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!
No comments:
Post a Comment