Defect of Philosophy or plain bad science*?

I was reading some articles on Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) on the net.  I definitely associate with several of the symptoms and some of the underlying theories.  There are also a few of my known and relatives who I believe have such symptoms.  And, they also believe that I have several OCPD symptoms.  But somewhere I think the theories go a bit too far in explaining the "philosophical defect" of this "disorder."

For instance, an article on OCPD that is cited on Wikipedia (different from above) starts with the assertion that OCPD is a "defect" in the underlying philosophy.  An obsession with perfectionism and a notion that I alone hold the truth are apparently the symptoms of a person suffering from an OCPD disorder.

And to complete the theory, OCPD folks (who have a philosophical "defect") vehemently disagree that they have any defect and in fact argue that whatever they believe in is the truth.

Er... how convenient :-)

Damned I am if I accept this statement; meaning which I have a personality "defect" and damned if I don't; meaning all the more that I have the said personality "defect".

Suppose I say that this theory is wrong.  Speaking for myself, I don't just go about saying that whatever I believe in is the truth.  Rather, I don't accept any theory or idea unless I am able to understand it -- right through to its first principles.  Most of the times, people generally accept ideas based on social metrics -- who is saying it, how forcefully it is said, who is endorsing it, and so on.  I’m sure you could be one of those, be honest to yourself; cross your heart!

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to do that.  I've often asked questions and offended close family members, relatives, friends, and colleagues who thought that I don't trust them.  It was just that I was trying to understand completely what is being told and the underlying philosophy it rests on.

I can imagine what'll happen if I critique the current model for OCPD or for the matter of fact talk about tap water vs. bottle water and instead explaining the above as the real reason for the OCPD symptoms.  Or perhaps propose an alternate theory based on synergistic thinking (work in progress).   The OCPD "experts", far from accepting my thesis will more likely insist vehemently that their current theory is the "truth" and conclude that I am wrong.

So, who has the OCPD now? :-)

For good measure, this article on OCPD even states that: "… reading this paper will be very provocative." And insists that the paper is still correct because it is based on DSM III-R which is "...the bible for persons in the mental health profession."

Sorry, I am very wary of dogmas in religious books... 

How about that, eh? Can't give a convincing argument?  Well, then place an oblique reference to a holy book (which may indeed be good enough to be treated with reverence), and state your own theory, without any substantiation.  Again OCPD symptoms!? Huh!  :-)

And the best part of the above article is: "Agreeing to disagree is rarely a reasonable solution and often not in the scope of the OCPD's world."

I'll write separately on this "agree to disagree" and other trendy nonsense!

~~~~~

What do I mean by “plain bad science”?

*plain bad science is commonly used to describe well-intentioned but incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas.  An example would be the statement that electrons revolve in orbits around the atomic nucleus, a picture that was discredited in the 1920's, but is so much more vivid and easily grasped than the one that supplanted it that it shows no sign of dying out.  Plain bad science is very dangerous!  Another example; I’m sure you too have come across this type of people several times in your life.  People just take the reference of others without the pursuit of logical or common sense knowledge or just by “googling” to find what they want to see or hear.  I’m sure they will find "exactly" what they wanted to know or see in addition to what they don’t want to see.  I've personally known many who give lot more significance and value to what they find on the “public” internet.    

Of course, the pursuit of scientific (not necessarily related to the subject of science), systematic, logical, exact, or methodical knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork; experiments do not always test a theory adequately, and experimental results can be incorrectly interpreted or even wrong.  In legitimate science, however, these problems tend to be self-correcting, if not by the original researchers themselves, then through the critical scrutiny of the greater scientific community.  Caution!!! Critical thinking is an essential element of everything we do, see, hear, or say!

Thinking Straight

Mom: Son, it is 7 'o clock already. Get up! You are getting late for school
Son replies: I don't want to go to school Mom.. The teachers don't like me and all the students laugh at me.
Mom says: Son.. that is no reason to skip school. You have to go to school -- besides, you are the Principal of the school!

~~~~~~~~~

I know it is an old joke, but why is it funny?

The reason why this story is funny is that, our brain does its thinking typically within the framework of what is called, a mental model. The mental model determines what "ground truths" or unchallenged assumptions, will guide our reasoning process. 

The "semantic memory" in our brains is responsible for giving inputs that form these ground truths. The ground truths represent significant concepts relevant to the situation, and relationships among them. 

For instance, in the above story, we would have typically assumed that the Son in the story is a student who has to go to school. 

And when the Mom says that "...you are the principal!!", suddenly this new piece of information brings down the entire model that we had at the back of our mind, and causes it to create a whole new consistent model. Now the Son is the Principal and yes, the Principal is likely to be bothered by the teachers not liking him and the students laughing at him. 

This sudden change in the model and its associated implications unnerves the brain, prompting it to give an emotional reaction. But since the new model essentially has trivial consequences, the emotional reaction that our brain provides is laughter. 

Our brain builds mental models because it is too difficult (perhaps impossible) to have one global set of ground truths for the entire universe and take into account all of them for arriving at conclusions or explanations. 

For instance, consider that we are watching a cricket match where we see a fielder miss an easy catch. We respond to this by giving typical explanations based on typical assumptions. "Perhaps the sun got into his eye" (and if he is an Indian cricketer), "Indian players are all too-old/complacent/tired/overworked/overpaid/do-too-many-advertisements", etc.  

But, would it be possible that there was a very mild earthquake, too small to be reported, but causing enough disorientation in someone who is looking up at the sky, to make them miss the ball they are trying to catch?

Strictly speaking, it is possible and we should ask for seismographic data for that time and place and study the impact of earthquakes on people looking at the sky and... etc. But, we typically don't go down that path because this explanation is not probable. 

In fact, we don't even think of this possibility. It is so improbable an event that our mental model would have effectively blocked it out of the set of ground truths that we work on. 

Another major source of mental model change is when we change our emotional dispositions. Our emotional disposition determines our dominant emotional reaction in any given situation. It also determines the kind of explanations we build, in response to observations.

And that is a reason why emotional roller-coasters are so damn exhausting. If we change our emotional disposition in quick succession, each disposition brings with it a mental model, giving us different explanations of the same observations, thereby enormously increasing confusion. And that is also the reason why we find it hard to "think straight" in emotionally charged situations. It is not just the rush of hormones, we do experience semantic confusion in times of emotional turmoil.

Think Straight and don't get emotional!