![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 152. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
In reply to Re: more research here » Dr. Bob, posted by capricorn on December 15, 2006, at 19:36:41
> > > Block duration and suicide levels
> >
> > Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> It would be interesting to see what effects differing lengths of block duration have on the individual re
> suicidal ideation and other negative mental health factors.**Like self injury to punish themselves for being bad.
> Most blocks are for breaching subjective technicalities re how things are expected to be phrased rather than based on any sound moral reasoning and it must hurt and no doubt confuse already vulnerable people to be punished when for the most part they have not done anything wrong.
**Hurts real bad.
But I think there's less of it.
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
> Hurts real bad.
> But I think there's less of it.I'm sorry it hurts, but glad there's less of it.
I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
This is a great simple introduction to online research.
It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
Good Luck
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
In reply to Re:how to conduct online research, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
Having been PBCed twice on my first day back for reasons I do not understand, I would like to clarify that this post was not a direct reply to Bob. I was not suggesting he needed an online guide to research nor that anyone else did. I just thought it was well done if someone wanted an idea of how to carry out his/her idea for research. I mentioned ethics and consent as an example. I did not mean to accuse or put down anyone. It also has sections on methods etc.
I'm not a huge fan of the social sciences and I don't want to participate but I thought it might be fun for some of you.Your friend
zazenduckie
> http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
>
> This is a great simple introduction to online research.
>
> It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
>
> Good Luck
>
>
Posted by muffled on December 17, 2006, at 14:20:25
In reply to clarification of previous post, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
thanks :)
Muffled
Posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
thanks Zazenduckie,
Im glad to know where you stand, and thats a good link.I dont want to change psychobabble, I only want to suggest research.
1) an analysis of posting frequency on the admin board vs. the supportive boards. hypothesis- when things get heated (i.e. more frequent posts) on the admin board, the frequency of posts on the supportive boards decreases.
2) Why do people post on psychobabble- hypothesis that there are distinct communities of psychobabblers, i.e. those who post to provide information, but rarely seek information. those that post to feel socially engaged and connected with others. those that post to provide emotional support. those that post who seek emotional support. those that post who seek treatment advice. those that post who want to engage in an esoteric intellectual dialog. etc
Id be interested to see how babblers see their own role on the site at any given time, and how they perceive their role changing. who they feel are their closest companions, and how their perception of belonging to the psychobabble community changes as they first start posting, and as they post more rarely. who are the long term babblers, and what are their motivations. are there patterns?
-lurp
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
> I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
OK, let's see if we can decide on a direction. Here are the proposals we have so far. Which would you all be willing to work on?
1. Group dynamics
> a. all the different people and the way they get on
> b. the interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions2. Surveys
> a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> b. left brain/right brain narratives
> c. level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> e. the quality of medical advice
> f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
> g. why people post on psychobabble
> h. how babblers see their role on the site, who they feel are their closest companions3. Correlations
> a. how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
4. Differences between boards
> a. any survey results
> b. post-length, posters per week, thread-length5. Differences over time
> a. if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> b. if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> c. if the group as a whole is changing6. Outcomes
> a. learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> b. or even just report on how reading/posting helps7. Administration
> a. the blocking system
> b. other aspectsThanks,
Bob
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 12, 2007, at 7:47:08
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
> > I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
>
> OK, let's see if we can decide on a direction. Here are the proposals we have so far. Which would you all be willing to work on?
>
> 1. Group dynamics
>
> > a. all the different people and the way they get on
> > b. the interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions
>
> 2. Surveys
>
> > a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> > b. left brain/right brain narratives
> > c. level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> > d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> > e. the quality of medical advice
> > f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
> > g. why people post on psychobabble
> > h. how babblers see their role on the site, who they feel are their closest companions
>
> 3. Correlations
>
> > a. how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
>
> 4. Differences between boards
>
> > a. any survey results
> > b. post-length, posters per week, thread-length
>
> 5. Differences over time
>
> > a. if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> > b. if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> > c. if the group as a whole is changing
>
> 6. Outcomes
>
> > a. learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> > b. or even just report on how reading/posting helps
>
> 7. Administration
>
> > a. the blocking system
> > b. other aspects
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Bob, what are you doing?!?! thinking about research at 2 in the morning?!? lol
I think I'd enjoy working on
1a
2abcfgh
3a (this is a big topic, but I think is very important to report to scientific community)
4a (4b is interesting to psychobabble community, but perhaps the community at large may find it less meaningful?)
