![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
I didn't read the whole thing, Dr. Bob, because frankly I felt too insulted from what I had read. Would I have felt less insulted later on? Could you perhaps summarize it in a non-insulting manner? Just call me stupid, but it didn't seem like a nice thing to compare Babble with.
You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities. It's bad enough that we are no longer allowed under the civility rules to express our feelings on a *topic*, but even worse if people are punished for not *understanding* the application of the topic.
Posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:20:54
In reply to Re: my take, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 1:52:02
Yes, Alexandra. Thank you. Babblers *are* no longer allowed to state their feelings about the gated communities, unless of course those feelings are positive.
Naturally it doesn't follow that people who don't like small boards wouldn't like people who join small boards. And people who join small boards might well *feel* like people wouldn't like them if they joined one. But I know how you feel about taking responsibility for ones' own feelings, as I think you've expressed it eloquently before. Just because they might feel it, doesn't make it true.
Dr. Bob obviously takes your concerns very much to heart, as he has silenced any discussion of dissent to the very idea of gated communities, even in advance of their being implemented. My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding rather than assuming that I am posting something I know to be untrue. Because I'm not. That's my understanding of the new rule.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:32:49
In reply to Re: my take » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:20:54
Thank you for saying that, Dinah.
My 'please be sensitive' was for expressing *my* feelings about the 'coziness.' I thought I even made it clear that it didn't even mean I didn't like the person, just that I couldn't feel good in the room.
But I can't fathom what I was talking about would happen here anyway. For example - Alexandra (I hope you don't mind being an example, Alexandra) likes the idea of smaller rooms, but I seriously doubt if she would be comfortable hurting someone that wanted in.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:38:23
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:41:39
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
A quote
George Orwell (1949) was instructive about the politicisation of language in totalitarian states.
Note to Dr. Bob - this is in humor - I couldn't resist the opening you gave me.
Posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
Massification? For a moment I thought you'd gone Catholic on me Bob. Not sure what you're saying with that. Do psychologists actually talk to each other that way?
Sorry that I went ballistic, thanks for your patience. I try to stay away from Admin as much as possible, but somehow I must be an angry man or something.
I relize that this should probably be on PBP, but I think it may explain why people react so explosively when reprimanded here. When you give a PBC or block, you give terse admonitions or demands: "be civil," "don't accuse others," "don't be sarcastic," etc. without a lengthy explanation like, "Toph, I appreciate your views , but I would prefer that you not use a sarcastic tone as that upsets me and I consider it uncivil." Here's my thought, I am not sure what transference is but I see it discussed on PBP a lot. From what little I know, your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
Toph
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 11:24:27
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
I think similar experiences explain a lot of our reactions - but I hadn't heard it put so accurately.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 15:22:04
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
In reply to Re: thanks for the link (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 15:22:04
An attempted translation:
When people have been traumatised (which is a kind of boundary violation) then there can be a fear of annihilation. To deal with that people can vaccilate between narrowing their boundaries (by externalising to protect ones individual identity being lost in a merger) and enlarging their boundaries (by internalising so as to feel part of something greater). On the individual level this can lead to vacillation between pushing people away for fear of becoming merged with them and losing ones own identity, and clinging for fear of abandonment, of losing something that is perceived to be ‘part of oneself’. This same process can be acted out on the group level and is referred to as aggregation (narrowing of boundaries) and massification (enlarging of boundaries) respectively.
So (gee, I hope this counts as ‘fair use’):
‘People who have been traumatised, have experienced the fear of annihilation, and who have developed protective encapsulations are highly likely to create processes of Incohesion [ie to partake in the above described vacillation], and to be vulnerable to the constraints of roles associated with Incohesion. People who have developed contact-shunning, crustacean protections [narrowing of boundaries] are likely to personify states of aggregation, and those who have developed merger-hungry, amoeboid protections [enlargement of boundaries] are likely to personify states of massification… There are mixtures of types of personification, and there are mixtures and rapid shifts between states of aggregation and massification. Moreover, the processes of large complex social systems are often personified by more than one person, and during phases of rapid oscillation both crustacean and amoeboid styles of personification may be found’.
Sometimes people withdraw from Babble…
Sometimes people take an affront to Babble as an affront to themselves personally…
Or see the division of Babble as losing part of oneself…
This can be described as aggregation and massification respectively.
Individuals can vacillate over time.
