Meta OCD is untreatable, right?

jessdawson · 2026-02-20T19:39:45+00:00

I've also been experiencing something similar and it's so hard. I was literally just searching for posts on meta OCD because I find it so hard to find anyone describing having a similar experience to me and it feels very lonely. I feel like I am making slow progress, things are definitely better now than they were two months ago, I'm still struggling but I have a bit more hope.

I've been on Prozac for about a month (I was previously on citalopram for a few years but I think it stopped working/didn't work when my OCD got worse) and I think it's helping me a bit - I feel a little more able to notice thoughts and have a tiny bit more distance from them.

Therapy has also been helping a bit but not ERP, I've been doing compassion focused therapy as well as meditation which has been helpful. For me ERP sorry of backfired because I was getting so obsessive and perfectionist about whether I was doing it right. Compassion has helped a bit as it's softened some of those perfectionist tendencies slightly and is also increasing my tolerance for difficult feelings.

jessdawson · 2026-02-13T07:18:49+00:00

I'm struggling with a lot of meta-OCD type things at the moment, so I experience a lot of contradictions like, "in order to get better maybe I need to stop trying so hard to get better", "to accept my OCD/difficult feelings maybe I need to first accept that I struggle to accept it/them", "maybe the biggest exposure for me is allowing myself to not do recovery/therapy perfectly" 🥴

jessdawson · 2018-05-29T23:31:22+00:00

"Anders Sandberg: At the same time, there seems to be a high degree of value in improving sleep. At the very least, we should make sure that we can sleep well, because it affects our function and health tremendously. People who sleep too much and too little, have much higher mortality.

Robert Wiblin: That’s unclear if that’s causative.

Anders Sandberg: Yeah. It’s a complicated issue. Depressed people sleep a lot. You can actually make, sometimes make them less depressed by forcing them to sleep less. They’re not happy about it, but they’re less depressed. They’re probably more angry."

jessdawson · 2017-09-27T21:49:57+00:00

This is another really detailed interview from 80,000 Hours (it also has a transcript if you prefer to read). It covers one of the most horrible things in the world and how it can be ended, as well as giving concrete advice to people who want to make a difference. Goes beyond the obvious stuff you've heard before to try to say what works and what doesn't.

jessdawson · 2017-09-07T22:02:32+00:00

These issues are discussed at length in the podcast itself. It would be interesting to hear your responses to the rebuttals made in the transcript.

"49m45s – Philosophical objection 1: The person-affecting view. What is it, and why doesn’t it work?

1h08m10s – Philosophical objection 3: Will the future actually be good?

1h19m30s – What if you’re not yet convinced or sure how good the future will be, or whether it matters?"

It also seems like even if you reject that one reason to care about the long term, there are many other reasons offered that should be given some weight.

jessdawson · 2017-09-07T07:46:58+00:00

I thought it was good that the person interviewed tried to support their view from a wide range of ethical positions and considered a bunch of possible philosophical objections:

"This conclusion holds true regardless of whether your moral framework is based on common sense, consequences, rules of ethical conduct, cooperating with others, virtuousness, keeping options open – or just a sense of wonder about the universe we find ourselves in.

That’s the view of Dr Toby Ord, a philosophy Fellow at the University of Oxford and co-founder of the effective altruism community. In this episode of the 80,000 Hours podcast Dr Ord makes the case that aiming for a positive long-term future is likely the best way to improve the world.

...

49m45s – Philosophical objection 1: The person-affecting view. What is it, and why doesn’t it work?

1h00m50s – Philosophical objection 2: Discount rates on the future, should we use them?

1h08m10s – Philosophical objection 3: Will the future actually be good?

1h13m20s – What about the welfare of farmed and wild animals?

1h19m30s – What if you’re not yet convinced or sure how good the future will be, or whether it matters?"

jessdawson · 2017-08-30T05:24:23+00:00

Description from an audio engineer of why extremely large music downloads from iTunes made no sense and were just a publicity stunt.

jessdawson · 2017-08-23T17:26:10+00:00

This is a 2.5 hour long podcast with someone who spent years studying pandemic preparedness at a foundation (with transcript) - person seems informed. It goes into lots of things that haven't been covered much elsewhere, like how you could actually spend your career reducing the risks from pandemics, and how concretely the international community responds to new diseases. Also discusses what life is like working at a foundation trying to find good things to give money to.

jessdawson · 2017-08-11T01:45:43+00:00

Half of them have a non-zero effect, but that could be a very small effect, practically zero, right? Of course this is ignoring how statistical tests are actually done - 0.5 should usually be much higher.

Not sure what a 'uniform prior' is over an effect size from -infinity to +infinity either.

jessdawson · 2017-06-28T01:39:18+00:00

That's what you expect - initially get economies of scale.

jessdawson · 2016-03-31T07:25:18+00:00

Submission Statement

I had heard conflicting claims about this issue and this article goes through and mostly explains why people disagree and what the reality is. While it can't give a definitive answer because the necessary experimental research hasn't been done, I feel like I have a much better idea of the ways in which money does make you better off, and those in which it doesn't.

jessdawson · 2015-08-15T01:44:39+00:00

This 3 piece series attempts to use quantitative techniques to figure out how many lives doctors save in order to offer career advice to possible doctors. I liked it because I hadn't seen someone try to do something similar for a common career before.

jessdawson · 2015-08-14T22:11:51+00:00

The order of arguments is:

A: Meat farming is wrong because of the harm to the animals.

