Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

One irksome thing in Living Biblically...

  • Nov. 17th, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Grrrr2
I finished The Year of Living Biblically last night. The second half was just as good as the first half. So, as I said, if anyone wants to borrow it (that is, after [info]zensister is done with it), let me know.

EDIT 11/19 11:00AM: After reading the various responses that this post has generated, I've decided that I was jumping to conclusions and judging too swiftly. I don't actually know what Mr. Jacobs may have done in the past to treat/deal with/mitigate his OCD, and my condemnation of his way of dealing with it in Living Biblically is therefore unjustified.

Mr. Jacobs, if you ever read this post*, please accept my apologies. I obviously had an imperfect (at best) understanding of what you are going through, and I judged you too harshly.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not deleting the rest of this post, but I am "striking it out" so that people will understand that I recant it.

There is, however, one thing about the book that really bothered me. And it bothered me in two ways.

A.J. Jacobs has OCD (a disease which was made somewhat famous by Jack Nicholson in the movie As Good As It Gets). It doesn't appear to be crippling, but it does affect his life pretty strongly. Repeatedly over the course of this book, Jacobs mentions how pleased he is that the Biblical restrictions he is living under give him ready-made excuses for avoiding the kinds of situations his OCD hates (such as handshakes—germ-phobia is a very common manifestation of OCD, apparently) and engaging in the rituals his OCD demands (such as the repetition of certain activities, which he manages to partly satisfy by praying three times a day at scheduled intervals).

As I said, this bothers me for two reasons. The first is purely secular: OCD is a disease. It's a disease like chronic depression, attention deficit disorder, autism, etc.—a disease with a neurochemical basis and which can be treated.

He's not treating it. It's obvious from the way he talks about it that he doesn't feel any obligation whatsoever to treat it. Now, if he were single and living alone, that would be one thing. But he's married and has three children. If he's not treating his OCD, then he's acting out his OCD...and children learn by watching their parents! So even if his kids didn't inherit the neurochemical aspect of OCD, he's teaching them to behave like a person with OCD behaves.

(Now, to his credit, near the end of the book he does figure out a very important thing: he realizes that he can't shield his children from the world, that they will get hurt, bumped, scraped, even injured—and not only can he not be there to protect them all the time...he shouldn't be. His children, he realizes, have to be allowed to live, not just exist. This is a big lesson, and one that I hope sticks with him. At the very least, his wife will try to make sure it does.)

The second part about his OCD that bothers me is actually religious in nature: it really bothers me how happy he seems to be that his Biblical restrictions and commandments dovetail so well with the demands of his OCD. Why? Because, though I have little to no reverence for the rituals he is following, I still find it offensive that he is using a set of religious instructions to essentially make him feel okay about not dealing with his behavioral problems. It's using something sacred to justify something wrong. And, as mild an example as this is, it's still a kind of behavior that I find deplorable.

I'm sorry for going on so much about this, because the book truly is exceptional and enlightening, and I do recommend it. I was just having some trouble with this particular aspect of it, and I needed to get it off my chest. Please don't let my rant dissuade you from reading it.


-------

*This is not as inconceivable as it sounds. In the book, Jacobs says he has a habit of self-Googling, so it is entirely possible that he may stumble upon this post some day, and should that happen I want to reassure him that I've changed my mind.

Comments

[info]tomsalt wrote:
Nov. 17th, 2007 07:13 pm (UTC)
...he is using a set of religious instructions to essentially make him feel okay about not dealing with his behavioral problems.

To me, this pretty much sums up one of the biggest problems with most (if not all) religions, people use them as excuses for bad behavior.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 17th, 2007 07:43 pm (UTC)
Exactly. As the CSN song Cathedral puts it: "Too many people have lied/in the name of Christ/For anyone to heed the call./So many people have died/in the name of Christ/That I can't believe it all!"

This is one of the things that I like about Buddhism—you don't see Buddhists doing that kind of shit nearly as much as in other religions.
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 04:53 pm (UTC)
Perhaps I should dig up some historical material on Japan just before the Genpei wars way back in the 11th-12th century.

I seem to recall from my Japanese history classes there was a high ranking Buddhist priest in the 11th or 12th century who was having an affair with the Emperor's mother in order to influence policy?

And militant Buddhist orders getting into fights and harassing civilians?

You once mentioned that you were confused as to what LJ comments set me off. Here's two of them.

