OCD: The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt
February 24, 2010
I was once a bit OCD. I don’t mean that my house was neat and tidy (though it probably was), or that I was a control freak (though I definitely was); but rather, I had obsessive thoughts that I compulsively acted on, even when I knew I shouldn’t. I would tell myself NOT to act on those thoughts… but, when they arose, it was like I was on autopilot. I absolutely, compulsively, had to follow through, no matter what.
When I was dealing with this issue, I learned that OCD people live in an imaginary world that is Beyond Reasonable Doubt
For instance:
I just cut raw chicken on the counter, so I should disinfect it. (Reasonable)
I need to disinfect the counter every 30 minutes because there MIGHT be germs on it. (OCD)
Or:
I wonder if I locked the door (or turned off the oven) before I left? (Reasonable)
I can’t leave my house without checking the lock (or oven) 17 times, because I MIGHT forget one of those times. (OCD)
Reasonable doubt keeps us alive and well.
Then there is the paralyzing world of doubts that are WAY beyond reason… “what if this or that (highly unlikely scenario) happens? I need to go to great lengths to avoid that catastrophe.” When this is your thought process, you end up not living at all, because fear and compulsive behaviors keep you from enjoying ANYTHING.
But at the other end of the spectrum, the pendulum swings to the OPPOSITE of OCD, careless risk-taking.
When this happens, people are not even concerned with reasonable doubts, because they get so caught up in their pleasure seeking, and narcissistic goals, they start to believe the rules of mere mortals don’t apply to them. They imagine things like, “I’m special, extraordinary, smarter, stronger, better, richer… and therefore, these things (that happen on a fairly regular basis to other people) will NOT happen to me.”
Recently I watched Everest: Beyond the Limits, and was struck by how many times I heard people say, “If I had only known THIS would be the price I had to pay (losing fingers, or toes, or friends), I never would have come.”
Really?!
Because I’m not even a climber, I’ve just watched a few Everest specials on TV, and even I know that every climbing season people on Everest lose fingers and toes to frostbite, get pulmonary or cerebral edema, suffer snow blindness, and any number of other things… and these are the (lucky) ones who survive their summit attempts.
Everest is, for all intents and purposes, the world’s highest graveyard; it is covered in bodies of climbers that cannot be recovered. This is not a big secret… it’s pretty well documented.
You didn’t KNOW? Or you didn’t think it would happen to YOU?
Those are two very different things.
This week I watched Tiger Woods deliver his staged press conference on the issue of his affairs. He admitted that he had come to believe he didn’t have to play by the same rules that apply to everyone else. He thought he could just act on selfish impulse, without worrying about consequences.
I guess if he had KNOWN his affairs would destroy his family, and the professional image he worked so hard to achieve, he might’ve kept it in his pants.
Really?! A smart guy, like Tiger, didn’t do the simple “what if” scenario, following his actions through to their logical conclusions? Or maybe he did, and just didn’t care enough about the outcome… but that’s not likely. He thought, “OTHERS get caught, but not me. I’m Tiger Woods.”
But he did get caught, and shattered a bunch of hearts in the process.
Why in the world would he do that?
Granted, some risks beyond “normal” tolerance must be taken for progress to be made in all sorts of fields. But, it seems to me, total carelessness and disregard for others, in the pursuit of one’s own pleasure or glory, is a recipe for disaster and regret.
What do you think?
How do we know what “reasonable” doubts are? Have you ever felt trapped by worries or concerns that were WAY beyond what others considered reasonable?
How much risk-taking is healthy and normal? Do you engage in behaviors you KNOW could cost you dearly, thinking you probably won’t get caught? (I don’t actually expect you to confess them here, by the way.)
How do we find the balance between too much risk, and not enough?
How do we know when we’ve gone too far?
Are some obsessions better than others?
No related posts.
Posted in bad habits, balance, choices, compulsions, mental health
content rss
I wrote about something similar to this recently. If we look at fears as Forcing Expectations as Reality, I think we can measure the risk and make a balanced decision.
.-= Julie – Big Girl Bombshell´s last blog ..Do You Think Too Much? =-.
