[flerdle] I didn't mean to scare you! Luckily I think the beer and Tim-Tams sorted everything out.

[rab] My last posting was just to explain why (perhaps??) I seemed rather boisterous at times, (I wasn't saying that you were or weren't) which is another way of "coping", but not my usual one, I think because of the complete novelty of it all, especially the Tim-Tams. And I was stone cold sober, so that wasn't any excuse either. You certainly didn't scare me, and am looking forward to hopefully visiting again next summer.

Which, in a way, brings us back to collecting junk: I have a small amount of "stuff", but mostly I have books (I've been very restrained, honest!!). I used to have a tendency to collect empty or hardly-used notebooks (mmmm stationery), but recently disposed of almost all of them. A lot of things will be farmed out to friends/relatives, and some stored, but I'm quite looking forward to starting again in January with little more than a suitcaseful. Should be interesting.

Wow, what a stream of revelations we have here. Bob is right to say that OCD is something quite different from "obsessiveness", and I get very angry when people talk about being "a bit obsessive-compulsive" and so on, when Goddammit! They haven't the faintest idea what it means. Sometimes I wish I could just turn my whole brain off and put it away in storage for a long, long, time. Someone asked earlier if OCD is related to autistic disorders, and there is evidence that it is. There is a greater overlap of occurrences of OCD and Asperger's than you would statistically expect, and indeed I have had my own brain photographed, rather excitingly, in an experiment to test this. Asperger's is the syndrome suffered by the narrator in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time and one of the reasons I was so moved by that book was that, God help me, I identified with practically every aspect of him, except for being unable to read expressions, which is a defining characteristic of Aspergers. Many of the things that character does, such as counting, refusing to touch certain things, etc. are traits associated with OCD. Personally I think OCD, autism, and Asperger's are all somehow related, but people like me are very much on the "high-functioning" end of that spectrum, which means we can pass ourselves off as normal human beings. Well, most of the time.
By the way, it's true that some of these disorders are "over-diagnosed", but they are "under-diagnosed" as well. One in twenty adults in the UK has ADD, but the vast majority are never diagnosed.

rab] are you saying that you don't believe Projoy is a good thing ?
I can talk to anyone, but I hate listenintg. Ha ha.

Apologies, by the way, in case any of this is inappropriately confessional or too dull for anyone else! I've been thinking about it a lot recently (I do anyway, naturally) because someone at work actually guessed that I have OCD from watching my peculiar rituals, which rather shook me because, although I do peculiar rituals literally all the time, I normally hide them pretty well and people don't realise. Perhaps I'm getting worse.

I'm not sure whether things are over or under diagnoised. Does having a label help matters? I know that I've got many traits which are typical of many diseases (my thinking pattern is very common in people with schizophreina, I have depressive phases, I'm mildly dyslexic) and I'm sure if I was analysed fully I'd have all sorts of nasty disorders. But thankfully they don't affect my life much, and I consider myself to be fairly sane. So does diagnosing mild ADD, mild OCD or mild Aspbergers help? There's no definate treatment (although congitive therapy can help, but cognitive therapy can help a lot of people) so why the need to label it?

What Dunx describes above is almost exactly what happened to me but in reverse I think. The OCD arose because I was depressed and would obsess on tiny things, believing absolutely that those things were the cause of my depression and if only I could sort them out I'd be happy. When, of course, I didn't sort them out I became more depressed, and so on and so on.
I can quite strongly reccomend hypnotherapy for the treatment of OCD. I wouldn't call it a cure but it sure helped me.
As far as diagnosis goes I don't think with these things that it's that clear cut. It's simply what you might call a personality trait, and we all exhibit different personality traits in differring amounts. Some people are talkative, some are fly-by-night, some are obsessive. I think we assign the term 'disorder' when one of these traits goes to an extreme such that it interferes with the normal day-to-day running of our lives. If we had a sound scientific way of actually measuring the extent to which each trait applied to us, the the term 'disorder' would be redundant.

[Lib] I think the label does help. One of the things that helped me (and is still helping me) pull up out of the spiral of OCD was the fact that I could give it a name. I know now that I have an obsession, and that makes it less real so that I can actually control and sometimes ignore it. When you're in the depths of OCD you fully do not realise that you are obsessing, you just think that there is nothing else to life.

[st d] I can listen to anyone, but I hate talking.
[Lib] Naming a thing (and to some extent inventing the thing by the process of naming it) can cut both ways. The Asp/Aut/AD(H)D concept is now out there to a degree to which it wasn't, not many years ago. This lets people use it as a convenient club to beat people they can't deal with, but also lets others recognise themselves in it and make contact with each other. I've read alt.support.autism on and off, and there's a lot of very interesting, politically conscious stuff goes by. In fact, a lot of the politics is exactly the same as for being gay, black, deaf, or female. For pretty much any position that has ever been taken on any of these issues, change the specifics and it would be something that someone has said about any of the others.
[BM] Anyone who enjoyed "Curious Incident" might also be interested in Elizabeth Moon's Speed of Dark, an SF novel in which the central character is autistic. The characterisation is quite similar.