1. "Religion is an excuse for people to do bad things." (yes, I do realize that was [info]tomsalt. [info]tomsalt, sorry, but I feel that was an incredibly unfair generalization. Along the lines of "All RPG gamers are bad-smelling social misfits." Or "Sci-fi/Fantasy fans are just weirdoes who couldn't play any sports."
As a Christian AND an RPGer AND a sci-fi fan, I've been on the receiving end of all of these type of stereotypes and they all are pretty hurtful. As a gamer and sci-fi fan yourself, may I suggest you consider your comments a bit more carefully?

2. "Christians lie/cheat/steal/are hypocrites. But this OTHER religion (insert here) is always nice."

Didn't we discuss this in an earlier blog?

Sorry. Your comments about OCD and religion are really interesting, and I want to spend some time discussing them as I have mild OCD yourself and some of your observations are really interesting. But I have to take a breath first and chill. Apologies to you and [info]tomsalt for coming across as angry in my initial response, which actually wasn't what I planned to post.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:36 pm (UTC)
First off, Dave, please allow me to apologize. I realize that my choice to use the lyrics from "Cathedral" made it look like I was unfairly singling out Christianity in this argument, which I did not intend.

In fact, your point about the Buddhist priest and the militant Buddhist orders only adds weight to it. Any religion can be used to justify bad behavior. I did not mean to imply that any given religion is only used that way. That is not only plainly ridiculous, it's hate speech! Please, please, please forgive me if I gave the impression that I think that way. I do not, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate in the past.

Additionally, I did not know about these evils perpetrated by Buddhists in the past. Of course, I could argue that if these people were doing these things, then they really weren't Buddhists at all, despite claiming to be—and you can just as easily and accurately make the argument that the people who use Christianity to justify war and other evils aren't truly Christians. And we would both be right.

Again, please forgive me for making it look like I was singling out Christianity. I realize it was an easy misinterpretation, and I should have chosen my words more carefully. I am sorry.
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:47 pm (UTC)
Apology completely accepted. I think where we run into risky territory is when we use general labels, like "Buddhism" or "Christianity"--there are so many denominations, sects and cultural differences in religous practices in different nations that it's hard to describe them all effectively with one phrase.

I in turn should clarify that the events I mentioned involved specific sects or individuals in Japan, and was definitely not a condemnation of Japanese Buddhism in general!

I appreciate you clarifying your intentions and apologize myself for any misunderstanding. I freely admit my "combat monster" reflexes you often joke about seem to manifest alot in online discussion! I must be careful not to become the Internet Devoid, lol. :)

P.S. Also posted some thoughts about OCD and religion based on my personal experiences below, I hope it is of interest to the discussion.
[info]shroop wrote:
Nov. 17th, 2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
No idea what treatment is available for OCD nowadays, but a few years ago I was reading a bit about it (have a younger cousin with it), and for milder cases of it (unlike my cousin, who was compelled to crush lit lightbulbs in his hands, for example -- he was about 9 yrs old at the time), sometimes the main suggestion from docs at that time was to find healthier ways to incorporate OCD into everyday life. For example, going for a run every day, finding non-hazardous rituals to follow, etc., in order to keep the brain from obsessively repeating more hurtful or annoying activities. Haven't read the book, so have no idea whether the author was seeing a doc or following medical advice, but he may have been. (Don't know what drugs there are now, but the ones my cousin was on were pretty nasty. He had a stint in the hospital for liver failure from one drug, had frequent seizures from another, was zombied-out by another, etc. This was about 10 years ago.)
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 17th, 2007 11:45 pm (UTC)
Well, that's a good point. Perhaps he is just trying to deal with OCD in the way his doctor says to. If so, he never mentions it. The only references to his OCD are the frighteningly joyous ones I alluded to in the post.

It is, however, good to get your input. It helps me get some perspective.
[info]nolly wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 12:49 am (UTC)
Have you read his previous book? I haven't, but I wonder now if he deals with the subject more in that one.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 05:54 am (UTC)
I haven't, so I don't know if he does or not.
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 05:03 pm (UTC)
OK, now that I've calmed down a little about the initial comments in this thread...

...Speaking from my own experience with OCD, it's not a clearly understood disorder, and apparently different people need different kinds of treatment in order to cope with it. In my case, OCD manifests as certain little "rituals" and "checks" that if I don't do them, cause me anxiety.

Now, in some of those cases, trying to constantly fulfill those checks aggravated the OCD to severe levels. However, I found that talking with a mental health counselor helped enormously. Simply telling someone about it, and receiving third-party reassurance that I wasn't the only one going through it, helped me avoid anxiety-reinforcing rituals. Which in turn reduced my OCD problems!

My initial response would be that using ritual behaviors would aggravate OCD, at least in my case...BUT, as someone mentioned, we don't know what kind of behaviors the author engaged in or what kind of advice he's had from a mental health professional.