I wonder, though, if someone who is OCD, or a careless risk-taker is really the best judge of what is a balanced decision?
Hi Lisis, I have OCD too. It’s crazy how it works because we do things that we know are irrational, but it’s very difficult to control our actions and stop us from doing them. For example, I’ll never type on my keyboard if I know my hands are anywhere dirty. It’s not rare when I find myself washing my hands for about 15 to 20 times a day. I tell myself that others probably wash their hands the same amount of times or have the same rituals as me, but deep down I know people probably don’t wash their hands that often.
People who don’t have OCD are lucky because people who do have this disease are often so emotionally and mentally obsessed with their fears, anxieties, and worries that it makes it impossible to just take the risk of doing even the smallest, most trivial risks.
But even if one is capable of taking risks, they have to be wary of whether or not they are harming others. What Tiger Woods did was totally out of bounds. Just because he is a wealthy, respected celebrity doesn’t mean that he has the power to turn unreasonable behavior into reasonable behavior. Like you say, that is truly a recipe for disaster and regret, and I hope he learns his lesson from this and moves on.
Some people are daredevils and that’s okay. But we have to remember how much risk is too much or it might end up causing ourselves much pain as well pain to other people. Just like what Uncle Ben told Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” This was his gift, as well as his curse.
.-= Hulbert´s last blog ..My Brother Got Pulled Over by the Police – Part I Interview =-.
Hey, Hulbert! I know what you mean… funny how we try to tell ourselves everyone else probably does the same thing, when we know deep down that’s not the case at all! We’ll do anything to rationalize those behaviors, huh? It’s so true, though, that those worries and anxieties can be completely paralyzing.
People who take great risks are often rewarded for their courage and daring. But I think Spidey’s uncle had it right… there is still some measure of responsibility that is needed, at least if anyone else is involved (which is usually the case).
Thanks for your awesome comment!
If a person suffers from OCD — I certainly do as it’s a comorbid condition associated with my autism — it’s very difficult to sort out the reasonable concerns from the unreasonable ones. Even when I’m able to discern the distinction, as you pointed out in this post, I’m often unable to act on this information because of the auto-pilot feature.
It makes trying to achieve balance a much more difficult challenge.
.-= The Rambling Taoist´s last blog ..I Yam What I Yam =-.
That’s exactly right, and it may be the reason I am perpetually on a quest for that balance. I tend to alternate between an OCD paralysis, and a risk-taking extravaganza that is no good for anyone. When you add to that the compulsion to act (completely immune to reason or responsibility)… it can be a mess.
I’ve learned to rely on others (specific others, that I trust immensely) to be my compass, and help me find my way back to that middle ground of reasonable doubt.
These are all very good questions, and they deserve very good answers. Unfortunately, I don’t have any good answers to offer. There’s a huge difference between calculated risks and dangerous gambles, but sometimes it’s hard to see that difference when we are the ones making the decisions. It doesn’t help that so many times, these things are judged in hindsight. If someone is successful, then they (and others) say that they took a calculated risk, and it paid off. However, if they are unsuccessful, we declare it a dangerous gamble. But is it possible to know the difference ahead of time? I don’t know.
.-= Jay Schryer´s last blog ..What to Eat =-.
Jay, that was actually a really GREAT answer. I think you are absolutely right that we tend to judge these things in hindsight. If someone successfully summits Everest (with no loss of life, limbs, or friends) we’d congratulate him for his daring and sense of adventure. When the awful alternatives happen, we tend to jump on the “What the hell were you thinking?!” bandwagon.
I guess in that respect, any amount of caution or daring would seem OK, if you achieve the desired results? But then, I don’t think we could say that Tiger’s actions would have been OK, if he had never been caught… or could we?
Is any behavior fair game, if no one else gets hurt? Hmmm… muy interesante, Jay.
What I’m left wondering is… is it OCD if (like I do) you obsessively think about the larger issues in life (providing for our future), but are OK with the smaller things?
.-= Alison | Quest for Balance´s last blog ..The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt =-.
I really don’t know. Maybe one of our readers is more qualified to address that question. I’d say, it’s only a “problem” if you feel it is something you should change… if it gets in the way of you living a happy life, or something along those lines.