Having a label helped me a lot for similar reasons to FG - I could capture my demon. Looking back at my life and the way that things have gone, I can also recognise ADD behaviours there (indeed, recognising ADD behaviours in my school reports was a key element of the diagnosis). This gives me power to forgive myself: ADD is not an excuse for my poor performances in the past, but I've spent too much of my life thinking of myself as lazy and weak. I feel that I understand better why my education was so skewed towards things I liked, or why I flit from subject to subject, or why I will focus on interesting things to the exclusion of all else, or why I have such an appalling sense of the passage of time. Recognising these things (rather than blaming myself for them) has helped a lot.

they tried to label me as Bi-polar (it's all coming out isn't it ?) but I just smiled knowingly and carried on reading the numberplates.

I'm normal on the surface. Whatever demons I carry with me are my business, but I'm approaching 40, single, childless and seem to be attracted by, and attractive to, men 15 years my junior. Make your own conclusions, then keep them to yourself! ;o)

[Lib] Ah, but they're not just labels. They're objective realities. Saying that someone has ADD, for example, isn't just saying that they have a bunch of particular personality traits - it means that they have a particular genetically transmitted condition which causes those traits. As Fat German says, if you don't have the traits very badly, you probably don't have the condition with which those traits are sometimes associated. But if you know that someone does have that condition then you can treat it, if treatment is appropriate. Describing this kind of diagnosis as "applying labels" is as silly as talking of disgnosing a broken leg or lung cancer or any other illness or condition as "applying labels". Certainly I have found it enormously helpful to be properly diagnosed because it means I can recognise OCD things for what they are and deal with them accordingly. And this is true of many other people I have spoken to, with OCD and with ADD as well.

[BM] There is a crucial difference, though, between a broken leg and these mental conditions or constitutions. In the case of a broken leg, you can demonstrate the objective existence of a physical pathology, and there are treatments known to be effective in pretty much every individual case. For ADD and the like, no-one has demonstrated either an objective pathology, or an objectively effective treatment based on an understanding of the pathology. All we have is descriptions of symptoms that cluster together (although no individual need show all of them), vague genetic correlations, and supposed treatments of very variable effect. There may indeed be a definite thing wrong with the brains of OCD sufferers, and there may be possible treatments as effective as setting a broken bone and applying a cast, but currently, very little is actually known.

(simulposted by a much more succinct post from Raak, but...)
[BM] Well... yes and no. I'll take ADD as my example, since that is obviously what I know best.

It is clear that ADD behaviours can be severe enough to cause problems, and that there are a lot of people who carry these behaviours around with them, but it is not certain that ADD is an objectively definable disease. For instance, ADD has been described and recognised by the US psychiatric establishment for more than 30 years (although its name has been changed a few even times over that time), but the UK establishment only officially recognised ADD in the 1990s - this despite the first published work on ADD being in the UK a hundred years before. Even in the US, ADD has only recently (ie in the last ten years or so) been widely recognised as occurring in adults - it was considered a childhood affliction which was obliterated by adolescence.

Part of the problem is that labelled conditions such as ADD, OCD, etc are note discrete: a bone is broken or it is not broken, but ADD has more degrees than there are labels, and even then it is not clear that even someone whose collection of symptoms is technically pathological enough to be so labelled is actually displaying anything more than just a strong personality trait. There has been work to scan brains under ADD-expressing conditions, and there are apparently common factors to those scans, but ADD is at best a collection of possibly related symptoms. But then is personality just an expression of brain chemistry?

As I say, my belief is that those who are actually disadvantaged by their ADD behaviours are those who have been trying to use their brains in ways which don't mesh with their brain chemistry or personality, where "one size fits all" education systems teach the same learning mechanisms to everyone regardless of how they really learn best. This is one of the reasons that I talk about my having ADD behaviours; Idon't consider myself to be diseased¹.

[1] this is going in a footnote because it's not part of the core point, but one of the things which concerns me about statements that ADD is underdiagnosed is that it is then treated as a disease. At this point the children (and this is where I become most concerned - it is almost always children) are dosed up with psychostimulants in order to make them fit in rather than training them to use their brains to their best advantage: the problem is not solved, it is avoided.

Absol-bloodly-lutely. Extremely well put. It extends beyond education and learning mechanisms too, in my view.

[Dunx and Raak] Hear hear. Nicely expressed.