So many people don’t realize that they have OCD because actual obsessive compulsive disorder is rarely talked about openly. So here are the basics: 🧵(thread)
Intrusive thoughts can be about anything, but there are a few common “subtypes” of obsessions. These include harm OCD, self harm OCD, sexual OCD, pedophelia OCD, relationship OCD, contamination OCD, religious OCD, moral OCD, health OCD and “just right”
Next tweet: TW harm OCD
More from Health
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
ARE WE FAMILIAR WITH THE MEANING & POWER OF MANTRAS WE CHANT?
Whenever we chant a Mantra in Sanskrit, it starts with 'Om' and mostly ends with 'Swaha' or 'Namaha'. This specific alignment of words has a specific meaning to it which is explained in Dharma Shastra.
Mantra is a Sanskrit word meaning sacred syllable or sacred word. But Mantras r not just words put together,they r also vibrations.The whole Universe is a cosmic energy in different states of vibration &this energy in different states of vibration forms the objects of Universe.
According to Scriptures,Om is considered to be ekaakshar Brahman,which means Om is the ruler of 3 properties of creator,preserver&destroyer which make the https://t.co/lyhkWeCdtv is also seen as a symbol of Lord Ganesha, as when starting the prayer,it's him who is worshipped 1st.
'Om' is the sound of the Universe. It's the first original vibration of the nothingness through which manifested the whole Cosmos. It represents the birth, death and rebirth process. Chanting 'Om' brings us into harmonic resonance with the Universe. It is a scientific fact.
Therefore, Mantras are described as vibrational words that are recited, spoken or sung and are invoked towards attaining some very specific results. They make very specific sounds at a frequency that conveys a directive into our subconcious.
Whenever we chant a Mantra in Sanskrit, it starts with 'Om' and mostly ends with 'Swaha' or 'Namaha'. This specific alignment of words has a specific meaning to it which is explained in Dharma Shastra.
Mantra is a Sanskrit word meaning sacred syllable or sacred word. But Mantras r not just words put together,they r also vibrations.The whole Universe is a cosmic energy in different states of vibration &this energy in different states of vibration forms the objects of Universe.
According to Scriptures,Om is considered to be ekaakshar Brahman,which means Om is the ruler of 3 properties of creator,preserver&destroyer which make the https://t.co/lyhkWeCdtv is also seen as a symbol of Lord Ganesha, as when starting the prayer,it's him who is worshipped 1st.
'Om' is the sound of the Universe. It's the first original vibration of the nothingness through which manifested the whole Cosmos. It represents the birth, death and rebirth process. Chanting 'Om' brings us into harmonic resonance with the Universe. It is a scientific fact.
Therefore, Mantras are described as vibrational words that are recited, spoken or sung and are invoked towards attaining some very specific results. They make very specific sounds at a frequency that conveys a directive into our subconcious.