Good question!
Ah… interesting! It’s kind of like depression. If you’re just sad sometimes, but can hang with that level of sadness, you’re OK. But if your sadness is becoming a problem, causing you the noticeable inability to enjoy life over a period of time, THAT is the point at which it becomes clinical. It’s a problem if you (and those around you) are concerned about it.
This is also true of physical issues, like the thyroid condition I was recently (re-)diagnosed with. My physical exhaustion, left undiagnosed, was just me feeling tired. I guess I was “OK” with that level of tiredness, though I sure did complain about it an awful lot! But once it REALLY became a problem, and I sought help, and was diagnosed, I was able to DO something about it. To FIX it! : ) I guess one could do the same for OCD.
Back to the original point… What I do (worry about the big issues) may not be OCD, but since it sometimes gets in the way of me enjoying life, it may be something else that bears investigating!
.-= Alison | Quest for Balance´s last blog ..The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt =-.
That’s kind of what I’m thinking… if what you are doing is hurting you, or someone else, perhaps an inquisition is in order.
But that still leaves me wondering about those instances when one is taking the risks, or living with OCD fears, and just not getting caught. In the extreme example, if Tiger had gotten away with it (and no one got hurt) would it be OK? Or is there some line of right vs. wrong?
…and also, in this case, I think there’s a difference between taking risks doing things that are morally neutral or admirable (like climbing Mt. Everest), vs. taking risks by doing things most people would consider wrong (adultery). Climbing Mt. Everest might carry a lot of risk, but it isn’t morally despicable (as far as I know!).
.-= Alison | Quest for Balance´s last blog ..The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt =-.
I wonder, though… it bothers me, at least, that so many husbands, wives, moms, dads, etc. go there KNOWING there’s a good chance they will never see their families again. It isn’t like climbing any other peak, where you EXPECT to make it back alive. With Everest, there’s a real good chance you won’t make it back alive and well.
So, by going, you’re basically saying, “My desire to conquer this mountain (for whatever reason) matters more than my family’s need to have me around.” It strikes me as selfish, if not morally despicable. Don’t you think?
Good point! Maybe these people are sick… maybe it’s an obsession! I don’t see how anyone could rationally, logically think it through (for example, using the words you used above) and come to the conclusion that it’s an acceptable risk to try to climb Mt. Everest (knowing you would likely die and leave loved ones behind to mourn and/or deal with the consequences).
Perhaps some climbers don’t have family, friends, or other people who love them and/or depend on them in any way? And those who do have families who understand? Why anyone would want to trade their actual family member for their “glory” is beyond me, but I guess it’s for each family to decide.
.-= Alison | Quest for Balance´s last blog ..The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt =-.
Dear Lisis,
You are presenting a spectrum that goes from imaginary fear to disregarded fear and asks us to define “what is normal”
Can we judge anybody in that spectrum? I don’t think so.
Is somebody more balanced than others, meaning that somebody is “right”?
I don’t think so.
The fact that somebody has two normal and healthy legs, doesn’t give him/her the authorization to judge the person who is limping besides him/her.
For the person who has “imaginary” fears, his/her fears are very real. He/she might be able to experience a balanced life being aware of his/her conditions.
At the other end other people disregard actual risks and fears.
When this happens it is not because a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Otherwise, all the medical doctors would have always a very healthy lifestyle…
What happens is that our brains are a landscape sculpted by our actions. We develop habits and addictions that require great effort to be modified. I see those people facing addictions and I see them with respect. They are providing me a mirror to realize that my actions or my lack of actions are changing my brain and I thank them for the lesson.
Best regards,
Boris
.-= Boris´s last blog ..An invitation to Google Wave is “read-y” for you =-.
Hey, Boris! I love your point about doctors. I remember being in the hospital with my son, and seeing a bunch of docs on their “smoking breaks” outside. I was totally baffled by that image, since they obviously know better than to think it isn’t killing them.
In that context, the careless risk-taking (smoking, climbing a deadly mountain, excessive eating, adultery, etc.) is an addiction… compulsive actions that cannot be reasoned away.
