![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2006, at 23:26:44
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:01:36
> dennett talks about how sometimes people enlarge their boundaries...
>
> so someone who is really into cars might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say they have a crappy car.Good golly, yes! I love my car, and I'm not "into cars". But if someone called my car "crappy", why wouldn't I feel insulted? And why would someone feel the need to call my car crappy? Why not just talk about how great your car is, or how great some other car is? Or why not point out that Consumer Reports says my car has a problem with XXX? Why label it???????
>
> i guess similarly someone who is really into politics might take it as a personal insult if someone were to say their favourite party had a crappy policy.Again, why label it??? Why not say you disagree with this policy. You believe that this other policy is a good one. Why label it as crappy or clueless?
And truly, how can a policy be clueless? It's not that I feel my party and it's policies were put down. It's the group. People. People make up the "left". Not policies. At least the way I've always heard the term used. Of course with no noun after the adjective, I suppose it is a little tricky to tell exactly what object is "left/center".
> owning ones own response as ones own response
> looking upon others charitably...
>
> doesn't apply here huh.How is calling anyone or anything clueless charitable?
>I need to stop here. I'm feeling riled up, and I don't want to engage further while in this state. I certainly don't want to cross the civility line (as in Bob's definition since I'm posting on his site) out of heightened emotions.
Take care everyone.
gg
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:16
In reply to sorry » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:27
(((((10)))))))
are you doing okay?
i hope you are doing ok.
((((((10))))))))
i respect you
and i know you are doing your best - ok?> I apologize to anyone who now feels I have called you nasty if you violate the civility rules.
> That was not my intention and I don't think that.
i wasn't trying to trap you with verbal tricks...
it was just a vivid way for me to draw out the dictionary civility vs dr bob civility distinction.because according to dictionary civility... that may well be an analytic truth.
but according to dr bob's definition...
it is far from analytic (and false in most instances)and i did it in a way where you were kind of forced to see the distinction... or be labelled uncivil (in bob's sense and maybe in the dictionary sense as well)...
maybe there was some verbal trick in that.
sigh.i know you weren't saying those things.
and i'm not taking it personally.
it was just a vivid way for me to draw out the dr bob's civility vs dictionary def civility distinction.
maybe it was a verbal trick...
but i didn't mean for it to be.> I just thought..I just thought I was being told that if an issue is generally disturbing - war in this case - that here (and IRL, too?) we should suspend the civility rules and speak about those kinds of things, well, any way we want? I was trying to explain how I don't agree with that.
i don't think anybody is advocating that the civililty rules should be abandoned. i think the notion is that the civility rules should acknowledge the critiquing a person on these boards vs critiquing a policy / ideology / political party distinction. not saying it should be a free for all for people to go off with the name calling... but saying more leniency should be shown. IMO we should be allowed to critique a policy. IMO i should be allowed to say 'i am opposed to the american ideal' then talk about what i take the american ideal to be then go on to show why i think those things are not things i want to support. i should be allowed to do this. it would save a lot of blockings on politics. and people would either learn not to take things so personally... or they would not post there. but if they can't handle people doing that... i don't know how they handle IRL with tv and newspapers and the things the politicians say...
don't get me wrong - i think the standard / quality of debate should be higher.
no name calling or mudslinging
but you should be allowed to critique
and express opposition.
Posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:21
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
maybe this place is more similar to psychcentral's way of doing things than i had supposed...
and IMHO it is only going to get worse.
it is.>>
well, maybe. but then why stay up all night arguing this (12:21 am EST).
it's for a moment of kindness. which life does not supply in abundance.
i responded to you on Writing, by the way, though i cannot do the subjects justice.
-z
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 14, 2006, at 23:31:14
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:15:13
I'm confused. It wasn't all that long ago that you were emphatic, and made some very strong remarks toward posters (including me) who questioned you on those same subjects. You wouldn't consider another viewpoint to have merit when you were insistant that the board was completely fair, and said that the posters who were blocked were angry about being blocked, and looking to find unfairness in order to justify the anger. They needed to find a perpetrator and chose Dr. Bob. "Why can't everyone just be civil?"
You asked dissenters to be quiet. Did you really think that they didn't also think about this carefully?
Is it because it's happened to you, you've been hurt that you see the possibility for questionable blocks. Or does this drama triangle still apply to the other people who've been blocked.
It's an extreme change. And I really don't understand.
Posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:36:43
In reply to Re: » special_k, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:21
> well, maybe. but then why stay up all night arguing this (12:21 am EST).oh. its about lunchtime for me...
i'm kinda attached to this place...
kinda disillusioned...
but kinda attached.
kinda interested to see how this pans out...
how long i will get blocked for...
i don't think i've done anything wrong.
but i probably have breeched some dr bob rule or other.
i mean... people are upset...
surely thats because of me
so i should get blocked.
and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
surely i'll get blocked.
thats what i meant about the psych central way of doing things.
politics changed after certain people complained...
and don't get me wrong...
there must be a middle way
there must be a middle waybut IMHO that is where one week blockings should come into play.
while we figure out the rules for the politics board as a group.
a group of posters.
i mean... dr bob doesn't post there so why can't we decide (or at least try to) amongst ourselves?
but i'm thinking he wants less debate on the boards and more amongst teh 'choosen few' those who are handpicked because they have internalised his idiosyncratic way of doing things.
because...
they are most likely to preserve the status quo
and rationalise his decisions for the benefit of others
because then it is 'our' decision instead of 'my' decisionwhatever...
i'm kinda interested in how things will go...
but IMHO...
oh it doesn't really matter
my HO isn't worth jack diddly squat
and i figure i'm about to get blocked for something or other about now anyways...
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
In reply to Re:, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:36:43
Let's examine Declan's comment: "How come the left/centre (whatever) is so clueless?"
There's no "policy", there's no big huge left/centre "Being". What we really have is a bunch of real people who are left, center, or left-center of whatever. Real people with or without a "clue". Yet, in the end, don't we all have some sort of clue?
When we load a post, let's agree not to use judgmental terms that could hurt and accuse others. The goal should never be to win an argument or win a point - especially toward someone we aspire to help and support.
And please, lets use LOVING in place of the king james "charitable" - i think that's what the author was going for. LOVE
Why use, "Charity", an archaic version of "love" from a medieval text? Let's just call it LOVE.
I'm compkletely blizted, be charitable. Just love.
If we love one another, we never find each other clueless. We discover each other every day and love each other to pieces.
Verne
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:58:47
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
Please don't get hung up on the word, "clueless". We don't need to nitpick it. (It was a good movie, we all agree)
Focus on what is meant, when we say someone or a group of people is "clueless". The word says that the other (objective) is not only without knowledge but doesn't even have a CLUE. It is PERSONAL.
And, please, Declan, don't take this personally. I don't agree with any sort of block beyond a week, and hope you are coping well.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 15, 2006, at 8:06:50
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
>>If we love one another, we never find each other clueless. We discover each other every day and love each other to pieces.
ah Verne...you are one of my heros here. I hope you feel very good about yourself for writing this. You should. God bless you, Verne. Be careful. Stay safe. ((verne))
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:10:20
In reply to Supplemental, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:58:47
For me at least.
First is whether the post can be considered something that was putting down people of left/centrist (though centrist is usually defined differently by different people I've found) persuasion. I seriously doubt that given the posting history of this poster. I wondered whether the post was acceptable under board rules, but for completely different reasons.
Second, is whether politics can and should be discussed with civility and caritas on this site, in the world at large, and in diplomatic circles. And to that issue I am greatly disillusioned. I see no reason why politics shouldn't be discussed with the same civility (by any definition) and caritas as any other topic. I agree with 10der that there are two separate issues, the topic and the method of discussion. And I feel saddened and disheartened and alienated when people assume that feeling passionately about a subject somehow equates with how they express that their feelings about that subject.
I wish Dr. Bob would simply outlaw politics as a topic, as is done on other boards. I value his position that all topics are ok topics as long as they are discussed civilly. But the topic has the potential to change one's feelings about other posters. And that doesn't seem conducive to the overall mission of this site.
Not that I think outlawing it would have any positive effect. People would just then argue over Please Do Not Discuss Politics, and the importance of politics to mental health, and draconian censorship, and those arguments may not show a lot of civility either.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
And that saddens me. And it makes me realize how little I understand people. And probably never will.
Again, I really recommend "Choosing Civility".
I think I'll write a song about spittin' in the wind.
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:12:31
In reply to Hue and Cry, A Carriage Rustles Past, posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 1:34:40
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:22:37
In reply to Re: sorry, posted by special_k on April 14, 2006, at 23:27:16
In general I prefer to refer to site guidelines, because that seems more civil. But to be truthful in this instance, I don't see much difference between Dr. Bob's and common definitions.
I am also feeling rather offended by the implication that the participants in a discussion would influence Dr. Bob's decision of who to block. I assure you that he doesn't punish those who are in disagreement with his deputies. (Even if his deputies fiercely argue that a post directed at them was not in accordance with civility guidelines, if he thinks it was.)
