Posted by Anyuser on April 28, 2002, at 11:58:26
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!), posted by Lini on April 27, 2002, at 14:56:05
Exclusiveness limits (1) size and (2) turnover.
I understand that in a smaller, sustained group some conversations can be had and some relationships can be formed that would be problematic in a larger, continually changing group. To me, the best analogy is to group therapy. "Group therapy" may, indeed, be a description more than an analogy. Imagine being in therapy with the same group of 15 people for a couple of years, and compare that to a situation where scores if not hundreds show up, and 75% at any given time are newbies that you know probably won't show up at the next meeting. Where the analolgy breaks down is that the 2000 board is a small, sustained group in a sound-proof room, but there is a gang of protestors in a different room that can hear what's going on in the sound proof room, and they're steamed. Occasionally, an OT will leave the sound proof room to confront the protestors.
So, I can understand why OTs would benefit from exclusiveness and I can understand why the group host would want to create one or more exclusive enclaves where narratives and familiarities can develop. But I also can understand in this particular case why outsiders resent the OTs. In just the way it came in to being, outsiders could sense, rightly or wrongly, that they were being excluded from an elite, not allowed to sit at the grownup table, not allowed to join in all their reindeer games.
From the group host's perspective, the OTs probably are a special group, but not necessarily for the qualities the OTs would attribute to themselves. By knowing how the 2000 board was created, but before reading a single post, you can know this about OTs (as a group, on average): (1) They stick around. Compare this to the 48% that split after one post. (2) They don't seem to get better. Compare this to the vast majority (if you believe the drug cos and advocates of talk therapy) that shake off their mood disorder within a year or so. (3) The group has a much higher concentration of "very important posters" and a lower concentration of sinister "determined individuals" as defined by Dr. Bob.
Even so, you can't possibly have an "us" without a "them," and this particular "us" rankles some of "them," at least for the moment. The "us" has already been around for a couple of years and the "them" turns over continually. It will be interesting to see if the cycle of resentment and defensiveness burns itself out or is continually renewed by fresh "them."
Is there a way to create the benefits of exclusiveness without causing resentment? You say the whole year-you-joined thing is arbitrary and doesn't signify anything but division. I think it's not arbitrary enough, and I think signifying division could be a good thing, if you buy into the benefits of exclusiveness. I think it would be interesting if Dr. Bob were to create a number of exclusive groups that were absolutely random, with no notional raison d'etre at all. Announce the establishment of exclusive panel A, open to the first 50, or whatever, subscribers. When panel A is full, announce the opening of panel B. New friendships, narratives, etc., could form in the exclusive groups. New very important posters could emerge. There would be no grounds for resentment, because the establishment was completely random, first come first serve. At any given moment subscription to a new exclusive panel would be available to a newcomer. You like what you see in panel A, B, etc.? They're looking for new members for panel E, being formed now. Group identity would be promoted by having numerous groups, and with any luck people would be more tolerant and less touchy with members of their own exclusive group. It would also be interesting to compare the development of the different exclusive groups. The boards would be different. Some would be more successful than others. Jeez, group A is at it again, throwing dishes around and screaming at each other. Group B is so boring, all they want to do is talk about dopamine agonists. Don't you think group C goes on a little bit too much about overcoming delayed orgasm?
Perhaps some of the groups could be self-selecting to some extent. I suppose to the extent possible, newcomers would tend to cluster with other newcomers viewed to be sympathetic and interesting.
In random exclusive boards, the group host would get a random incidence of characters and mood disorders. I do think the mere exercise of signing up (which exercise could be reduced or increased by the group host as he sees fit) would assure better than average participation by the subscribers, and they would be motivated to sustain participation once the benefits of exclusiveness and group identity kicked in. Some boards would not get going, would not achieve critical mass. All boards would lose critical mass as posters got well and moved on. Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't want random, life-limited exclusive boards. The 2000 board may be immortal, for all I know. I'm only guessing at Dr. Bob's perspective on all this. Why shouldn't he be fond of his OTs? On the other hand, maybe he created the 2000 board because it was the easiest way to create an exclusive board with a better than average membership (from his perspective). A couple of mouse clicks instead of a bunch of work. He sure was quick to form the 2001 board, for all the good it did anybody. I hope I don't sound the least bit snotty about Dr. Bob. I think the guy's kind of heroic. I'm not a group host, I'm just playing one in this post.
Speaking as an outsider from an outsider's perspective, I have no interest in the OTs sensibilities. I think they're bugged more by turnover than size. They can't know why that old gang of theirs broke up. Maybe a critical mass got bored, maybe they got well and moved on, maybe they found a web site they like better than PB. I think it would be vastly more interesting to observe new groups emerge rather watch the OTs recreate the good old days. An OTs, however, needn't have any interest in an outsider's sensibilities, and there's no reason they should. An OT could have a point when they say, leave us alone, we don't exist for your amusement or benefit. Zero-sum, as one poster put it.
Oh well. It's interesting to think about.
poster:Anyuser
thread:4209
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4777.html