My question then would be, What makes Tiger Woods “morally despicable” for yielding to his addiction (the thrill of the chase?), when someone climbing deadly mountains, or smoking, or over-eating their way into a heart attack is NOT?
Are some addictions accepted, or approved by society, while others are deemed inappropriate (though they are no less controllable by the individual)?
It really annoys me how the media glorifies these self-indulgent idiots who “push themselves” to the limit, like they’re some kind of hero or something.
Like those nimrods who deliberately go into the “Death Zone” at 28,000 feet.
Oooh, you spent $60,000 so you could climb Mt. Everest. And they had to medi-vac you out by chopper, and you lost half of your toes.
Congratulations, you win.
Exactly….HOW does that make you a hero? How does that make the world a better place?
It’s funny how we (as a society) tend to worship people like this. Yet we tend to ignore those who volunteer or help out in the community.
That’s exactly what I was thinking as I was watching the show. Now, to be fair, I don’t have an issue with professional mountaineers, who train properly for decades, take all the precautions, and have always made it clear to anyone who knows them (or marries them) that they live for mountain climbing. Totally cool with that.
But when you see these Everest “tourists”, some of whom have NEVER climbed a mountain, been at altitude, or used crampons or ice axes… and they pay their $50K for someone to help them reach the summit (aka: Death Zone)… and half of them wouldn’t even make it to base camp, if it weren’t for the team of Sherpas and Yaks doing all the hard work for them! Then these same Sherpas have to risk their own lives to go rescue these people who have no business being on the mountain… and for what? I don’t get it.
Why do we allow (worse yet, encourage!) this stuff? Not only do they put themselves and their families at risk, but they also endanger everyone else on the mountain. And these are heroes?!
Thanks for ranting with me.
Have you read John Krakauer’s book “Into Thin Air?”
I’m not into mountain climbing, but it was a really gripping book, about the disastrous 1996 Everest expedition.
It was the perfect case study about how mountain tourism can go wrong… You feel sorry for the people in the story who died….but then again, you kinda don’t, because it was self-imposed and it could easily have been avoided.
.-= Friar´s last blog ..A Twitters’ Guide to Selecting the Right Coach For Yourself (*) =-.
I have… and several other accounts of that same disaster, and of other disasters on Everest that should not have happened. Never ceases to amaze me.
Didn’t you write a post about Into Thin Air, awhile back? Or if not about that in particular, at least you mentioned it, I think.
.-= Alison | Quest for Balance´s last blog ..The Pendulum of Caution, Risk, and Reasonable Doubt =-.
Lisis, I don’t know if I really have any decent answers to your questions, but I did keep thinking it all comes down to the ego. Of course I tend to think everything comes down to the ego. But in the case of Tiger, to me it was just plain narcissism – such a deep self-absorption and overblown ego that he really just didn’t ever think about anyone else. And we all get that way sometimes, but his is an extreme case. I think whichever end of the spectrum we are on – gripped by constant fear something bad will happen to us or certain that nothing ever will – it is a sign of an imbalanced ego. I’m not discounting the very real physio-biological causes of OCD, etc. so that’s a different thing. I mean apart from that, for those of for which the roots are not physical but psychological (and I know it’s a fine line sometimes.) So it does come back to releasing the hold of our own egos, of letting go, of discovering and seeing through those old ego-based patterns of mind…then there is a balance point in between that we can find, where we might not always know for sure, but at least we are not stuck on one end of the spectrum…
.-= Lisa (mommymystic)´s last blog ..TRUTH- Quotes and Reflections =-.
Hey, Lisa! Thanks for clarifying that there are some very real instances of physiological causes for OCD behaviors. I guess this is what makes it so difficult to discern when there is an actual problem that should be treated, or when someone is merely a little too into their own world (ego).
I often wonder about this “how can we tell what is normal and healthy” issue, both for myself and for those around me. I’d love to know what to look for so that conditions don’t get dangerously out of hand, but I’m not sure that’s possible. It may be, like Jay said, something that can only be “diagnosed” after the fact. Hm..