I will say that my counselor mentioned that medication is not used to treat OCD in all cases, and in fact said she preferred not to, in my situation.

So it's probably not fair to automatically assume that he is simply doing a bad thing by prefering ritual prayer to medication. There's simply not a way to know that without more information.

I will say that I would recommend ANYONE with OCD symptoms, however, to talk to a qualified medical professional. Again, in my case, just talking was highly beneficial.

I still am over-zealous about checking if I lock my car, though.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:41 pm (UTC)
Okay, this definitely gives me some additional perspective. Thank you.

And I think you're right. I'm judging too swiftly and too harshly, without giving the benefit of the doubt. After all, he may have talked about his OCD extensively in earlier books, and I wouldn't know it because I haven't read them. So in the absence of knowing, instead of assuming the worst, I should withhold judgment.

I think I'm going to edit the post now...
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 07:00 pm (UTC)
I should add one more clarification based on my experience:

It IS very easy for a person with OCD to experience OCD-anxieties associated with religous practice (i.e., fearing irrational consequences if certain rituals or habits are not observed in worship). If one knows one has OCD, it is a very good idea to talk with a good (i.e. compassionate and medically well-informed) pastor or counselor to help sort OCD fears from actual spiritual issues.

I was very lucky in this regard, as my mental health counselor turned out to be a Christian (I didn't know this until after I started seeing her) and gave me good support on distinguishing OCD irrationality from genuine causes for concern.
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 07:47 pm (UTC)
P.S. I'm VERY interested in reading the book now! :)
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 10:30 pm (UTC)
Well...are you going to be out of town or otherwise unavailable on Thursday and Friday? (Thursday I'm assuming is probably out, but one never knows...) I'll be up at my dad's both days, and I could run by at some point and give you your birthday present early. As long as that's okay with you. ;-)
[info]neo_tanuki wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 11:13 pm (UTC)
Thursday we'll be out at my in-laws in Fontana. However...Friday I will be home, and I think Minette has to work extended hours that day (her job, alas). If you'd like to stop by on Friday I would be very pleased for the company. And I could give you your Heroclix as well.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
Excellent. I will give you a call later in the week, then, to make arrangements.
[info]bluejogger wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2007 12:37 am (UTC)
Well, I've followed religious restrictions and commandments out of fear and/or guilt and it SUCKED.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:46 pm (UTC)
I've never had this experience, myself. I was raised basically agnostic, and became Pagan when I was 17. So fear and guilt (at least in a religious context) haven't been a factor for me.

But I imagine that, yeah, it would suck...
[info]bluejogger wrote:
Nov. 20th, 2007 02:28 am (UTC)
Ok, you haven't followed any rule out of fear or guilt? No wonder you don't understand Evil. That's usually a main component, instilling fear or guilt to establish some ideal usually under a pretext of the betterment of society, but not always.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 20th, 2007 03:10 am (UTC)
Heh. I didn't say that, precisely. I said I haven't followed any religious rules out of fear or guilt. But I've followed plenty of familial and societal rules that way.

As far as understanding Evil...well, I don't think I have to understand the 'why' to be able to recognize the 'what' and then figure out the 'how'...as in, how do I fight it? That's the important part, in my opinion.
[info]nativeprincess wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2007 07:17 am (UTC)
Yeah, much from what was said above, there realy isn't a way to "treat" OCD other than trying to be OCD in a way that works for your life style.
well...if hes tryin to build this life style...and praying 3 times a day works with it...whats thr problem?
Its like downsyndrom or autisum...there isn't a treatment, there isn't a magical pill. I think what he is doing is just as healthy as anything else.
so yeah, I believe that your premis about OCD is wrong, the rest of it I would agree with *IF* your premiss were correct
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 05:55 am (UTC)
Last I heard, OCD was treatable, especially in relatively mild cases like his. Which, of course, is the catch--if it's mild, you don't normally seek treatment, and when it's severe, the treatment often doesn't work.

I don't know. So many folk have chimed in on this that I'm not sure what to think anymore...
[info]wyrmwwd wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC)
You bring up some very interesting points... some things that I never thought about, others that I have thought about a lot. Let me address the latter, first.

I study Religion & Society at a major university. I am a religious scholar, so let me put on my academic hat for a moment. Religion is as old as humanity, and so are diseases like OCD. I have every reason to believe that religion has been used to treat emotional disorders. Drugs are a very recent technology. Ritual of any kind is a wonderful therapy. It calms and reassures the mind, provides an anchor when everything seems terrifyingly out of control. Ritual is my favorite therapy for myself. I don't take drugs of any kind, except for caffeine and an occasional Guinness.

