Talk:Primarily obsessional obsessive–compulsive disorder

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Rose Bretécher (31 August 2013). "Pure OCD: a rude awakening". The Guardian.

Comments and questions here...feel free to initiate a discussion. Annonpuro (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all of the references go? The citations don't link to anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.39.202 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?

-saw a documentary on tv about questioning the legitimacy of "purely obsessional ocd", it is possible this variant of OCD isn't really OCD at all, and more the brain attempting to make sense of reality or otherwise a dilemma. -also broader question on the legitimacy of 'mental disorders' in general and culture bound mental illness (ie in a hypothetical society in which everyone had a "problem" they consider to be "mental illness" in the current society, then what they don't consider "mental illness" in the current society would be considered "mental illness" in the hypothetical society) - and who gets to invent normal

"Some people question whether or not Purely Obsessional OCD even exists as a form of Obsessive-Compulsive disorder. These people often cite that, because this form of OCD is purely mental, that it could be a function of the human brain's natural tendency at attempting to make sense of reality. These people also often cite that external influence may conflict with an individual's pre-conceived notion of the world, and thus causes a dilemma about "what is reality" or "what's really true", the brain then is processing that information.

Humans have a natural tendency to want to know the solution to a problem, evidenced by that a news headline (i.e. Company found guilty of fraud) with incomplete information has 90% higher chance of the accompanying article being read, than a news headline with complete information (i.e. Company found guilty of fraud because of executive corruption)."

I don't have sources yet, I need to find the name of the documentary and studies/experts/resources cited in it, also research online... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.236.25 (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure-o?

Are we sure it's also called Pure-o, it sounds more like a euphemism for some kind of drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.49.5 (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's referred to as Pure-O. It's OCD, manifested by what seem like purely mental obsessions and mental ritualizaing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonpuro (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=

argument against merging

As the original author of this article I highly recommend NOT merging it with OCD. This manifestation of OCD is often poorly understood and not often recognized by clinicians, leading to ineffective therapies for many patients around the world. Pure-O, as a stand-alone article is a crucial distinction between forms of OCD that is helping people to recognize what their mental health professionals aren't recognizing. Many people are now linking to this article and referring to it on discussion boards. People who obsess about their sexuality never imagine they are suffering from OCD; just one example and a reason to keep this article on its own. Annonpuro (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is merged into the original OCD page (a copy and paste job from here should suffice), Pure-O would probably get MORE recognition as a disorder. That, and there's already a (short) section on Pure-O on that page. The distinction needs to be made between Pure-O and other anxiety disorders (GAD, as this article mentions), not so much between Pure-O and OCD. MichaelExe (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merging

Maybe I don't understand what a "merge" would mean. Would this article disappear as a stand-alone? 64.131.188.217 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but anything you would type in that brings you here (i.e pure-o, purely obsessional OCD) would probably be redirected to the main OCD page under a section devoted to this topic (currently OCD without overt compulsions). Most of the text here would also probably be moved to the OCD page. MichaelExe (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

still feeling strongly against it, if anything just for countless people who have been helped by understanding that you can have OCD without observable compulsions by being linked to or stumbling on this article as a stand-alone. this article is for the sufferers who are spending years in therapy without a clue that their "anxiety" is really OCD and that reassurance from therapists is keeping them in a loop of suffering. I understand the merge issue, but believe passionately that it should stay here.Annonpuro (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it kept separate. You wouldn't put breast cancer and bowel cancer on the same page just because they are both forms of cancer.78.149.102.225 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader, I found it helpful as is

As someone who indeed stumbled on this article, I must concur with Annonpuro. While I can't comment from a technical point of view as to whether it should be merged, from a personal perspective I found it extremely helpful in a way I doubt it could have been as part of the broader OCD article.

