Request for feedback.

ocdirelandcoord

Let me introduce myself :
My name is Brian Davis and I am co-ordinating a small national support group called OCDIreland - www.ocdireland.org

Recently the following articles (see attached) were published in "The Voice Today" the 14th April 2006 (and subsequent repsonses). In conjunction with a qualified mental health professional who has kindly offered assistance to us, we are preparing a reply to this article by John Walters. It is highly pseudo-scientific, inacurate and misleading with respect to modern scientific theories on the causes of OCD as well as the clinical evidence that guides current treatment options.
It is both insulting to individuals who suffer from OCD and or/those with condition who find strength in religion to compliment thestandard treatments.
Futhermore, the inidvidual who brought the article to our attention is also criticised inappropriately for his attempts to inform the author of his lack of awareness regarding OCD.

I would appreciate any feed back from your society as I have been recommended by several mental health professionals that your forum seeks to promote awareness about this type of misguided literature.

I am in the process also of getting our webmaster to upload PDF scans of the articles to the OCDIReland website, so I would appreciate if you stay tuned.
Unfortunately the documents are too storage intensive for boards.ie (understandly as PDF docs are quite rich in KBs post-compression).


Best Wishes

Brian Davis
Co-Ordinator OCDIreland

ISAW

ocdirelandcoord wrote:

Let me introduce myself :
My name is Brian Davis and I am co-ordinating a small national support group called OCDIreland - www.ocdireland.org
snip

First you should have stated "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". Or did you think that anyone not willing to follow the link wasnt worth having a discussion with?

I havent read the Waters piece. I couldn't find it on your site or on The Voice site.

On your site:
You site seems (on a casual browse) to be fair and balanced. I note CAM is referred to. You coverage of it seems fair and balanced.
You describe "St Johns Wort" as "benign". I don't think it is. I believe it is actually a fairly potent herb and not at all like taking inneffectual placebo. You also mention "energy balance", but you wisely avoid endorsing any theories while accepting meditiation or Yoga as a means to calm the mind and body.

In respect to hypnotism you state "Unfortunately there has not been conclusive research to support these suggestions as of yet." which is a fair comment.

I personally also like your comment on psychtherapy "The therapy of choice in the treatment of OCD is behavioural therapy and/or cognitive therapy. For many people this is very effective, and long-term "insight" psychotherapy is neither necessary or effective."

You seem to also have got some media attention. Good for you. Anyway I await the Waters pieces.

ocdirelandcoord

Please find the articles at http://www.ocdireland.org/articles-john-walters.zip - These documents will remain downloadable for 2 weeks so please make sure to download your own copy.

I will respond to you ISAW directly later in the week, and I appreciate your feedback.

regards

Brian Davis

Myksyk

Hi Brian,

Could you fix the third article (Water's response to Ryan) which is upside down and poses a difficulty for those without a printer to hand? Thanks.

I'll have a few reads of these articles and give my tuppence ha'penny worth later.

PS: It might be worth your while pinning this on the athiest/agnostic forum for comment. They're an active crowd over there (and probably over-represented with people suffering with OCD if we're to believe Mr. Waters).

Myksyk

Having read the articles I have a good measure of sympathy for Salvador Ryan's "splenetic disagreement" with Mr. Waters. A considered response is required which I don't have time for tonight. I'll throw some thoughts out tomorrow night if I get half an hour!

lostexpectation

ISAW wrote:

First you should have stated "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". Or did you think that anyone not willing to follow the link wasnt worth having a discussion with?

I havent read the Waters piece. I couldn't find it on your site or on The Voice site.

You seem to also have got some media attention. Good for you. Anyway I await the Waters pieces.

he did say 'seemingly benign'.


my god waters is a cock, I thought at first, why are you bothereing to reply to his article, it was just a bad methaphor but then I read the article and he is really serious?

