hatam_soferet: I wish people wouldn't joke about OCD. S

Jen Taylor Friedman (

hatam_soferet) wrote,
@ 2008-05-22 12:43:00

Entry tags:

ocd

I wish people wouldn't joke about OCD. Saying "oh, I've got a bit of OCD" to mean that you're self-conscious about being unusually particular about something isn't funny.

You can be particular about a ritual. Such behaviour gives you a degree of pleasure, even if you are a bit embarrassed to admit it. OCD isn't like that.

It's crushing and inescapable. It's something that lives in your brain and forces you to do really stupid things, even though you know doing them isn't the slightest use, but still you have to do them and if you don't you can't function. It's like somebody stuffed a cushion into your skull so that none of your thoughts can move until you've completed the particular set of movements which will get the cushion out. It's the difference between having new shoes that are a bit stiff and having your feet encased in concrete and nailed to the floor. It's not annoying, it holds you and paralyses you and hurts you and it isn't funny and it isn't trivial.

Just saying.

(Post a new comment)

	margavriel 2008-05-22 06:49 pm UTC (link)
	I totally agree. (Not that I have OCD.) Similarly, people joke about neuroses. They say: "Oh, I have a neurosis about making sure things are clean." If it's true, it's a condition which should be treated, not left alone; if it's a joke, it's NOT FUNNY. (Reply to this)

	taylweaver 2008-05-22 08:00 pm UTC (link)
	I am curious: how would you feel if someone said "I am a bit obsessive-compulsive about that" - i.e. without the word "disorder." Would it still be the same thing, or does that change make a difference? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 12:08 am UTC (link)
	Good question...I think "obsessive-compulsive" in common parlance tends to imply "disorder," so I might get edgy. Is that a reasonable supposition? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

taylweaver
2008-05-23 12:24 am UTC (link)

I am not sure.

I know that you can say someone is obsessive about something without implying that. And since I tend to obsess a lot about things - silly things, often - I get called obsessive a lot, and also obsessive compulsive - when what people really mean is anal. Somehow, anal sounds worse to me.

There is also the possibility that a person might exhibit obsessive-compulsive behaviors without it being a disorder, the same way that someone can exhibit symptoms of ADD without having ADD. Because it hasn't reached the level of a disorder. So, especially in the case where a person is exhibiting those behaviors, I could see why a person might want to label them as such.

That having been said, I see your point also - hence my question.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

hatam_soferet
2008-05-23 12:41 am UTC (link)

Mm. But you're being all nuanced and thoughtful and looking at the shades of grey, and I've not got so much of worth to offer there. Sorry. What bugs me is when people make an off-the-cuff humorous reference when another phrase would have done perfectly well, such that OC behaviours generally get that bit more trivialised. And then when you are trying to explain to someone just why you're doing this weird OC thing, they think you're joking, and that's when it's *really* not funny. Er, excuse rant. You understood that, i think I just needed to say it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	taylweaver 2008-05-23 02:39 am UTC (link)
	What you are saying makes total sense. (Reply to this)(Parent)

shirei_shibolim
2008-05-23 05:06 am UTC (link)

Somehow, anal sounds worse to me.

Well, "anal" is misused even more than "OCD." The term "anal retentive" is one that Freud coined to describe a personality type that he believed to be the result of trauma or difficulty during a child's anal stage of development. (A stage of childhood in Freudian psychology, not usually recognized by anyone else.) The idea is that kids who have a hard time at the point when they're learning to control their bowels — to retain — tend to compensate by becoming control freaks. The opposite personality type, which does not care for order or control, is called "anal expulsive." "Anal" by itself, even within the Freudian context, doesn't really mean anything.

