![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2003, at 5:35:14
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 1:35:04
I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm thick today, but are you trying to say you're still considering the issue?
Or do I need a few more hours sleep.
Posted by Phil on January 15, 2003, at 7:21:51
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 1:35:04
2. The person's feelings aren't just about greed, they're also about a particular group of people:That, Dr. Bob, is why that group of people has every right to feel the way they do and have their voices heard and action taken. There is no gray area. Racial slurs lead to racial stereotyping that leads to more ignorance and hatred and often, killing.
Just a short little story here..I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.
I walked out with anger and tears-I had been feeling sorry for myself earlier and to see total unselfishness from this young person was humbling.
All I told her before I left was when will this kind of thing end?
No racism should slide; ideally there would never be a need to discuss racism because, we as a people have moved to a higher level.But how does someone with racist feelings post in a non-racist manner?
He doesn't. He's racist.
I hope I'm misreading you Dr. Bob cause it sounds like you support stereotyping if that's what a person feels. That will open a door you don't want opened. It already has.
Phil (person)
Posted by Noa on January 15, 2003, at 17:54:07
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 1:35:04
Dr. Bob,
Worsmithing is totally beside the point. It isn't your job or ours to editorially finesse the wording of the posts in question so that they are somehow acceptable.
But I believe it is your job to point out to people who may use offensive language to refrain from doing so. It is then up to them to find a way to express themselves without resorting to the use of hateful language, if they want to post here.
I also feel you are looking at the words much too concretely and separately, and ignoring the gestalt of the phrases used, with all the meaning loaded in them because of how such hateful phrases are used, and how hurtful and offensive they are to the target group.
There are people on this board, myself included, who have firsthand experience in being the target of racist language, harrassment, vandalism, and violence. And when words are used that are obvious "catch-phrases" well known to most speakers of the language, it doesn't matter as much what each individual word means all by itself, when you separate them out and look at them literally and concretely. The phrase as a whole is loaded with unfounded hate toward a group of people. It also stops mattering that the poster was using the language to describe individuals in his life. He used a slur that I believe he knew to be racist (I base this belief on his description of himself as racist). It then becomes *not* about those individuals, but about a whole group of people.
And I don't beleive this has anything to do with political correctness. Or walking on eggshells.
I cannot tell anyone what to believe. If a person wants to think racist thoughts and believe racist beliefs, that is beyond the control of others. And what people say in their own private speech is their business. I may wish they thought and spoke without the hatred, but that is just a wish--I cannot control that.
But we all know that there are things we choose not to say in "mixed company" or in certain settings because of how it might affect other people, and that we expect such discretion and choice from others as well. We don't *have* to choose accordingly, but in certain settings we do, because we agree to a kind of social contract of civility.
On this board, I think it is highly reasonable and appropriate to expect that the civility rules would include the understanding that it is not acceptable to use slurs like the ones in question, which are completely loaded with hurtful meaning for many, even if the story line is about individuals.
If I have a story about my bad experiences with an individual, it is not ok for me to use racial or ethnic slurs to describe that individual here on this board.
It isn't the person that is unacceptable, it is the comments. Just leave them at the gate when entering. And I believe that you, Dr. Bob, are the gatekeeper.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 18:07:47
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » Dr. Bob, posted by Phil on January 15, 2003, at 7:21:51
> I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.
Is that a slur against Peruvians?
> I hope I'm misreading you Dr. Bob cause it sounds like you support stereotyping if that's what a person feels. That will open a door you don't want opened. It already has.
It's the person I'd like to be supported, and the door to them that I'd like to be opened. But I guess this isn't the place.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 19:14:09
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 18:07:47
> It's the person I'd like to be supported, and the door to them that I'd like to be opened. But I guess this isn't the place.
So I've posted a PBC:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20021230/msgs/2235.html
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 15, 2003, at 21:18:00
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » Dr. Bob, posted by Noa on January 15, 2003, at 17:54:07
Noa,
Brilliant. Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Phil on January 15, 2003, at 21:58:30
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 18:07:47
> > I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.