The article is based on nothing, Beckham may have said he had OCD but he was probably only refering to it in a casual way, exagerating his perfectionism and attention to detail which probably got him to where he is today. So that's a bad start, this whole voice paper seems to be based on over opiniated people talking out of their arses on random subjects aslong as they mention God every few paragraphs? It's ridiculous.

And again I have to ask what what have secularism and individualism got to do with eachother and since when do we hyphenate those words without raising an eyebrow or some ' ' marks.

Why did you post in skeptics?

you response was quite good, although I don't think you should continue with it. Only to advise he editor to take the word news out of the subtitle.

Myksyk

It's difficult not to feel angry reading Water's article so I understand the tone of Ryan's response. However, it plays into his hands to address it in that tone as he can, and did, reject the indignation as 'splenetic disagreement'. There are a whole host of points that I picked up on which are factually incorrect, inaccurate or poorly informed but it may be distracting to concentrate on every little thing (e.g. Beckham probably doesn't have OCD, Waters seems to misunderstand the difference between obsessions and compulsions and theire relationship, why has he got a problem with professionals who may know what they're talkng about).

There is a key point where Waters believes that OCD is about perfectionism and therefore this leads him nicely onto his vaccuous argument about secular atheism being a root cause for such 'obsessions'. The fact is that OCD is not about perfectionism. It is about the chaotic overt and covert behavioural attempts of people suffering from the condition to negate the anxieties arising from intrusive cognitions. These are quite specific and may not generalise out to the rest of the person's life which may be as normal and unperfectionistic as Joe Soap's. People are not trying to impose order ... they are trying to allay anxiety associated with obsessions.This is one of his key errors (he doesn't really have a good grasp of what the condition actually is).

The central issue revolves around his presenting a 'theory' of OCD. It clearly, despite his wrangling, is not an optional theory but one which supplants the clinical scientific theory as it supposedly gets to the root and doesn't just address the symptoms. Well, if he has presented us with a theory, albeit a supernaturally inspired one, it still has measurable implications. So how does it stand up and how good is it at explaining the condition. I'd suggest that if he is right then:

Countries infected with the 'contagion' of disbelief to a higher degree than others should have higher rates of OCD (as it "tend(s) to grow exponentially" in these societies). They don't.

Countries or societies with higher rates of belief should have statistically significant lower rates of OCD in the general population. They don't.

Atheists should statistically at least be over-represented in populations of people with OCD. They aren't.

On average, people with excellent connections to their God should be less vulnerable and hence under-represented. They aren't.

If it is a general spiritual malaise in the society which then randomly afflicts individual's souls there should be no real genetic effect. But there is.

Treatment of OCD involving creating strong connections to God should be evident. There is no evdence that this is the case.

I think you could actually tease this apart even further. The fact is he has made an extraordinary claim about the nature of a well-known, specific clinical condition (hence the appropriateness of your posting here). His claim does not stand up to scutiny. It is bad theory informed by bad logic and worse philosophy. It explains precisely nothing about OCD's symptoms, prevalence or epidemiology.

ISAW

ocdirelandcoord wrote:

Recently the following articles (see attached) were published in "The Voice Today" the ...

I would appreciate any feed back from your society as I have been recommended by several mental health professionals that your forum seeks to promote awareness about this type of misguided literature.

I read the two articles. Here is my first impressions.
Excuse any rambling this is unedited

The first one without explicitly stating has the following thesis which is based fairly much on accepted Judaic and Christian (and indeed monotheistic) Theology:

1. There are good people and bad people and god allows people to chose to be bad of their own choice if and when they decide to go against his will.

2.The only way for bad people to become good people is to accept gods will.

Number 2 here is what I call the “First commandment Thesis” i.e. Not believing in God or especially trying to replace God with yourself (Satan's sin -the first sin of pride).