Whoa, I’m late to the party. But there’s still time for me to throw my two cents in:
The people who succeed the most – and I know you’ll argue with me on just what “success” is – take very calculated risks, but hardly ever look back to assess the “damage”, in case things go wrong. In this regard, they have short memories, and move on very quickly from decision to decision. They seem to do the following things in very rapid succession, sometimes on autopilot:
1) Assess the situation – gathering the information needed to make the right decision, or at least a calculated risk. However, they don’t take the time to gauge their chances; with most of the “champion” type people I know (including myself), they believe 100% that their decision will be the right one.
2) Decide – The course of action is decided. Now all that’s left is to pull the trigger and execute. Again, there is 100% belief here.
3) Act – Action is taken to the best of their ability, according to whatever “plan” has been decided (IMPORTANT POINT: often, the best don’t even have a concrete plan, just a malleable framework, so action can be dynamic and adapt to changing conditions)
4) Learn lessons from fallout – The lesson is learned very quickly, whether bad or good. This happens extremely quickly - the smartest and best know exactly what to analyze and actually do it for the shortest possible amount of time. They learn what needs to be learned, then…
5) Letting Go – They let go, and don’t dwell on the situation. It could be said they don’t celebrate too much or get too depressed. They also don’t let themselves get caught in loops of overanalyzation.
—
So what does that have to do with anything?
In my opinion, the only way to really act is to live your edge. Take risks, endure the fallout, brush yourself off and get up to do it all over again. Why live in a bubble of security?
We can never know what is and what isn’t a “reasonable doubt” – the only way to know is to act. Fear is ultimately an illusion, is it not? Resistance to what may be?
However, as much as I advocate risk-taking, there is a LARGE amount of responsibility that goes with it… And that is knowing yourself. If you know yourself, know your values, know what is good for you and the people around you, you can trust yourself to do the right thing in every situation without much thinking (this is an ideal).
How do we know what balance to strike? We must act and gain reference experiences in order to learn and autocorrect.
How do we know when we’ve gone too far? When your actions seriously harm you and the people around you.
Are any obsessions better than others? On some level, I’d argue yes – an obsession with success, for instance, should be “better” than an obsession with failure. But the two, like all obsessions, inevitably lead to destruction. Moderation is the key in any situation.
—
I’m not even going to talk about Tiger Woods because the the sheer fact that anyone bothers talking about that man’s affairs is embarrassing. In fact, I’m surprised I even took the time to comment on this post just because it mentioned Tiger.
Let’s grow up, people. We don’t need to endlessly analyze a man’s life, much less something as personal as his sexual relations.
Tiger is a scapegoat, a diversion. Ignore it. See through the noise. Don’t you have your own problems you could be endlessly analyzing instead of tearing down a man who has already been torn down by everybody in the country (and more)?
.-= Brett – DareToExpress.com´s last blog ..The Triumphant Return – Lessons Learned and DareToExpress 2.0 =-.
Well, Brett… it’s lovely to see you again. The first part of your comment, I completely agree with, in that it is about balance, moderation, and a healthy dose of responsibility (taking into consideration the needs and feelings of others during our pursuit of whatever it is we seek.)
The second part of your comment, which I guess is a non-comment, because you “aren’t going to talk about it”… although you did, I don’t agree with at all. I’m surprised that you don’t realize that when we talk about Tiger’s affairs, it isn’t because we give a rat’s ass about his personal life but, rather, because he now serves as a handy dandy SYMBOL of what so many people we know are doing… maybe what we, ourselves, are doing.
Perhaps this will be clearer to you when you are older, and married, and all your friends are married, and a great majority of them are having these sorts of inexplicable affairs, and you want to talk about them but you really can’t do it without offending the people you care most about.
So, when this Tiger thing happened, it opened the floodgates of conversation about the topic of people (other than Tiger) who have it all and should be happy with it, who seem to good to be true, and are sneaking around to fulfill their secret obsessive needs. This way, we aren’t talking about completely hypothetical situations, but also aren’t naming specific names (of people in our social circles).
In other words: it isn’t about Tiger.
You need to develop a risk taking ability over time.
Because of the courage needed?
A litte – but it’s not the primary reason.
The main reason is actually that you need to learn how to be a good realistic decision maker first. If you fly about taking risks all over the place you can end up in nasty situations fast.