Based on my reading of this article, as well as links from this article and further readings it inspired, I have concluded that various symptoms I have been experiencing appear to be signs of a classic case of OCD without overt compulsions or "purely obsessional OCD." As a result of this discovery, I will now take a series of steps which may include seeking professional help at some point. Even before seeking professional help, these readings point to various actions I can take on my own to alleviate my troubling symptoms.

The broader discussions of OCD I have found online tend to focus primarily on compulsive behaviors. Discussions of this particular variation are glossed over with a relatively superficial treatment. Although I was pointed to this article by the section in Wikipedia's broader OCD article (and before that from the even broader Anxiety Disorders article), the separate discussion of "pure-O" gave it a focus and depth that would have been difficult to maintain as just one piece of a broader discussion.

For the benefit of others in my situation, I hope the Wikipedia community decides to keep this article separate. Pur-ob (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Pur-ob[reply]

Pur-ob - I don't know who you are or how to find your email address, but just wanted to let you know that reading your comment made it all worth it. Thanks for the back-up, and best of luck getting help for a disorder that is easy to treat - when properly diagnosed. Annonpuro (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annonpuro: Apparently, I'm far from the only one who found this article a revelation. I just saw this three-year-old post on a site called Neurointerests that quoted extensively from the article, and got such a strong response that they set up a Pure-O discussion board: http://www.neurointerests.com/?p=19

Pur-ob (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - that was an old article and it was apparently removed for the same reason this one almost was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.189.140 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonpuro = Pur-ob

WTf r you tying to pull here? are you 2 the same user? you know Wikipedia's policy about Sockpuppets?

also it's highly possible that this page might turn into something it's not supposed to be. Self promotion & Sexual discrimination attempts shouldn't and won't go unnoticed. {Clarification i'm not disp the existence or scientific validity of Obsessional OCD}--02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.74.119 (talk)

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I just saw it. No, I'm not a sockpuppet, and I find the suggestion offensive. I'm just someone who was helped by this article and thought it worthwhile to share my experience and point of view with others. I have no idea who Anonpuro is, and I'd like to keep my own identity private for obvious reasons. The idea that this is self-promotional is absurd, considering I'm keeping my identity confidential. And where would sexual discrimination possibly come into play?

Why is it that if you disagree with my point of view, you feel the need to attack me or my credibility? Pur-ob (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pur-ob (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what a sockpuppet is, but I am certainly not one! I am someone who suffered with a pure-o form of ocd for years. I obsessed continually over whether I was gay, or a child molestor to the extent that it stunted my growth and caused me to become unnecessarily preoccupied from age 13 until adulthood. Every therapist I saw just told me I was fine, I was normal, just a little anxious. Not one picked up on the fact that I was expressing OCD without overt compulsions. Due to my need to mentally ruminate, I was only half-present at every happy event in my life or social encounter. Since finding out I actually had a form of OCD, my life has changed completely. The reassurance I had sought from therapists (which they saw as a way to calm my anxiety) completely exacerbated my OCD - dragging me into years of reassurance seeking. Now, I've learned that engaging in the act of trying to solve the question of whether I am or am not and seeking reassurance from others is the opposite of therapeutic. I don't try anymore, and just accept the unknown and have moved on with my life. There is brilliance in recognizing this disorder and freeing people from years of a labyrinth-like thought process. And there is finally relief for those who have been misdiagnosed for years bc their OCD was mistaken for general anxiety. I hope that clarifies. I have no clue how this page could be misconstrued as self promotion or sexual discrimination. I detect none of either. Anyway, just my two cents. Annonpuro (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anyone's self-involvement, a link added to a Wikipedia article for no purpose other than to drive traffic to the site in question is the very definition of linkspam. It doesn't belong. aruffo (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not added to "drive traffic" any more than any of the other existing links were. What other reason is there to add ANY links than to send readers to outside sites for additional information about what they are reading about? The link was added as a potentially rich resource with an abundance of information about which this article is describing, including a scientific understanding and a very specific definition of the manifestation of this disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonpuro (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then the primary issue is that this proposed site is yours. When adding content to Wikipedia that is directly related to oneself, the most acceptable manner of doing so is to propose its value on the discussion page (as you have just done) and let other, uninvolved editors take action to include it-- if appropriate. aruffo (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ERP

