I'm not an expert on the topic of OCD, what makes this 'bait'?
It's a bit long-winded and flowery for my taste, but otherwise OK?
I guess what I took away from it is that the underlying low-level biological causes of high-level behavioral problems is a very, very hard (ie: impossible) problem to solve with current technology. Like trying to debug a massive simulator that was written by randomly flipping bits until things worked, and has no manual, using only a hex editor.
That and despite current instances of it manifesting about modern things (phones, germs, whatever) OCD has likely existed for a very long time and just happens to 'cling' to something specific in a given person.
FWIW one of my rules is to instantly close any article that starts with an anecdote/story like that. It's hard to explain, but it's an easy way to know that they're more interested in manipulating/influencing you into believing their point rather than proving their point with facts/logic/argument. They'd rather tell fanciful stories instead.
You still haven't really explained anything. What discussion points are engineered, and in what way are they engineered? What specifically do you have a problem with? If you don't explain your reasoning, why comment at all?
It's a bit long-winded and flowery for my taste, but otherwise OK?
I guess what I took away from it is that the underlying low-level biological causes of high-level behavioral problems is a very, very hard (ie: impossible) problem to solve with current technology. Like trying to debug a massive simulator that was written by randomly flipping bits until things worked, and has no manual, using only a hex editor.
That and despite current instances of it manifesting about modern things (phones, germs, whatever) OCD has likely existed for a very long time and just happens to 'cling' to something specific in a given person.