- Username
- njjjjjj
- Date posted
- 3y ago
What they mean by “agreeing with the thought” is to agree with the fact that you’re thinking it, acknowledging the fact that you’re thinking about the fact. It doesn’t mean for example, “yes I am contaminated and will get AIDS”, “yes I will do a hit and run with my car” - that’s not the point of ERP, it’s mainly just accepting that the thought is there in your mind, and that you’re going to choose to not argue with it, to not do any compulsions. There are some CBT worksheets that can help with these types of OCD, but it would be better to see a OCD specialist for guidance and focus on doing a OCD self-help booklet (Mindfulness Workbook for OCD by Jon Hershfield is really good!)
Okay that makes sense. Thank you so much! That’s helped:)
@njjjjjj No problem! also to clarify on a typo earlier, I meant “acknowledging the fact that you’re thinking about the thought”
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND ITS SO CUNFUSING SOMETIMES
You don’t necessarily agree with the thought in a sense, you more so acknowledge it. So the thought pops up and you would notice it’s there, but then not do any of the compulsions to rid yourself of it. When it comes to the challenging thoughts idea with agreeing however, I can see it being where the thought comes in of “what if I hurt my family”, you challenging it by agreeing “yup totally gonna do that” - the OCD expected you to go the other direction and say you would never do that, do other various compulsions, but instead you challenged it. Hopefully that makes some sense!
Thank you so much! That’s made so much sense and helped me understand it now! Thank you:)
Skeptical about ERP? I found ERP really conflicts with some other theories, like the theories of Louise Hay (who wrote the book “you can heal your life). I will elaborate on my confusions. 1. ERP asks us to experience obsessions without thinking “no I won’t hurt myself” “no I won’t hurt others”. “No, I am safe and those thoughts are not real”. Thinking “i won’t do dangerous stuff and I am completely safe” is considered as compulsion to rid us of anxiety, but Louise Hay thinks it as positive affirmation. 2. Will ERP make us believe what we think even more? ERP asks you to write your fears into those stories and scripts and repeat them again and again until you habituate. But why would I say to myself “oh, maybe I will kill my parents and I will accept that and move on”? How does this make any sense? 3. I read the book of Shannon Shy who has recovered from OCD and he used his own strategies. I remembered that when he confronted his obsession of whether he left the pot on, he would say to himself that “do you think the pot will turn itself on”? to help him better move on to do things that he should do. But according to ERP, isn’t this a compulsion? Cuz ERP asks us to accept that ok the pot may be on and my house may be burned down and I accept that and I move on? I just find ERP theories weird.
Where I'm getting stuck is that there are two approaches in therapy. And the two contradict each other. 1. Experience the intrusive thought, don't do the compulsion. 2. Do an exposure. I don't believe I can move forward because the two contradict each other. I don't understand how people go through ERP and come out feeling better from OCD. I don't get it. I'm trying to do both #1 and #2, but the two just clash. What am I doing incorrectly?
When you're taught to embrace your OCD thoughts and deal with them, how does one do that exactly? Example, I get a disturbing thought or uncomfortable feeling, we're taught to embrace it or accept it... How so? It's an unwanted thought.. So how do you embrace something that's so dang annoying or unanswerable? I often find my OCD wanting to get technical and "reading the fine print" of any and all advice given. So annoying.
Share your thoughts so the Community can respond