5c (especially regarding things like outcome measures and survey results about 2c& 2d)
7a I can't work on it, unless someone gives me data to analyse, but I can't read the posts that surround blocking issues anymore. too much vitriol and strife.If I had to pick ONE topic to work on, It would be 3a. I think that we can figure out a way to use some kind of standardized measure (such as the CES-D or other self-report scales) and compare the posting behavior of those who score low vs. those who score high on some scale. We can come up with a little coding scale for how distressed they seem in a post vs. how confident/satisfied/happy they seem in a post.
I think that it will be important to separate support-seeking posts from support-giving posts. I know from my own behavior that I can write that I'm in agony, and then 5 minutes later, respond to someone else that I'm confident that they are going to feel better soon.
Positive psychology folks say that feeling good comes from doing good. I often "feel good" if I know that what I have written to another has helped them in some way. This may be one of the most important phenomena that sustains the psycho-babble community. The positive feeling we get from making a difference in someone else's life. For me it's important to have my questions answered about medication, or psychotherapy practices. It's helped me a lot to get pep talks when I'm feeling really low. On the average day, however, I get more positive feelings from supporting others rather than receiving support myself.
Now I go to work on my own research. whee...
-Ll
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 18:57:44
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 12, 2007, at 7:47:08
Posted by Honore on January 17, 2007, at 9:59:37
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 18:57:44
A project to determine how much the participation and type of participation of the administration/leader of an online MB affects participation might be interesting.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Honore on January 17, 2007, at 9:59:37
> A project to determine how much the participation and type of participation of the administration/leader of an online MB affects participation might be interesting.
Thanks, I guess that would be 7b?
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 27, 2007, at 16:03:23
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
I read this old but intriguing article and it led me to wonder about the role of gender at Babble.
The rules seem to be distinctly feminine at least as described in the article.
All 6 of the deputies are female. 37 % of the posters are male. .
What percentage of the blocks particularly the long blocks are given to male posters? It would be interesting to see if they are given more blocks or blocked with fewer warnings than posters who are identified as female.
Is there a higher turnover of male than female posters? Do more males try it and can't fit in (adapt to the feminine style outlined in the faq)?
There has been a slight increase in male posters since the first year you report statistics. What would account for that?
The article
Gender differences in computer-mediated communication
http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Gender_issues/cmc_and_gender.article
4. Different styles
As a result of these findings, I propose that women
and men have different characteristic online styles. By
characteristic styles, I do not mean that all or even the
majority of users of each sex exhibit the behaviors of each
style, but rather that the styles are recognizably -- even
steoretypically -- gendered. The male style is characterized
by adversariality: put-downs, strong, often contentions
assertions, lengthy and/or frequent postings, self-promotion,
and sarcasm....Less exclusively male-gendered but still characteristic
of male postings is an authoritative, self-confident stance
whereby men are more likely than women to represent themselves
as experts, e.g. in answering queries for information....The female-gendered style, in contrast, has two
aspects which typically co-occur: supportiveness and
attentuation. 'Supportiveness' is characterized by
expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community-building
activities that make other participants feel accepted and
welcome. 'Attenuation' includes hedging and expressing doubt,
apologizing, asking questions, and contributing ideas in the
form of suggestions.Entire lists can become gendered in their style as
well. It is tactily expected that members of the non-dominant
gender will adapt their posting style in the direction of the
style of the dominant gender...