>
> Is that a slur against Peruvians?>>>>I think I need a vacation. That wasn't fair.
>
> > I hope I'm misreading you Dr. Bob cause it sounds like you support stereotyping if that's what a person feels. That will open a door you don't want opened. It already has.
>
> It's the person I'd like to be supported, and the door to them that I'd like to be opened. But I guess this isn't the place.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2003, at 22:25:32
In reply to Re: I'm going to take a break for a few days, posted by Phil on January 15, 2003, at 21:58:30
You're right, Phil. It wasn't.
Come back soon. It's we posters who will miss you.
Dinah
Posted by wendy b. on January 15, 2003, at 23:09:26
In reply to Re: I'm going to take a break for a few days, posted by Phil on January 15, 2003, at 21:58:30
> > > I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.
> >
> > Is that a slur against Peruvians?
>
> >>>>I think I need a vacation. That wasn't fair.
Bob,That was so out of order. You have really made a bad situation worse.
Phil did not tell the story with the message: "Peruvians are a bunch of ax-wielding murderers." He was pointing out that racism has *real effects* on the lives of innocent peole who are nothing like the stereotyped representations of their ethnic/cultural group. This girl had saved money to go off and help others less fortunate than herself. And a racist act of violence prevented that. There was no slur against the Peruvian people.
Do you *really* need this spelled out, or are you just being coy? I ask because you are hurting a lot of people who thought the environment here was relatively safe. You've been so quick to PBC people or to block them for infractions far less serious than this, in the name of safety and civility.
What is the point you're trying to make? You want this guy to feel supported. So do we -- but that support has always had conditions. Fuzzymind has the right to be supported, but *not* at the expense of other's feelings and other's rights not to be put down. This is just common sense.
And now you've chased Phil away for a *very* snide comment. To what end? For what purpose?
Sincerely,
Wendy
Posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 1:32:02
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2003, at 18:07:47
Phil wrote:
I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.You wrote back:
Is that a slur against Peruvians?C'mon, Bob, get real! You can pick any country in this world & find some hate crime that's ended in murder. Just because it's been noted in the news, what rational person would consider it a slur against the citizens of that country? That's a thoughtless example you pulled out of the air to toss back at Phil. Really, that needs an apology.
Are you aware of Asperger's syndrome at all? I'm curious as my 27 year old son has it. It can be accompanied by an amazingly high IQ but the drawback of it is a lack of social understanding & skills in dealing with people. I do see some strong correlations between how you view matters & how my son sees things. He's fully aware of what he had & does the best he can to compensate. I'm curious about you. There's times you've written things that I'm aghast at, & yet I don't think you're a purposely thouhtless person.
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 8:10:47
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 1:32:02
Why not just answer the question? No it wasn't a slur. Why does everything have to be an implied insult? I don't think Phil meant to slur anyone though perhaps it would have been a bit more sensitive to leave out the mention of the girls' concern about losing her money the morning after another person had lost her life. It's possible that someone somewhere might feel like this was reinforcing stereotypes and be offended. You can't be too careful. But I think it shows that context does matter and I don't think Phil was intentionally slurring anybody.
I think it would have been a slur if he had written "the bloodthirsty dope dealing Peruvians" or something like that.
How would you help your son know what was acceptable language and what was not in situations like this?
Written with no offense to anyone and good will towards all.
> Phil wrote:
> I met a girl working at a coffee shop and thought she looked bummed out. I asked if she was okay. She was a senior in high school and had saved $2000.00 to go to Peru with 20 other people to do volunteer work. She said her father had just told her she couldn't go and she would probably lose the $2000.00. Seems this caring, pretty young girl was Jewish and the day before a jew had been beheaded there.
>
> You wrote back:
> Is that a slur against Peruvians?
>
> C'mon, Bob, get real! You can pick any country in this world & find some hate crime that's ended in murder. Just because it's been noted in the news, what rational person would consider it a slur against the citizens of that country? That's a thoughtless example you pulled out of the air to toss back at Phil. Really, that needs an apology.