I think that "anal expulsive" sounds much, much worse.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 02:24 pm UTC (link)
	snort Yes, it does. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	torahumaddachic 2008-05-22 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	(applause) (Reply to this)

	kakodaimon 2008-05-22 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	Hm, thanks a lot for this. I've done it before - not with jokes so much as dumbassed comparisons - and need to fix that. To that end, I second taylweaver's question above... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 12:36 am UTC (link)
	Said above but will ctrl-c - I think "obsessive-compulsive" in common parlance tends to imply "disorder," so I might get edgy. Actually, on further reflection, I think it's basically the same thing. Like the diff. between "Alzheimer's" and "Alzheimer's disease." But could depend on context. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

spin0za1
2008-05-23 08:11 am UTC (link)

(more nuance-y stuff) The difference is that Alzheimer's isn't a description of a set of behaviors or symptoms. Alzheimer is the name of the person who is credited with the first published case of presenile dementia. Using the word Alzheimer's (unless you are referring to his glasses or his notebook or his dog) can imply nothing but the disorder, while someone can be said to exhibit obsessive tendencies or compulsive tendencies, or the two in combination without them reaching the level of disorder. The implication will, de-facto, still be there, but it can be read differently, and I think that if a person specifies that they have an obsessive-compulsive tendency re: something or other, to a person who knows anything about real OCD, they will understand the difference.

I do understand just what you are saying. It's only that the semantic issues are interesting to me.

I also used to get very upset in high school when people began to refer to ribbed tank tops/undershirts as "wife-beaters." I felt (and still do, though I've sort of let it go) that the nonchalant association both trivializes domestic violence as an issue and creates or feeds the misconception that domestic violence only exists within a certain segment of society, i.e. the sorts of folks you see on COPS of low socio-economic status who are stereotypically depicted as wearing the above-mentioned article of clothing.

Maybe I'll write something about that soon.

(Sorry I went OT)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 02:25 pm UTC (link)
	OT and nuance both fine and interesting. Thanks for both :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	OCD tangosiempre 2008-05-22 09:16 pm UTC (link)
	This is one of the best descriptions of OCD that I have ever seen. It deserves a place in the professional literature somewhere. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: OCD hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 12:36 am UTC (link)
	Feel free to send it in to the appropriate forum :) Are you in Canada yet? Have fun, whenever it is. Regards to J. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	twostepsfwd 2008-05-22 09:17 pm UTC (link)
	amen. thank you. (Reply to this)

shirei_shibolim
2008-05-23 04:59 am UTC (link)

Sometimes I hear that done as a joke, but more often (at least in my circle) it's just a straight-faced, slightly self-effacing comment about a need for order or exactitude. Sort of the same way people who are a bit distractable will describe themselves as "ADD." *

Either way, I agree that it belittles the very real problems that some people face. Thanks for posting.

* Does the syntax that people use here bother anyone else? Nobody says "I'm cancer," "I'm asthma," or "I'm excema," but they're fire off "I'm OCD" or "I'm ADD" like there's no tomorrow. It's not just insulting; it's bizarre.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

taylweaver
2008-05-23 11:41 am UTC (link)

Actually, I was thinking about the ADD example too - especially because ADD is, I think, a bit trickier to diagnose. It is hard to draw the line between "you have some symptoms but you are fine" and "you have ADD" And so, when someone says, "I'm a little ADD," my brain automatically assumes the person means the former, and is not belittling the disorder, especially if they say, "a little." Because what they are saying is, "I have some ADD tendencies, and sometimes it affects me."

Though I somehow feel like the line might be clearer with OCD - but that is because I know very little about OCD, and so I can't imagine being "a little" OCD. (and excuse the grammatical incorrectness)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 02:36 pm UTC (link)
	Well, OCD's a spectrum just like ADD, so it's also hard to pinpoint. The point at which one's desire for attention to detail becomes actually abnormal is obviously highly subjective, so some of the same questions of degree apply. I dunno. Just - hearing it used lightly hurts, and hurts a lot. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

taylweaver
2008-05-23 07:25 pm UTC (link)

And thus we have proven how little I know about OCD. Thank you for clarifying that.

I am curious, now, how that spectrum plays out. Especially because I have more than once been the recipient of those "that's so OCD" sort of comments. (I am definitely very into both routines and details. I'd be somewhere in the "not a disorder" end of that spectrum - but most likely on the spectrum)

That is actually part of the reason I was asking about whether saying "obsessive compulsive" without the word "disorder" is equally bad - because I think I have been guilty on that one many times - usually by using it in reference to myself when trying to apologize/explain away/laugh away something I was doing that involved obsessing over a detail no one else cared about. (and yes, I am aware that I included "laugh away" - because I am realizing as I type this that is part of the motivation: to somehow change the mood of the situation so that people will be more likely to decide I am being silly rather than annoying - gee, this is sounding worse and worse...)

