacing "what if"s. What if no one comments on my blog? Even worse, what if no one reads it? That would suck majorly. But why? Because people would be missing out on my genius, yes, but also because I would be getting no reassurance that I'm funny or have good ideas. Ah, so the underlying "what if" here is, what if I'm not funny and my ideas suck? I have reason to believe that that's probably not true, but it is possible. I will never know for sure. But I can live with that.

So, is this blog going to be about anything other than the fact that maybe no one will read it? Well, yeah, I'm not writing solely for the purpose of hearing myself type, though that is part of it. There's going to be content. I've alluded to it already. My inspiration came from a conference I attended this past weekend--the International OCD Foundation Annual Conference (many thanks to the friend who told me about it). It was awesome. I learned so much. The obsessive-compulsive spectrum is fascinating. I've found my calling, whatever that means. For one, it means that I've found something worth blogging about. But first I have to get these pesky med school apps done. So for now I'll leave you, dear possibly-existent readers, to ponder and anticipate. Comments are always welcome, but know that pure reassurance only feeds the OCD monster fetus.

P.S. Knowing me, I'll probably lose interest and never write a second post. Let's hope not! I'll take that as a challenge.