>
> Are you aware of Asperger's syndrome at all? I'm curious as my 27 year old son has it. It can be accompanied by an amazingly high IQ but the drawback of it is a lack of social understanding & skills in dealing with people. I do see some strong correlations between how you view matters & how my son sees things. He's fully aware of what he had & does the best he can to compensate. I'm curious about you. There's times you've written things that I'm aghast at, & yet I don't think you're a purposely thouhtless person.
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 1:32:02
> > Is that a slur against Peruvians?
>
> I think I need a vacation. That wasn't fair.
>
> PhilSorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was in fact a slur, just to ask about where to draw the line. Was it necessary to specify Peru?
> C'mon, Bob, get real! You can pick any country in this world & find some hate crime that's ended in murder. Just because it's been noted in the news, what rational person would consider it a slur against the citizens of that country?
>
> IsoMWhat if it had been a country in the Middle East? You can also pick any country and find people who are greedy... I don't mean to be dense, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this rule. Thanks for your input -- and patience,
Bob
Posted by Phil on January 16, 2003, at 8:42:02
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 8:10:47
Sometimes I try to keep stories short so her losing her money was included, it wasn't a big deal for her. It was superfluous.
I never said Peruvians beheaded a jew. I said a jew had been beheaded in Peru. Could of been anyone.
I just finished my yearly EEOC classes for that we all take at the state. Fuzzy, if he used that rhetoric in the wrong setting, would be terminated for creating a 'hostile work environment' and the state would be sued and lose. Happens frequently.
One curiosity, at my spectaclar 1.5 years in college, athletes didn't room with normals. Is that the way it is at most schools? Did fuzzy "ever" ask to be moved in a high school classroom? I wonder how different he would be.
Did he call university officials and ask to be placed in another room for fear of his life and racial slurs?
Until he takes 100% responsibility for his life, nobody here or anywhere else can help him. He may have a character disorder. CD will blame the whole world for all that's gone wrong but they won't look in the mirror. They are not very responsive to therapy because they can't see their part.
My guess is sooner or later he would leave babble feeling victimized.
I had 'victimnosis' for a long time-took therapy to realize i always played a part.Shalom
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 9:56:51
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
Where do you draw the line? Here's a good place to start perhaps. This is an earlier post from this board which aroused no outrage or rebuke.
This poster has connected his many bad experiences to the South and the Baptist faith. Pretty much every ugly stereotype covered. The first part is presented as personal experience much as fuzzy presented his personal experience with the Jewish guys. If the fact that these people were Jewish is irrelevant to fuzzy's story then the fact that Mitchell had bad experiences with a Baptist church should not be posted because the prejudice and hatred engendered towards these particular acts might spill over and prejudice people against the majority of good loving Southern and Baptist people.
He claims to suffer as a "child of the South" blaming a region or a culture for his problems.
Good quiet Germans is a hateful stereotype
He implies that schools founded on Baptist principles are not allowing accurate discourse in their public forums. This maligns an entire group of institutions as well as "Baptist priciples".
I think it is imperative if you choose to protect one racial/ethnic/religous group that you extend exactly the same consideration to others.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8592.html
As the child of a Baptist family in the American South, I am astounded that a psychologically oriented web site would bannish open discussion of harm caused by presumptive thinking patterns often referred to as faith. This defies scientific and academic standards of language.
Here is the short version of my formative years firmly grounded in a southern church: family violence that I was aware of, and whispered among adults, lynchings, church burnings and the Sunday morning shooting of a civil rights activist, in the presence of his family, just two blocks from the Baptist church where the activist had been denied entry.
What about the children who were allowed entry? Are we to call our religious experience positive and be good quiet Germans when somebody speaks of human rights violations? I can say with certainty that, in settings where I am otherwise invited to promote religious speech as a healthy behavior, prohibitions against honest discussion of my childhood experience comprise abuse of authority. Consider how the child of Nazi parents would feel reading a site where only positive aspects of the Nazi experience may be discusseed.