On the other hand, if you’ve trained yourself to make good decisions and be realistic about future planning, then you take some big risks and get some big pay-offs.
Good judgement comes first, then courage, then you go out there – take the risks – and reap the reward!
.-= RagsToRich´s last blog ..Letting things go – moving towards serenity =-.
I love this advice! Very measured and reasonable… all about carefully calculated risks. I totally agree that we MUST take some chances in order to reap great rewards as individuals, and as a society. The key, as you’ve pointed out, is that judgment is crucial.
This reminds me of one of my favorite pilot sayings:
“The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations that require the use of his superior skills.”
In other words, flying planes is a calculated risk, but knowingly putting yourself (and your passengers) in dangerous situations is completely irresponsible.
Thanks for your comment!
Hey Lisis,
The nature of my life has been that I’m highly prone to taking risks. My whole life has been one big bet after another. More often that not I’ve been wrong on my bets. But what’s amazing is the ones that do work out make such a difference in my life. For example, leaving my job that I hated ended up paying off with a job that I love.
As a surfer, one of the things that I realize is that anytime I paddle out I’m putting my life at risk and it’s a purely selfish desire for adrenaline that comes with no consideration for anything else in the world around me. I know my parents worry about it when I tell them things like “I started surfing 7 foot waves today.” On the flip side of this argument, I’m a better happier more patient person. I’m more centered and more insightful. To me that makes the risk worth taking.
I’ve heard a phrase that the bigger the risk the bigger the reward. Granted, if we take that out of context and behave like Tiger Woods, then a huge risk is detrimental. So I think what it comes down to is the context in which you take risks.
Hey, Srinivas!
I definitely think context matters. For instance, your risks of walking away from your career, and surfing 7 foot waves, would take on a whole new level of risk if you were married, with children. Granted, people walk away from careers all the time (like my hubby did), and certainly surf all the time (even with families). But the factors you have to consider if your family depends on you will, I’d imagine, weigh heavier on your mind.
You might, wait until you have a plan B before quitting the job, or surf only the waves you KNOW you can safely manage (and still be home in time for dinner!).
In any case, both the context of the decision, and the context of your life and responsibilities need to be factored in the equation for sure.
I have OCD and I think the greatest way of knowing if you have OCD or are just average is to evaluate how much of your life is affected by the thoughts/compulsions. I have spent many years where it is a part of almost every waking hour. Now, I have developed coping skills and it is not every waking hour, but it is still there in large quantities. The great thing is that with God’s help, I am able to tell myself “that is my OCD” and not act on it.
Hey, Cindy! I totally agree with you on this. Like with many other conditions, it’s only really a problem when it is affecting our quality of life. At that point, we need to find ways to manage the condition, to have a full life in spite of it. I have a good friend who is schizophrenic and has had to learn to distinguish the voices in her head from her real thoughts, and not to pay attention to the voices (like John Nash, in the movie, Beautiful Mind).
Anyway, I think it’s FANTASTIC that you are making progress in dealing with your OCD.
Hey Lisis – You had me thinking for a long time after reading this one. So I apologize if this comment ends up lacking any sense!
The distinction between too much risk and enough risk can only be determined on an individual basis and only after careful consideration. Before taking any personal risk, I make sure I not only understand what the consequences could be but how they might affect my life and whether or not I am willing to accept those possibilities. Taking risks without such a thought process is careless and unfair to those around you who might also be affected by your decisions. But after the internal debate, if we feel that a particular risk is worth the potential rewards, then our decisions cannot be criticized.
But I also think that there are two kinds of risk – those that have the potential to hurt ourselves and those that have the potential to hurt others. The above applies only to the first.
Taking risks that have the potential to hurt others, is a risk gone too far in my mind, no matter what the situation. If we don’t consider the well-being of those around us, such as with Mr Woods, then what we have done is not take a risk, but make an error from the beginning.
Ok, I need to breathe!
.-= Earl´s last blog ..Unexpected Encounters With Intriguing People =-.
Hey, Earl! That’s kind of what I’m thinking, too… that the real issue is whether our decisions (risky, brave, stupid, self-indulgent, etc.) will hurt others.