Anyway, I think my point is, thank you for increasing my awareness on this one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 09:28 pm UTC (link)
	Does the Wikipedia article help? I think one of the important factors is whether it causes the person distress to be doing it but they have to do it anyway, but I don't know for sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

taylweaver
2008-05-23 10:42 pm UTC (link)

Well, I think I just caused everyone *else* distress...

It's interesting how what I read on Wikipedia is so different from what my understanding of OCD was - mine, and popular culture's as well.

Thank you once again for reducing my ignorance. That is definitely different from my own past behaviors/experiences.

It's actually a bit disturbing how we internalize popular culture definitions instead of real ones.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 10:56 pm UTC (link)
	Now if only I could send this post to the magid shiur who prompted it in the first place. But he takes so much flak already, he doesn't need me flakking him as well, so I'm in two minds. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 02:37 pm UTC (link)
	Syntax - yeah, weird. Perhaps indicative of lack of comprehension. Compare use of "spaz"? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	taylweaver 2008-05-23 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	Also possibly just change of grammar over time. The same way that we can now Google things or e-mail someone rather than using Google or sending an e-mail. The acronym has somehow become an adjective. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	margavriel 2008-05-25 01:57 pm UTC (link)
	What's even more disturbing is when people say things like "She's a ritalin kid." Defining people not even by condition, but by a medication commonly used to treat the condition. Brrrr. (I don't think I have heard such language used to describe adults.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	livredor 2008-05-23 05:49 am UTC (link)
	You're quite right. I will stop doing that. Sorry. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	hatam_soferet 2008-05-23 02:26 pm UTC (link)
	I hadn't noticed you doing it, my sweet. (Reply to this)(Parent)

cartesiandaemon
2008-05-27 02:51 pm UTC (link)

*hugs* Well said, what a moving description.

(Although now I want to ask something else. If someone checks their email wherever they go, that's typically something else, because they plainly get something out of it, and describing it as OCD-like is misleading and potentially harmful.

However, is someone is compelled to line their spoons up in order, but is not something they spend very much time on, it seems to me that it may be like OCD, because it is an obsession that [insert definitions], but is not OCD because even if OCD concerned related behaviour, the point is that they can be so intrusive they start to take over and ruin your life.

Do you have an opinion if there is any way of describing the second? It's annoying but comparatively small, along with many other quirks people suffer. If it were like OCD behaviours, then "a little OCD" would be an accurate way of conveying the concept[1], except that it trivialises OCD problems for people where they're a gigantic, crushing problem.

But I don't know if my impression that the internet behaviour, the spoons behaviour, and OCD are distinct enough to need terms, nor if the lack of useful descriptions contributes additionally to the tendency to use medical terms in casual descriptions where they're not very appropriate.)

[1] Specifically that this is not a behaviour anyone is likely to cure by saying "That's needless. Just break yourself of the habit."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

hatam_soferet
2008-05-27 11:23 pm UTC (link)

Well, OC behaviours fall on a spectrum, and at some point they become intrusive enough that they qualify as a disorder. Just where that point is depends on how we want to define "normal mental health," which is challenging at the best of times.

I think describing the spoons as "a little OCD" is probably accurate and not necessarily problematic; it doesn't trivialise it, in the same way that someone with a headache can say "I'm in pain" without trivialising the experience of someone with a migraine.

What I find problematic is when it's made into a joke, because then the reason it's funny is because it's patently not seriously applicable, but since more people encounter OCD references as jokes than as real experiences, it gets so that if you say "yes, that's my OCD," people laugh, which is tremendously hurtful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cartesiandaemon 2008-05-29 11:39 am UTC (link)
	That makes sense. Thanks for considering it, it was nagging me (and I know what you mean about when people _are_ just making jokes, understandably, but lamentably). (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…