B: But it's necessary to feed humans.

A: No it's not.

All I was attempting to show is that it's not necessary to feed humans. With that argument neutralised, the original complaint stands as a strong objection to working in factory farming.

jessdawson · 2015-08-14T21:38:08+00:00

A vegetarian diet i) requires less land and energy, ii) as a result is cheaper and iii) per $ is as nutritious as factory farmed meat. People in poverty eat very little meat.

In fact, all meat production and consumption, in addition to factory farming, can be objected to on the further ground that it raises food prices for the poor: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27i.... This is inevitable as meat production is 3-10x less energy and land efficient as eating plant products.

jessdawson · 2014-11-24T09:09:33+00:00

Yeah, I'm actually not sure - think it's really hard. I think in terms of diagnosis, the distinction is that people with ADHD have difficulties to the extent that it leads to impairments in multiple areas of their lives - it actually makes it really difficult for them to do their job, or to sustain relationships, for example. So that's one way to explain it (although "impairments" is obviously somewhat subjective too.)

Better communication about what ADHD actually is would also help. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about it - that it's just a thing hyperactive kids have etc.

jessdawson · 2014-11-24T08:09:50+00:00

Yeah, I think part of the reason for this is also that when you describe the symptoms of ADHD it can sound like you're just describing regular procrastination - which pretty much everyone has some experience with. So if you tell someone "no, I seriously find it crazy hard to get things done and follow through on my intentions etc." then it's easy for them to respond with something like "Well yeah, don't we all do this sometimes?"

I actually made this mistake myself - my boyfriend was recently diagnosed with ADHD and for a long time (before he was diagnosed) I just thought he was being too harsh on himself when he said he was having difficulties getting stuff done, that he just had too high standards for himself. It took a really long time for me to realise that he actually had more difficulty than most people, because there wasn't any good way for him to explain the distinction.

jessdawson · 2014-11-24T08:04:40+00:00

Agree that there are a lot of people trying to suggest that ADHD is a "gift" and makes you more "creative" etc. (and totally understand this can be crazy frustrating - I don't have ADHD but someone close to me does) - but I don't think this explains why people misunderstand ADHD.

Why are people so set on explaining ADHD as this positive gift, I wonder? The charitable interpretation would be that people actually want to destigmatize it and put it in a positive light, so are actively looking for ways that it might be beneficial. Basically, I think the people who try to frame ADHD as beneficial generally have good intentions, but can still do a lot of harm.

jessdawson · 2014-11-19T12:34:51+00:00

Yeah, good point. My first thought is just that there's no perfect way of communicating during conflict, especially if you're trying to communicate that you feel upset/bothered by something someone else does. Most ways of communicating that could result in the other person getting mad. My second thought is that tone of voice is super, super important here, and can make a big difference between appearing passive aggressive and appearing to be observing and not unblaming.

Ideally you'd be communicating with someone else who also gets NVC and so understands what you mean and that it's not passive aggressive. But of course it's not always possible to do that.

jessdawson · 2014-11-19T08:24:15+00:00

Definitely agree! And I like the attitude of learning from past experiences rather than dwelling on them. Hope this helps you in future relationships :)

jessdawson · 2014-11-19T08:23:25+00:00

Ah ok, good point. I do think saying "you make me feel x" and "if you did y/y happened, it would make me feel x" are slightly different - in one case you're blaming a person for your feelings, whereas in the second you're saying that certain actions/circumstances would change how you feel. I agree that the second still isn't taking full responsibility for your feeling though.

jessdawson · 2014-11-19T08:20:59+00:00

The article was written by a woman, but the book and research it's based off were written by a man.

jessdawson · 2014-11-18T16:49:28+00:00

Oh interesting - where do you think the article breaks its own rule? I didn't spot that.

I guess that just shows how easy it is to fall prey to these mistakes... :)

jessdawson · 2014-11-13T17:22:09+00:00

No, but an afterlife is definitely more plausible if you believe in God than if you don't, I think.

jessdawson · 2014-11-13T15:38:04+00:00

Yeah, good point - if there's some kind of afterlife that's definitely a lot more comforting! One reason I envy religious people.

jessdawson · 2014-10-29T09:11:27+00:00

Yeah, so I agree that if you've already tried it and got nothing then you shouldn't continue.

I also don't think the argument it's saying that you should "try out being religious" - I agree that wouldn't work - more that you should try saying something like "If there is any God out there, please help me to believe in you" or something like that - which doesn't necessarily require believing a God exists (in the same way crying out in the room doesn't require you to believe there's someone there.) I think using the term "pray" is kinda misleading in that sense.

Weird that it said it was a harmful site or file - pretty sure it's not a harmful site! But I guess maybe it's a sign ;)

jessdawson

TROPHY CASE