Much of the injury I suffer now as a child of the South focuses on the silence I must maintain regarding inappropriate authority. From my childhood experiences, I learned to recognize abusive authority. Now I see abusive power relationships more plainly than many who grew up without challenging innappropriate authority. Now, I live in a world where I routinely witness abusive use of power by public officials, merchants, scholars and employers, but am required to act as if their abuse is legitimate. To find an ostensible mental-health-related site were religious thought, speech and activity can only be treated as a healthy activity adds insult to my injury.
Maybe this is not your religous experience, but it is mine, Dr. Hsuing. I am sorry you want no part of my experience, and are unwilling to allow here public consideration of suffering such as I encountered before I was old enough to defend myself or my community. I wonder whose interests you are protecting. Perhaps other schools not founded on Baptist principals will allow acurate discourse in their public forums.
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 10:31:30
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 9:56:51
Or maybe draw it here?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8803.html
I agree with Jane. I don't know why no one else is offended. I am.
Posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:04
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 8:10:47
Rex, you asked "How would you help your son know what was acceptable language and what was not in situations like this?"
There's little need for me to remind him at his age now (he's 27) but when he was growing up, I had plenty of opportunities to show him both by word & example what was acceptable & what wasn't. He had two younger brothers & he was included in all our outside the home & within the home social functions plus school.
I know he found it difficult many times as he was growing up, but Asperger children learn more by rote than by being able to judge each example as it comes up by its individual context. I taught him that it was polite to stand when older people entered the room & to politely greet them. He would shake hands & greet people with those entering a building at an outside function. He was diligent with 'thank you' & 'you're welcome' & other common courtesies. All these things can be taught them with no stress involved.
With Asperger people, when new situations arise outside their scope of experience, they need to learn what to do. It doesn't come automatically to them as most people.
I use this analogy:
No one has to be taught how to laugh at a funny story - it's natural to do so. But if you wish to learn how to ride a bike, you need to learn how. Once learned though, you don't forget. Children (& adults) with Asperger need to be taught how to deal with social situations either one-on-one or in groups of people. One of the problems with Asperger's is they can't read facial & body language unless they learned what the obvious ones are. Even now at 27, my son will often ask when watching a news show how I think a certain person comes across or what they're projecting. He's still trying to learn more & compare what he thinks a person is to my opinions.In any particular situation like you mentioned (dealing with racial language), my son would answer in a strictly traditional polite manner. He's NOT afraid to state his views regarding matters & would adamantly view ALL racial slurs or derogatory language as wrong. He sees ethical & moral matters almost black or white. It's either wrong or right. For matters like that, he uses principles not strict rules. That may be a matter more of my principles & how I raised my sons as they all tend too, just not as strictly as my son with Asperger.
Posted by Mitchell on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:10
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
> What if it had been a country in the Middle East? You can also pick any country and find people who are greedy... I don't mean to be dense, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this rule. Thanks for your input -- and patience,
>
> BobA line drawn to protect generalized groups will always be arbitrary. Injury to an insulted group is a symptom. The pathology underlying the symptom must be addressed for guidelines to consistently relieve the symptom.
Whatever guidelines govern this site, the opus in question is symptomatic of a more general social problem resulting from defective language skills. Westerm society heavily relies on expressive rhetoric, and often employs representational language expressively rather than as pure representation. Ready availability of publishing tools has further degraded recognition of expressive rhetoric, allowing personal expression to comingle with literary expression, which more usually is governed by collective standards.
In this climate of pathological expression, we can only further complicate matters by designing rules to prohibit statements about groups. Practices or guidelines that require accurate representation, however, might restore capacity to communities' wounded expressive skills.
If we prohibit accurate representation, or flawed good-faith representation, we damage our ability to learn from our expressive efforts.
I believe the writer was trying to say he thought some person's life had become centered around desire for money, and that the flawed desire grew from the person's historic cultural enviornment. Whether the writer was accurate or not, we benefit from understanding and exploring the expressed opinion. We need the opinion expressed in terms we can use. In practical dialogue, "asshole" is about useless as a descriptive term. Vulgar metaphor better illustrates the speaker's thought style than the subject so described.
