Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: cont.d (The problem I see)

Posted by Kali Munro on August 5, 2004, at 21:04:11

In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see), posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 23:08:00

>>>When people are posting back and forth on a topic and someone jumps in and says drug Z is poison, treatment O is hogwash, your doc is out of touch, or your dx isn't valid. That's the problem that I see. I feel those stmts are seen as an attack...With that in mind, this will cause anger or hurt feelings that someone is questioning their treatment plans. <<<<<

Sure, and their choice of treatment *is* being questioned and in the examples you give, I would say they are being questioned in an insensitive or rigid manner.

I'm hearing that there is a difference of opinion between some members and Dr. Bob about what is and is not civil. Some members think these kinds of comments are uncivil and Bob doesn't. So, given that, what do you do?

I think when someone is being insensitive and not open to dialogue, the best response is for everyone to ignore the post i.e. not respond at all and carry on as if the post wasn't there. There is little that is more powerful than everyone not responding to someone who is being arrogant, rigid, authoritarian, or insensitive (or bullying). When the person gets a reaction from you, particularly a negative one, they feel superior or "high" because they think that they "got you" and/or that they are "right". But when they receive no response and the conversation continues as if they never said anything, they often leave, or simmer down and post more appropriately. In other words don't reward behaviour (even negatively) you deem uncivil.

I know it's hard not to respond, and you could if you wanted, but based on what I'm reading in this post, it doesn't sound like they are trying to share information or dialogue about the issue but simply state their opinions and in effect "talk at" you rather than "with" you.

It may or may not be intended as an attack on the person, although I do understand it being felt or experienced in that manner. The person could be arrogant and believe strongly they are right and must convince you of the "truth" -- but that doesn't make it any more palatable!

Kali



Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Kali Munro thread:373945
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/374513.html