For instance, if we are talking about genuine mountaineers, then their wives and kids understand and support their passion for risky, high-altitude endeavors. If the climber, who spends his life cultivating the necessary skills, dies on a mountain… he died doing what he loves. Much like pilots, astronauts, soldiers, etc. These are calculated risks.
But if an accountant one day decides to try to summit Everest to prove something to himself, and leaves his wife and kids behind to go give it a shot, having never done anything even remotely like this, he risks his own life, the life of others on the mountain, and forever altering the lives of his family members (who didn’t really sign up for this). That scenario, which happens all the time, strikes me as irresponsible.
I like your distinction between taking a risk, and making an error in judgment. I believe that is also key to this whole thing.
Thanks for being here, Earl… now breathe!
Hi Lisis,
Wow, I’m really late to your post, yiikes! I hope you don’t mind. I just wanted to say that this was a thought-provoking post (as usual!).
I like Earl’s comment quite a bit as well as your response. Believe it or not, I think I’m still trying to decide where I stand on this issue (risk vs. error in judgment vs. neither).
So, as typical, I like to lean on any scientific understanding of human nature. I think it’s VERY interesting that the centers of our brain that evaluate things like “risk” are now being understood to be the last to develop, typically in one’s late teens. That’s part of why teenagers can’t get their driver’s licenses until 18 in most states, they simply can’t assess if, for example, he or she will stop at a stop light in time, most will push the timing of it and will end up running it — until they hit 18, 19, or 20 years of age.
What does this have to do with your post? Well, I just wonder if there are people out there whose brains are wired differently. Like, really, Tiger didn’t know the risk or couldn’t make a good judgment? Maybe he is just really, really LOW on the consequences map, since he is so HIGH on the performance side of things?
People are people, and I often can’t understand why people do what they do, but they still do them. Until you walk in their shoes, can we really understand it?
It sure is fun discussing it, though! Thanks for another awesome post, Lisis!
~xo
.-= Lori´s last blog ..I Love Your Mind =-.
Hey, Lori! That’s kind of what I’ve been wondering about. Tiger’s actions are quickly classified as morally despicable, completely selfish, incredibly stupid… what have you. But what if he suffers from an addiction, just like any other addiction?
If the thing a person sneaks around for is food, or alcohol, or to wash his hands 17 times a day, we say that person needs help… has a disease, an addiction… needs support. But if he’s sneaking around (risking everything, against all rhyme or reason) for SEX… well then, it’s different: he made a stupid, despicable choice.
I just wonder, who decided that? Who decided that one addiction should be treated with compassion, and another with contempt? Is it conceivable that he tried desperately NOT to give in to those thoughts, but compulsively had to anyway? And why does that possibility make us uncomfortable?
Anyway, thanks for being here. You actually made it just in time… we have a new guest post tomorrow.
Exactly!!!!
I’m glad to see your thoughts here. I’m not “defending” Tiger (or anyone else in this situation) — I actually have been in his wife’s shoes (previous marriage) and it was very hurtful for me, but I really believe my ‘ex’ was absolutely miserable (for reasons of his own) and chose to act the way he did for his own reasons.
I accept the situation now, and choose to (as much as possible) treat people with compassion as opposed to finger pointing. I still have my own work to do, but I really feel we all need to choose empathy and compassion over persecution and blaming.
Aren’t we all a work in progress?
Thanks for this, Lisis, and I’m looking forward to your guest post tomorrow!
Have a great Sunday!
.-= Lori´s last blog ..I Love Your Mind =-.
I used to carry around disinfectant like rubbing alcohol wherever I go coz I think of the germs around me all the time. It was bad for my skin so I slowly stop and I am now using alcogel or wipes with moisturize.The trials of having OCD
A person with OCD is living in a nightmare. I have worked with young adults who presented with OCD symptoms. Symptoms that as you point out we can all present within the realm of normality. I actually had the pleasure, and pain of working with a fellow worker who has this disorder. Oh when he was not well, he even had trouble leaving work. He would drive his car in circles until I gently encouraged through actions to get him home. Unchecked anxiety plays a significant part of this and many disorders.