And the group as a whole can have a different flavour at different times depending on the most vocal members of the group.Something to think about (gee, I hope this counts as ‘fair use’ as well…)
‘In order to protect against the difficulties and anxieties associated with massification, a social system shifts back towards the state of aggregation, and the original anxieties and difficulties re-emerge. And the entire process repeats itself. In the same way that traumatised people who are overwhelmed by their fear of annihilation are caught in incessant motion, without possibilities of resolution, incohesive social systems oscillate incessantly between states of aggregation and states of massification. These oscillations manifest motion and process, but no dynamic, dialectical movement. An incohesive social system is in a state of social paralysis’.
Hmm. So round and round we go…
Just my take (for what it is worth….)
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
Good 'splanation, Alex. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I couldn't muster the energy to read the article.
Thanks again. I 'spect that your 'splanation made it clearer than I would have got on my own, anyway.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:33:17
In reply to I think, therefore (I:A/M) :-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:38:23
And here I thought I:A/M was some clever way of saying I'm Auntie Mel (AM). whooops, giggles.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
Nah. I think therapy turned my brain to mush today.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 23:13:44
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
Posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
In reply to Re: very well put » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 11:24:27
Thank you Mel, I guess I should have put it on PB Psych after all.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 9:07:44
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Actually I think this was the right place to put it, since this is where it manifests most.
Now - don't argue with a compliment or you'll have to go time-out.
{smile}
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 17:25:05
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Yeah Toph, I agree - I get that too.
I find it hard not to take PBC's as a slap.I have found that if you don't understand and you ask him to explain why then he typically will. Though that could take a couple of days... Patience...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
> > Please don't be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
>
> You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he understood. I didn't know if he did or not. But I did want him to understand that if he did understand, then I didn't want him to do that.
> My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
>
> If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding
>
> DinahThat's not a new rule. There is of course a difference between the idea of gated communities and the people who might belong to them.
--
> your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
>
> TophThanks for reflecting on this. I don't despise you. I just want to minimize the fighting here. How about a new chapter in your story? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
I read over that a few times, and I don't think I feel significantly less offended.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that that's how Dr. Bob sees us. It explains rather a lot. But I'm sad about it. I'm very sad about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
((((Dinah))))
How about on an individual level, though? I mean, I can see how I tend to swing to those two extremes (with a preference towards narrowing my boundaries). If it happens with people on an individual level then I don't think it is all that suprising that those dynamics should play out in a group environment too...
I dunno.
I agree that parts of it were a bit hard to take.
And that they didn't really talk about it on an individual level - but I needed to do that so as to 'translate' it for myself to try and figure out what was being said. Lots of the terminology was unfamiliar to me.What about how you have said before that sometimes you need to try to emotionally withdraw. I wondered if that could be seen as a narrowing of boundaries when caring for Babble becomes a bit too much. That you have said stuff before about having to lower your expectations. I just wondered whether that might be a swing from one to the other right there. And there hasn't been a successful resolution of that stuff yet, has there?
I dunno.
Tell me to stoppit if ya like.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:10:43
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
by the way I really should emphasise that that was *my* take on it. Probably one that wouldn't be endorsed by either the author or Dr B.
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
Well, to be fair, I'd probably be outraged if I knew what my therapist thought of me, especially in clinical terms.
I think as much as I say I want to know what makes Dr. Bob tick, I really don't - any more than I want to know what my therapist really thinks of me.
But it does make me sad, because it does explain so much.
Of COURSE Dr. Bob doesn't understand what we're trying to say, or understand us, if he's thinking in those terms. And of COURSE we don't understand him.
The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:34:38
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
I don't understand why you say it's not a new rule. One minute we were able to argue with you the attributes of gated communities, then Alexandra said that people might feel like they would be disliked for joining them, then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative, then you started handing out PBC's.
Am I missing something in the timeline?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:54:18
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and...
As opposed to?
> then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative
Sorry, I see how I may not have been so clear:
> > If someone who joins up to a smaller board reads that other people think that smaller boards are elitist and co then they may take that personally.
>
> I agree. If we go ahead with this, that might need to be considered uncivil...I guess it depends what's said, and how. I do think saying smaller boards are elitist could lead members of smaller boards to feel accused of being elitist...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
So one way of looking at Babble is looking at the unique individuals that comprise it. (And on that score we would quite like Dr Bob to just LOVE Babble).
> How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
And another way of looking at Babble is in terms of group dynamics where it is something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time).
But you can see it both ways.
You can like the particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being satisfyed with the group dynamic.
You can like the particular posters while being satisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.All I mean to say is that what Dr Bob thinks of Babble (as an abstract entity process group) is a seperate issue from what Dr Bob thinks of the individual posters who comprise Babble. Or at least that one doesn't have to reflect the other.
Or have I missed your point completely?????
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.