Having said this, you bring up an excellent point about the children. Children learn what they see. They learn the skills of the parent, so if that parent is, in this case OCD, or, another example, alcoholic, then they grow up with OCD or alcoholic survival skills, which they try to use even if they are not OCD or alcoholic.

I don't have an answer for this, other than the kids should never be shielded from it. I grew up around brain damage. Consequently, I know how to deal with that better than anyone, which is a good thing, because my partner has brain damage from a serious car accident. That skill is useful. My parents were also alcoholics, so I have those skills too. Those skills are only useful if one is, in fact, alcoholic themselves.

Great post. You gave me much to think about.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 05:59 am (UTC)
Thanks.

I, myself, do take drugs daily for chronic depression. So I can understand the reluctance to be medicated, and I don't entirely blame him for choosing not to, if in fact he has chosen so. As I said, he doesn't mention it beyond the passages I talked about.

And, as I said in a comment above, so many folk have chimed in, with so many different perspectives, that I'm just not sure any more...
[info]wyrmwwd wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 02:21 pm (UTC)
I understand taking medication for depression. This last summer, I got very, very depressed. It was horrible. I got up every morning, got a cup of coffee, and started to cry. I thought about medication as an option. I read about depression, and learned that it was a dopamine shortage. I started looking for sources of dopamine. I discovered that I mostly needed to spend more time with people, but my social group is mostly Pagans, so spending more time with my religion came with it.

But, that is just me, and I realize that other people have different chemical makeups. What works for me may not work for you. We each do what we need to do to feel at peace.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:49 pm (UTC)
Interesting. I'm glad that works for you! It does for me, sometimes, too—but I think my depression is a different beastie. And besides, I'd heard that the deficiency was in serotonin, not dopamine. Then again, there are probably as many different flavors of depression as there are people who suffer it.

By the bye, for some reason, this comment posted three times, so I'm just going to delete the two redundancies...
[info]layah wrote:
Nov. 20th, 2007 04:27 am (UTC)
My understanding is that different depressions are caused by either a deficiency in serotonin or dopamine or both. I was not free of symptoms of depression until I started taking a medication that effects the level of both chemicals. And just to chime in with a new perspective, spending time with friends would not have cured my depression, and I can tell you why. When I'm just feeling a normal level of sad, spending time with people really helps a lot. One of the effects of my depression (which is in no way a normal amount of sad) was that I felt that my friends didn't actually like me at all, and they just tolerated my presence. Neither my own internal logic, nor my friends' protestations to the contrary could make me really believe they enjoyed my presence. So paradoxically, spending time with my friends made me feel even more alone.
[info]wyrmwwd wrote:
Nov. 20th, 2007 03:27 pm (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry about that. I don't know what the deal was.
[info]chorale wrote:
Nov. 20th, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
Just as a side note, because [info]caprine's friend [info]billiferothers</i> with dopamine.
[info]frausensei wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2007 05:47 pm (UTC)
Ooh, can I borrow the book when it's done being read?
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 05:59 am (UTC)
You sure can!
[info]chorale wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2007 10:20 pm (UTC)
I was looking forward to reading the book because I want to have and maintain a spiritual experience, and I was hoping that the depiction of specific actions would lead me to that. Then, I read your cts. above, and I realized that I would have firmly closed the book up before I had read very far in it, and I wouldn't have looked back. Learning and keeping ritualistic practices comes very hard to me and his using this format to totally manage his OCD (seemingly) infuriates me. Ritual as a way of smoothing out the gaps that the medication leaves behind is a cool idea, on that I can relate to, but total reliance on it, no way.
[info]rameymj wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 02:09 am (UTC)
When the student is ready, a teacher appears. Good luck, and keep you mind open. Teachers are often not what we expect in my humble experiences.


Wilhelm vF
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:00 am (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who got ticked off by it. But then again, other commenters have brought up some good points, and I'm not really sure any more how I feel about it.
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:50 pm (UTC)
Specifically, you might want to take a look at what Dave (a mild OCD sufferer himself) has to say in his comments, above.
[info]rameymj wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 02:07 am (UTC)
Wow
Wow. I agree with you. My uncle had OCD, and over the years it began to consume him until he could not function. He lived with my grandmother until she was unable to care for him. At that point, he needed to be in a "home" even with medication. His choice saddens me as he used up his mother in their co-dependent relationship.

I think he is just twisting the doctrine to interpret it for his desire disease.

Sending happy thoughts your way.

Wilhelm vF
[info]ebenbrooks wrote:
Nov. 19th, 2007 06:00 am (UTC)
Re: Wow
Thanks.