Defect of philosophy, or plain bad science?

I was reading some articles on Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) on the net. I definitely associate with several of the symptoms and some of the underlying theories. There are also a few of my students and relatives who I believe have such symptoms.

But somewhere I think, the theories go a bit too far in explaining the "philosophical defect" of this "disorder."

For instance, an article on OCPD that is cited on Wikipedia starts with the assertion that OCPD is a "defect" in the underlying philosophy. An obsession with perfectionism and a notion that I alone hold the truth are apparently the symptoms of a person suffering from an OCPD disorder.

And to complete the theory, OCPD folks (who have a philosophical "defect") vehemently disagree that they have any defect and in fact argue that whatever they believe in is the truth.

Er... how convenient :-)

Damned I am if I accept this statement (meaning which I have a personality "defect") and damned if I don't (meaning all the more that I have the said personality "defect").

Now suppose I say that this theory is wrong. Speaking for myself, I don't just go about saying that whatever I believe in, is the truth. Rather, I don't accept any theory or idea unless I am able to understand it -- right through to its first principles. Most of the times, people generally accept ideas based on social metrics -- who is saying it, how forcefully it is said, who is endorsing it, and so on. On the other hand, I find it very difficult to do that. I've often asked questions and offended close family members and colleagues who thought that I don't trust them. It was just that I was trying to understand completely what is being told and the underlying philosophy it rests on.

I can imagine what'll happen if I write a paper criticizing the current model for OCPD and instead explaining the above as the real reason for the OCPD symptoms. (For those who don't know me, I am a researcher and have written several papers, and have been on the receiving end of all kinds of prejudices.) Or perhaps propose an alternate theory based on synergistic thinking that I've written about here, here, here, here and here. And on which, I will write some more later.

The OCPD "experts", far from accepting my thesis will more likely insist vehemently that their current theory is the "truth" and conclude that I am wrong.

So, who has the OCPD now? :-)

For good measure, this article on OCPD even states that: "..reading this paper will be very provocative." And insists that the paper is still correct because it is based on DSM III-R which is "...the bible for persons in the mental health profession."

Sorry, I am very wary of religious books and their dogmas.. :-)

How about that, eh? Can't give a convincing argument? Well, then place an oblique reference to a holy book (which may indeed be good enough to be treated with reverence), and state your own theory, without any substantiation.

And the best part of the article is: "Agreeing to disagree is rarely a reasonable solution and often not in the scope of the OCPD's world."

I'll write separately on this "agree to disagree" bit and other fashionable nonsense. :-)