With useful terms, we can begin to explore the basis of the expressed feeling. Perhaps, in a similar case where a person points out flaws in another, concern over others' flaws might arise from projective identification. If we can't find a safe way to express perceptions, we can scarecely understand the circumstances causing the perceptions.
To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 17:00:55
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
>>> I don't mean to be dense, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this rule. Thanks for your input -- and patience,
But I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 18:45:14
In reply to Re: Asperger's and acceptable language » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:04
Thanks for answering. I feel a lot like Temple Granton described in Oliver sack's book "Anthropologist on Mars" . I don't understand why people do the things they do. Some times it seems like I landed on a different planet. And I keep trying to pick up on the local customs. One reason I keep coming to Babble and reading the admin board is for the discussion of why decisions are made. I still don't always understand but maybe it's Bob with Asperger's not me! JUST KIDDING!! I don't really think I have Asperger's but I do have trouble understanding unstated social conventions and the kind of reading between the lines that other people seem to be doing. I've always wondered how social skills were taught. Your son sounds like a nice guy.Thanks for answering my question.
> In any particular situation like you mentioned (dealing with racial language), my son would answer in a strictly traditional polite manner. He's NOT afraid to state his views regarding matters & would adamantly view ALL racial slurs or derogatory language as wrong. He sees ethical & moral matters almost black or white. It's either wrong or right. For matters like that, he uses principles not strict rules. That may be a matter more of my principles & how I raised my sons as they all tend too, just not as strictly as my son with Asperger.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 17:00:55
> I believe the writer was trying to say he thought some person's life had become centered around desire for money, and that the flawed desire grew from the person's historic cultural enviornment. Whether the writer was accurate or not, we benefit from understanding and exploring the expressed opinion. We need the opinion expressed in terms we can use. In practical dialogue, "asshole" is about useless as a descriptive term.
>
> To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
>
> Mitchell[13.75 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level]
So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
> I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
>
> NoaI already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
>
Bob I don't understand what you are saying could you please rephrase? Or could someone else try and explain it to me? I'm not trying to be difficult I honestly don't understand what you are saying.What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? (Not that I don't enjoy them). But what if someone percieves "smut" and you don't or you percieve "smut" but no one else does ? Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> > I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> > I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
> >
> > Noa
>
> I already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 20:27:11
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
>>So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...<<
No and yes, I guess would be my opinion.
I think that the first line of action would be one of education--point out that a remark is seen as offensive, ask the poster to leave those kinds of comments out.
Rephrasing? It depends what you are referring to here. Perhaps to rephrase, but not in the way you proposed earlier in this thread, to which I had objected--which seemed more like a political correctness paint job.
But I never saw blocking as the first line of action by any means. Only in the case of someone who, once having it pointed out, refuses to respect the issue and continues to use offensive language.
This really is an opportunity for education, but the education has to have limits to go with it.
I'm glad you are now understanding what I was trying to say (and what others were trying to say). Thanks.
Posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
> > To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
> >
> > Mitchell>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> Bob
It is at least a suggestion that we need better language skills in groups such as this.My impression is that people come here seeking support and education, and some are able to offer support and education in the process. But in a society whose language skills are badly damaged, the best supportive and educational practices might not spontaneously emerge among group members. The process might benefit from some more specific training.
Professional therapists learn conversational techniques that help clients rephrase descriptions of problems and to see situations in different ways. In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:16:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
> What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?
I meant I should've posted my PBC sooner. And I'm righted in the sense that I see that now.
> Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? ... Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
I think ultimately it is in fact my perception that will matter the most. But these discussions allow me to receive feedback -- and to try to explain myself. Regarding the quote, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
> In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
>
> Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.IMO, there's already a lot of skilled voluntary facilitation here. OTOH, there's always room for improvement. Can you suggest any descriptions of therapeutic conversational techniques?
I also wonder if another factor is that this is a message board rather than a mailing list or a chat room. On a message board, threads may stay more "alive" -- sub-threads that have been dropped can more easily be picked up again. That's good if it's to provide more support or information, but not good if it's to escalate conflict.
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.