There's one significant difference between here and PsychCentral. We aren't moderators. We're deputies. We carry out Dr. Bob's instructions and do our best to step in and do what Dr. Bob would do when it's clear to us, and when he isn't around at the moment. We don't make policy. We interpret policy only in the most basic sense, not in the judicial sense as in the balance of powers. Dr. Bob can and does reverse us. We're in the same position as anyone else if we object to a decision or policy.
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:25:12
In reply to Re: messages and methods » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on April 14, 2006, at 23:09:13
> some of us Babble alumni should join the diplomatic corps. but one should not always trust a diplomat either.
>
> of course, good diplomats are aware that they have an intrinsic credibility problem. it's a dirty trade.
>
> -zI do hope you're referring to political exigencies, and not to being civil and diplomatic in how they express themselves. And I would assume that you are referring to professional diplomats, not those Babble alumni who exhibit some of the same methods of expressing ourselves.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:37:40
In reply to Re: sorry » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:22:37
> I am also feeling rather offended by the implication that the participants in a discussion would influence Dr. Bob's decision of who to block.
influences his decision of who to be charitable to.
unless dr bob gets around the confirmation bias / priming type phenomena that psychologists write about.
i talk about charity because there is a literature on the principle of charity on triangulation of beliefs desires and behaviour.
in this case we have the interpretation of text.
"essays on truth and interpretation" in case you are interested.
though i'm extending its usage somewhat...
interpretation is required...
it is.
and charity comes into play re what interpretation one should adopt (and why) though i have my reasons (and i won't go on about rationality constraints)still some equivocation between charity1 and charity2
but maybe some people don't see the difference
i don't know what to say
i think you could see the difference
but this board teaches you not to bother
so...
there it is.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:43:52
In reply to Re: sorry, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:37:40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
i extend it to interpret someones words as being civil1 and civil2 where possible.
makes life a whole heap nicer...
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:05:08
In reply to Two separate issues, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:10:20
> For me at least.
>
> First is whether the post can be considered something that was putting down people of left/centrist (though centrist is usually defined differently by different people I've found) persuasion. I seriously doubt that given the posting history of this poster.I agree that an intent to put down seems unlikely. But I do think that the potential and likelihood for someone to feel put down is there.
>I wondered whether the post was acceptable under board rules, but for completely different reasons.
The quote contained in the post certainly caught got my attention.
> Second, is whether politics can and should be discussed with civility and caritas on this site, in the world at large, and in diplomatic circles.Your post about this aspect seems much calmer than mine. I was shouting and waving my arms around in my head by the time I wrote my most recent post above. But then, I tend to flail about at times. Makes for bruised elbows and such. :)
gg
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:14:01
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:05:08
> I agree that an intent to put down seems unlikely.
charity at work...
> But I do think that the potential and likelihood for someone to feel put down is there.
it is ALWAYS there.
but should blocking decisions be made because people choose to take things personally?
we don't take politics personally in australasia.
seems you guys do.
so we have to change our behaviour.
guess you could call it falling into line with the majority (seeing as the majority of posters to politics are from america)...
on the other hand...
ever wonder why that might be the case?
would be interesting to see a breakdown of blockings (from politics) from country of residence.
would be interesting to see how many blockings people get on politics vs on the other boards.
personally...
i think people would do better to learn not to take criticism of ideology / ideal / politicians / political parties personally.
repeat after me: i am not my political parties legislation: i am so much more than that. and if people are opposed to the legislation that does not mean they are opposed to me.
sigh.
here isn't the place, eh.
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:24:00
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:05:08
If I seem calm, it's only a combination of Risperdal and total discouragement and complete resignation on this topic.
It's a waving my arms about topic for me in general. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:32:08
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:14:01
>
> but should blocking decisions be made because people choose to take things personally?When the FAQ says "please don't...post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down", it doesn't really matter whether someone "chooses" to, does, or does not have a personal reaction. It's the "could" that matters. Which is a pretty high standard, I agree, but the standard here, nevertheless.
>
>
> guess you could call it falling into line with the majority (seeing as the majority of posters to politics are from america)...Rather, I would call it falling in line with the site policies.
>
> repeat after me: i am not my political parties legislation: i am so much more than that. and if people are opposed to the legislation that does not mean they are opposed to me.Um, that's a fair representation of how I view it. Why would feeling offended about a specific topic/incident resonate through my entire sense of self? You're right, I am so much more than any one interest or role. But that doesn't preclude feeling offended related to what someone might say about one aspect of myself, does it?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:34:33
In reply to Thank you :) (nm) » verne, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 8:12:31
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:35:24
In reply to Re: sorry, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 8:37:40
What you said was:
"and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
surely i'll get blocked."Which to my reading (and I could be wrong) implies that if there is a difference of opinion between a deputy or a potential deputy and a poster who isn't a deputy or potential deputy, the poster is more likely to get blocked than if there is a difference of opinion between two posters who aren't deputies or potential deputies.