He then goes on to apply the idea in a particular case (these are explicitly stated) and suggest that Medicine can stop bad people doing bad acts but it cant make them into good people. He refers for example to “the suppression of symptoms while the underlying condition is left unaddressed” .
This is playing to the gallery. Most people accept that medicine frequently treats symptoms and does not cure causes. But this is wholly different to the assumption the the underlying cause is always related to not believing in God or following Gods will. This is dangerous philosophy. If I have cancer I might well go to Lourds or pray more but to suggest that I do this because it is better than listening to a doctor is really going too far.
A greater leap is then made with the assertion that not following God's will (or even the prior necessary step -not believing in God since one cant follow the will of someone that does not exist) is the direct cause of addiction and compulsive behaviour.

At the same time he is careful in this piece in being agnostic about OCD. He constantly reminds us about “what is called OCD “. I would suggest that in any reply one might refer to the silliness of this and in any reference to his primary thesis based on the belief in God that one constantly refers to “What is called God” or “what Mr Waters calls God”

I have a problem firstly with the underlying thesis. It relates on one hand to the idea of “criminally insane” or “a bad person”. I think some people are just bad and they do indeed get away with bad acts by claiming temporary insanity and I do have problems with psychs who seem to try explain away this behaviour. I also believe in God and am a practicing Christian. But I would not claim that mental illness obsessive behaviour or addiction are caused only by a weakness of the spirit. And let us be clear Waters states “a disease of the spirit” and in his later article to this point of view as “an alternative analysis.”

He maintains that
“excessive emphasis on this aspect [the accepted clinical/medical aspect] can obscure the fact that it is one of a host of escalating symptoms of an atheistic society”

this is the claim that medicine does not remove the cause of mental illness couples with the claim that the cause is linked to not believing in God, or ultimately as I outline that illness is a result of not following God's will. Mr Waters provides no evidence for what he here calls a “fact”.

He goes on to mention “a contagion of disbelief” which places a “misdiagnosed pressure” on people to replace belief in God (and consequently his will) with making up their own mind for themselves. Again no evidence and a mis use of language “contagion” is used in the social sense in relation to medically verifiable physical reality e.g. Withdraway symptoms of drugs. This is similar to the use of “evolution” to refer to the “evolution of society” as if it is the same as biological evolution. It isnt! It is a fallacy to do so but it is clearly misplaced to do so and to refer to social evolutionm and biological evolution in the same breath just as just as the disease of gambling alcoholism etc. (and it IS debatable if they are pathological but what he is doing here reenforces the point that they are not a disease in the accepted sense without actually stating the difference between an actual accepted definition of disease or contagion and what Mr Waters calls a “contagion”

He also mentions that “we are told” a modern class of anti-depressants are recommended as “first-line treatment” but he fails to support his. By whom are they recommended?

Near the end his First commandment thesis becomes apparent when he states it:

“ the desire to impose order on the universe and to become unsettled at inevitable our failure to do so is ultimately the a symptom of the compunction to take over from a God we no longer know”

Both philosophers of Science and theologists have delved into this issue of “does science explain everything”. Mr Waters in expressing his thesis commits the fallacy of “explaining is explaining away”. It is accepted that even if we discovered all the “laws of the universe” that this would not explain away the universe. For example the philosophy of primal causes how did those laws come to be? Also explaining the universe would not mean we can predict everything that will happen. Chaos theory tells us that widely different outcomes can result from different initial conditions.

ISAW

part two of reply:

Moving on to the second piect on 28th april here are my observations:
Mr Waters in his third paragraph refers to the fallacy of “argument from authority” when he states

this whole debate is part of the science vs religion fallacy. In reality they are not analogues, rather more interesting is the occult debate on bright new individual thinking versus the accepted political authority. Aristirchus heliocentric hypothesis resulted in the Greeks demanding prosecution for impeity. Copernicus and Galelio moved man from the centre of the universe and challenged both the central authority of the Church but more so the authority of the accepted peripatetic (Aristotelean) view of the learned academics of the day. Darwin main problems arose it is believed by questioning the “truth” of Genesis and the uniqueness of man. In fact only on page 488 does Darwin have a single mention of the “origin of man and his history”. Darwin main social problem was that he attacked the status of man and in doing so the authority of those who informed out concience.

