As a lifelong sufferer of OCD who abandoned mathematics and statistics as an undergraduate major and eventually became a scholar of philosophy and religion, I think I have a unique perspective on the question. OCD wreaked havoc with my ability to efficiently do mathematics. It forced me to make sure every single step of a problem or a proof was correct. Hence I had great difficulty taking tests, as my anxiety wouldn't let me go on to the next step until I was convinced that the previous step was right. Moreover, reading theoretical works in pure mathematics and feeling that I had to make sure to understand fully step A in order to understand step B in every proof I read left me spending multiple hours on a reading (not to mention doing the homework set) that should have taken around an hour.

Dear MacGregor,

Thanks for your help in getting me in touch with the effects of OCD on mathematical thinking. Also, the word is very interesting

"OCD wreaked havoc with my ability to efficiently do mathematics. It forced me to make sure every single step of a problem or a proof was correct."

In fact, this goal is a feature that we want to have today but not exactly succeeded in mathematics. Therefore, I congratulate to you.

Best wishes

The relevant issue is, what would convince a normal person that a step of a problem or proof is correct is not enough for the OCD sufferer. Honestly, perhaps nothing will be enough to convince the OCD sufferer that a step is correct, since their brain will keep generating one doubt upon another.

Kirk, I have to believe that there are degrees of everything, including OCD. And I also believe that any quantitative discipline, science and engineering, completely DEPENDS on some level of compulsive thinking. Quite honestly, that's what I find unappealing about disciplines that can get by with (what appears to be) nothing more compelling than a clever turn of phrase, now and again. You know, say something that sounds clever, or rolls off the tongue nicely, and you've succeeded. Much of politics sounds that way to me, for example. Nice-sounding assertions, most often with no justification and therefore no merit. Oh yeah, the "merit" is that what sounds nice gets votes.

It's no doubt true that anything in excess will become debilitating. But is it that by going from a quantitative discipline, to philosophy and religion, was a way of avoiding having to be so extremely rigorous? Hmmmm. Disturbing? :)

Dear Manfredi,

Thank you for your contribution to this question. What does it mean

"It's no doubt true that anything in excess will become debilitating." In some cases the converse may be true. Can you open it? For example?