Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 10:53:22
In reply to Re: Apologies, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:14:49
> . He doesn't even spend much time here anymore, which I don't think is particularly good for Babble, but which hardly indicates a desire to exploit Babblers in any way.
>
> He might annoy me no end sometimes. And I might get angry enough to spit sometimes. But he's a decent man and certainly no one to fear.His public statements tend to say otherwise. He cites reasons to fear participation in public discussions he facilitates.
I don't understand how a person can say with confidence what others should or should not fear in emerging social contexts, such as the new networks on which we are communicating. How could another possibly know what influences might negatively impact the lives of others about which they know little or nothing?
Mr. Hsuing's motivations -- or his "decency" -- are not the issue, though an understanding of his motivations can shed light on the impact of his conduct.
When we review a movie, we don't expose for readers the motivations of the producer, and tell readers how to view the movie in light of the producer's intentions. The producer's intent was finalized when editors made the final cut. Reviewers then begin to assess impact. When we analyze the life of a recently deceased top-rank pop star, we don't ask about the star's motivation in sleeping with young children -- we ask about the impact on children with whom the star slept.
Muffled said:
"It feels unsafe." (to participate in this forum.)Mr. Hsuing said:
"I welcome new followers on Twitter, but I also want you to know what you might be getting yourself into.
If you followed me, we'd be connected and you'd automatically get my tweets. Also, anyone could see you were following me. Others interested in Psycho-Babble might read your tweets (including replies to me, but not direct messages to me) and try to connect or network with you.
However, that includes University of Chicago faculty and staff, your friends and family, your present and future employers, and even the police.
* Any of them might infer that you have mental health issues. They might tell others, too. That might lead to prejudice against you.
* You might also feel stressed, harassed, threatened, etc., by interactions with them.
* If you're a member of the Psycho-Babble community, there might be no apparent connection between your posting name there and your Twitter account name, but depending on what you post and tweet, others might link the two, and that might embarrass you or even lead to the loss of your job or criminal prosecution.
I plan to follow back my followers (who may or may not be members of the Psycho-Babble community). If you'd rather I didn't follow you, please feel free to protect your updates or block me. I won't take it personally."To merely include a psychiatrist's name on one's list of Twitter followers can be cause for concern, according to Robert Hsuing M.D. How then can someone tell the world at large "don't fear him." How can one say with any authority at all that no interaction with Mr. Hsuing, or with any other P-Doc outside a medical context where one is protected by state licensure rules, regulatory boards and insurance is cause for fear?
Why did we require doctors to obtain licenses if they are not in a position to cause harm, albeit perhaps inadvertently, by nature of the unusual authority inherent to their advanced knowledge? A nurse inside a doctor's office might rightly tell a child a needle and shot is nothing to fear, but even this doctor recognizes what a patient advocate would tell prospective participants -- this process can cause harm, whether the doctor intends it or not. The mere presence of a doctor can be a contributing factor.
Yes, I fear a doctor's presence in some contexts could be less than helpful -- especially if the doctor's conduct is a fringe case, representing conduct not well-proven as efficacious by the normal process of clinical trials and peer review.
Climbing on tall buildings is nothing to fear.
Going in a cage with lions is nothing to fear.
Naivety is nothing to fear.
Taking strong opiates is nothing to fear.Said the high-rise construction worker.
Said the zookeeper.
Said the art teacher.
Said the doctor.
Wait. The only thing we have to fear is fear of fear itself. Fear is a normal emotion -- a somatic reaction to signals in the brain that tell us certain conduct could in some way cause harm. To respond to the fear instead of analyzing one's mental context can be a cognitive error, but I tend to support people who say they fear something.To do otherwise can imply the person expressing a fear might be irrational, and can put the person at risk. I'm reminded of freedom loving bikers who, in their effort to maintain their own freedom decry, the choices of others who choose to wear helmets. Do you thing that, for a person to discredit the expressions of others -- outside of an "i" statement such as "i know You fear doctor bob, but i don't" -- could lead a person to feel put down for the person's normal, rational analysis of the person's own conduct.
Does this site allow comments that tend to pressure people to accept other's position as fact? May I write:
"Getting off meds is nothing to fear."
"Taking ECT is nothing to fear."
"Trying lithium is nothing to fear."
"Checking into a state-run mental hospital (in a former Soviet Republic) is nothing to fear."
poster:Timne
thread:895265
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090707/msgs/905786.html