This brings me to an inherent contradiction in Waters statement. He attacks mental health supporters for their argument from authority in an endeavour to support his thesis of the collapse of society due to not believing in God and consequently in not following God's will because people are encouraged to be individualistic and make up their minds for themselves. But if Water's alternative to being “individualistic atheistic” is listen to God and inform out consience to relieve our weak spirit. Waters is clear that we cant do this as individuals. So if we depend on believers from outside to inform us who are they? They are it seems to the “authority” of the Church. So Waters thesis is self defeating. He criticizes authorities of medicine but his alternative is the authorities of theologians. Note I do not criticise theology, just some theologians. Like waters I will not refer to which theological experts I criticise. Unlike waters however it is not for me to show how or where the problems with his alternative dependence on theologians arises, nor even for anyone in the position of supporting the accepted view of mental health to defend it. Mr Waters makes the argument that his analysis is correct. It is for him to support his position.
Which brings me to another logical fallacy the end of that second paragraph the fallacy of “shifting the burden”. Waters states “at no point did Mr Ryan offer any an alternative analysis of OCD”. Well some comments could be made on this. First it is the first occasion that Waters refers to OCD and not to “what is called” OCD. Second, what Waters terms the “alternative analysis” is in this case implicitly stated i.e. It is the accepted view of medicine. In fact Waters view should really be called the “alternative” as he later at the bottom of the same column refers (“what I was offering was an alternative analysis” ). Third, there is a clear shifting of the burden here. Mr Waters makes a claim that medicine is wrong and that mental problems are result of weak souls and then demands his detractors to present an alternative hypothesis. Will he next state his lawn is pink and demand I provide and prove an alternative hypothesis?

In all this he attacks “secular individualism” but he does not even ask if Ryan is a believer in God. And he refers to the false dichotomy again in putting accepted medical beliefs about mental illness on the side of “secular individualism” in claiming “it is assumed to be the natural state of affairs”. In fact the medical view IS the accepted view but this is not to assume that all medics are secular humanists. Indeed many believers in God are to be found in medicine. At the same time Waters offers his opinion but does not suggest that he is (unlike medicine) subject to peer review. So where does that leave his belief in the primacy of informed personal opinion?

At the bottom of the first column he states that “at no point did I state that the absence of belief in god was necessarily the root cause of the condition, and in fact I stated the contrary” Whether the contrary means “ belief in god was not the root cause” or “disbelief was not the root cause “ is not clear but what is clear is that this claim is clearly wrong! Waters states later at the bottom of the second column “The self imposed pressure to become 'god' of our own lives is, literally, driving us mad.” and “There is but one solution; and it is neither pill not therapy: the idea that there is One who has all power, in whose hands all order is ultimately decided.”

Not alone that but he makes the unsupported point that atheism which causes people to disobey God is responsible for actual mental illnesses.
There is a clear problem hear in thyat addictions and other mental illnessess are psychological and not physical and linked to
“weak spirits” or turning away from God's will. Now suppose I take Mr Waters and lock him in a room and inject him with heroine for several weeks. I assume he will still believe in God and in gods will. When his withdrawal symptoms set in would he really claim that they do not physically exist and that they are result of a weak spirit?

ISAW

ocdirelandcoord wrote:

Please find the articles at http://www.ocdireland.org/articles-john-walters.zip

I note you renamed him Walters

ISAW

Myksyk wrote:

PS: It might be worth your while pinning this on the athiest/agnostic forum for comment. They're an active crowd over there (and probably over-represented with people suffering with OCD if we're to believe Mr. Waters).

Where is that forum? do the humanists also have one?

Myksyk

ISAW wrote:

Where is that forum?

Soc > Religion/Spirituality > Atheism/Agnosticism

robindch

> Soc > Religion/Spirituality > Atheism/Agnosticism

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614