In this Water Cooler Chat, Nicole dives into two of her favorite worlds—OCD and true crime—to unpack how our brains interpret evidence. Using courtroom logic as a guide, she explores the difference between reasonable inference and inferential confusion, a common thinking trap in OCD. With real-world and courtroom examples, Nicole shows how OCD relies on imagined possibilities, self-doubt, and irrelevant associations—while fact-based reasoning, like in a trial, asks for direct evidence. It’s a mental mistrial when OCD plays judge and jury, but this episode helps listeners spot the difference and reclaim clarity. So join the conversation, because OCD doesn’t get the final verdict.
OCD Family Podcast