I've had considerable experience in this area, having felt offended on occasion and emailing Dr. Bob in no uncertain terms why I thought the other poster should get a PBC, to no avail.
I would contend that your chances of getting blocked depend solely on what you post, not on who you post it to.
And please don't call us moderators. We aren't moderators, but rather deputies. Dr. Bob is the only moderator or administrator.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to Re: Two separate issues » special_k, posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:32:08
> > but should blocking decisions be made because people choose to take things personally?
> When the FAQ says "please don't...post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down"that is an unobtainable standard.
i could say 'i don't like holdens' and someone who really loved that brand of car (or who had one of whatever) *could* feel accused (of having a crap car lets say) or put down. they *could* get offended (lets leave 'choice' out of it i agree). it is rather amazing the scope of things that people can and do take offence to.but that doesn't mean the world can or should be rearranged for every possibility.
it would be impossible to do so.
hence there must be a middle ground.
and bob has picked one...
but i think he could chill a little more.
'i'll show you differences'
if you can see differences then you tend not to feel put down... of course... some people always will be. my still being here probably offends a whole bunch of people. shall i just bug off then?
> > guess you could call it falling into line with the majority (seeing as the majority of posters to politics are from america)...
> Rather, I would call it falling in line with the site policies.
of not offending people on the assumption that people will take politics personally and respond by feeling offended? you don't think that assumption exhibits cultural bias? (no let me guess that is just the way things are all around the world...)
> > repeat after me: i am not my political parties legislation: i am so much more than that. and if people are opposed to the legislation that does not mean they are opposed to me.
> Um, that's a fair representation of how I view it. Why would feeling offended about a specific topic/incident resonate through my entire sense of self? You're right, I am so much more than any one interest or role. But that doesn't preclude feeling offended related to what someone might say about one aspect of myself, does it?and so that person should be blocked for two weeks.
sigh.
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:48:52
In reply to I must disagree » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:35:24
> "and someone who has been stiring vs a moderator and potential moderator
> surely i'll get blocked."you aren't a moderator and i'm not a stirrer.
(you weren't thinking i was stirring were you? i might choose to feel offended by taking your silence on that to me a mark of assent...)of course even if i didn't ACTUALLY feel offended by that...
i hope you can see that it is possible that i COULD feel offended by that...
and so my point is to show that it is impossible to rearrange the world to take care of all the things people could *possibly* feel offended to
(even if we are dealing with a very narrow kind of metaphysical possibility)> Which to my reading (and I could be wrong) implies that if there is a difference of opinion between a deputy or a potential deputy and a poster who isn't a deputy or potential deputy, the poster is more likely to get blocked than if there is a difference of opinion between two posters who aren't deputies or potential deputies.
my thought was that if people start getting upset... someone is going to be warned / blocked. and priming / confirmation bias will mean my posts will be scrutinised most closely. it's been noticed before. you don't want me to start hauling up instances of bob passing over incivilitiesBOB from posters who very rarely get warned / blocked where he blocks other posters for a very long time for the exact same thing (because he is reading their posts more carefully one must suppose).
it happens. thats life. do you want references for experiments?
Posted by verne on April 15, 2006, at 9:49:25
In reply to Re: Thank you Verne :) From me, too! (nm), posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2006, at 9:34:33
I'm afraid to read my posts. My head hurts and my high horse is plumb wore out.
thanks for the kind words 10der, Dinah, and Gardengirl.
feeling veeble
Posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:57:20
In reply to Re: I must disagree » Dinah, posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 9:48:52
I think we've discussed interpretation of those before, and at that time you didn't think that the arguments were persuasive.
Have you changed your mind now?
Posted by special_k on April 15, 2006, at 10:06:36
In reply to Re: I must disagree » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 15, 2006, at 9:57:20
before automated asterisking...
some people would swear in their posts...
with no comment.
another person would swear in their post...
and get blocked for it.why did the first person not get blocked / warned while the second person did?
and of course it still happens (though not with that 'cause of automated asterisking)
but it still happens.
in fact... sometimes someone gets blocked because bob reads an incivility that isn't even there.
i guess he was expecting him to be uncivil... and so that primes him to look for incivilities
priming...
confirmation bias...there is a literature.
i don't think i'm contradicting what i said before.
maybe i've changed my mind...
or maybe i'm worrying about another class of phenomena...
i'm not worried about the majority of warnings / blockings...
at this point i'm mostly worried about politics.
though i made a suggestion before (about the inconsistent ruling re whether we are responsible to pages linked to a page we cite)
people are welcome to haul up old arguments if they like...
maybe they'll persuade me ;-)
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.