The section on Exposure/Response Prevention is confusing. One paragraph states that ERP might be refractory when applied to non-compulsion OCD, and the other states that ERP really helps. Could this be clarified? Also, I own Purdon and Clark's book, and I haven't found anywhere that states that ERP is refractory to pure-O. Can the citation be updated with a page number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.198.137 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Research, By B. E. Ling, 2005. Nova Science Pub Inc. Page 128
Concepts and controversies in obsessive-compulsive disorder, By Jonathan S. Abramowitz,Arthur C. Houts page 272
Obsessive-compulsive disorder By Mario Maj, Norman Sartorius, Ahmed Okasha, Joseph Zohar. Page 136

there you go and you should also know that OCD patients are generally considered to be somewhat refractory to treatment.--79.131.173.101 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Inaccurate Categorisation

In the Common themes section, shouldn't the mention of intrusive paedophiliac thoughts be in the 'Sexuality' category rather than in the 'Violence' category? Kind Journalist (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. I don't think this is a minor inaccuracy; it's a major one. People with POCD thoughts surrounding paedophilia are primarily concerned with whether or not they're attracted to/aroused by children.

Religious OCD/Scrupulosity

There seems to be some overlap on the issue of Pure O's religious form and our article on Scrupulosity. As it is psychologically controversial whether these are two separate disorders, should we at least mention scrupulosity here, or that there is some sort of controversy? Kansan (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article in the Guardian

An article in The Guardian, including its reference to this article, will interest readers of this page. Zero^talk 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

There is no such diagnosis in DSM-5 and this article relies entirely on OCD. It would be better to merge it with the main article OCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.8.205 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refractory - recommend better word choice

Refractory might be a term of art in the psychology community but it is ambiguous as it is used in the Treatment section.

As a casual reader I cannot tell if the meaning here is that the person is: a) unresponsive to this treatment, or b) resists engaging in this type of treatment. Can someone please change this to the appropriate layman's terms? Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines the use of "impulsion phobia" in the lead is not helpful either. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both changes made. Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change page title to "Primarily cognitive obsessive compulsive disorder" to match the actual article and provide the most accurate term.

The article begins with "Primarily cognitive obsessive compulsive disorder" yet the title doesn't match. Can a confirmed user make this change? Naptonium (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "primarily-cognitive" change in the article and discrepancies/minor issues

Since I last viewed this page, I've noticed that all instances of "primarily-obsessional OCD" have been replaced with "primarily-cognitive OCD" (with exception to the title of the article) and I know there is some discussion regarding changing the name of the article all together. I wanted to put in my two cents. To the best of my knowledge, "primarily-cognitive" is not a term that I have seen in any academic literature on OCD. Moreover, a google search shows that this is the only source that references "primarily-cognitive". Indeed, while not exhaustive, the handful of sources cited in this article that I checked all reference the term as "primarily-obsessional", as does all the other external literature I have found on the subject. In short, as far as I'm aware, I don't believe that "primarily-compulsive" is a synonym for primarily obsessional, or even a psychological term in general.

Moreover, it seems like there have been some changes defining the intrusive thoughts characteristic of OCD as compulsions, when they are, in fact, obsessions (see Criterion A in the DSM-5 TR for OCD), hence the name "primarily-obsessional". As well, contrary to what is stated in the article, while primarily-obsessional OCD is not an official designation in the DSM (that is, OCD without compulsions), an OCD diagnosis can be given even if an individual does not present with compulsions (again, see criterion A for OCD in the DSM-5TR).

In keeping with the article being analogous to the current academic literature, I would like to propose we eliminate all references to "primarily-cognitive", and refer to the subject as "primarily obsessional". LostInterloper (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]