Most members of the non-dominant gender on any
given list however end up style-mixing, that is, taking on
some attributes of the dominant style while preserving
features of their native style, e.g. with men often
preserving a critical stance and women a supportive one at
the macro-message level. This suggests that gendered styles
are deeply rooted -- not surprising, since they are learned
early in life -- and that some features are more resistant to
conscious reflection and modification than others...flaming is tolerated and
justified within a system of male values
One might even say
there is a striking *lack* of proscription against flaming,
with the exception of a few women-owned and women-oriented
lists.
Posted by Honore on January 27, 2007, at 21:41:50
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
why, was there a 7a?
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 0:41:59
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on January 27, 2007, at 21:41:50
> why, was there a 7a?
Yes, the whole list's at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/721552.html
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 28, 2007, at 8:23:43
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 0:41:59
Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 22:39:39
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? well there's me » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on January 28, 2007, at 8:23:43
> Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
Thanks for your proposal. Would you be willing to work on any that are already on the list?
Bob
Posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:01:03
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
I would have put the question of the administrator's role (and the blocking system, which has evolved into one of the main componenet of the Admin's role now) under the heading of group dynamics.
What's most interesting to me here is group dynamics in an online community.
I'm not sure how to capture other questions about it.
You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are-- ie those who have issues or concerns, those who primarily use the board to give support, those who are attracted to moments of crisis, etc (I'm not sure how to characterize types, that would really take more thought); or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question. The role of lurkers overall is a confusing one, worth study, but hard to capture. They almost seem not to exist-- yet their presence is known-, but they're really pretty much ignored-
They constitute the pool of future posters-- yet no one tries, for example, to engage their interest or to reach out to them.
There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why? if so, are there experiments we want to try to reverse this? or is there something in the natural life of groups that they may wax and wane or go out of existence?
I could go on.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 22:12:12
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:01:03
> You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are ... or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
Right, that would be #1. I guess there's overlap between 1a and 1b...
> How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question.
That would be a survey, so #2.
> There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why?
Those would be #1, too.
> if so, are there experiments we want to try to reverse this? or is there something in the natural life of groups that they may wax and wane or go out of existence?
An experiment would be an interesting *next* project. The natural life of groups I think would be beyond the scope of anything we do here...
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on February 7, 2007, at 10:22:32
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 22:39:39
> > Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
>
> Thanks for your proposal. Would you be willing to work on any that are already on the list?
>
> BobAre you declining to add my proposal to the list?
It didn't get a number unless the server ate it ;)What kind of work do you have in mind?
Posted by thuso on February 12, 2007, at 21:16:43
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
I've been hiding for awhile, but I don't mind helping. I can help both with the research and with any planning (live in DC). If we do any kind of survey, I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on February 12, 2007, at 21:16:43
> I've been hiding for awhile, but I don't mind helping. I can help both with the research and with any planning (live in DC). If we do any kind of survey, I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
Thanks! Would you prefer a survey project? If so, any particular surveys? The whole list's at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/721552.html
Bob
Posted by muffled on February 26, 2007, at 0:56:27
In reply to Re: what research to work on » thuso, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
Posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 7:36:57
In reply to Re: what research to work on » thuso, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
My proposal to study gender has not been added to the list and you did not answer my question. I feel castration anxiety. Please reassure me that all members are valued and none will be cut off.
How much data are you willing to share with others? It would be nice to have any statistics you have gathered or records you have kept before designing a new survey. Welcome back.
Your friend
Zazenduckie
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
In reply to Sharing data » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 7:36:57
I think we should use heirarchical linear modelling to examine whether posters who identify with one particular "board" on babble show improved outcome relative to other posters.
poster nested within board repeated measures, of course. that will let us look at outcomes for people who participate on different boards. Are there group differences, or do individuals account for most of the variability in outcome.
can you tell I've been stuck in statistics land too much?
(((((((data)))))))
but Dr. bob, before analyses can be run, we gotta get data.
welcome back, by the way. I missed you. and please change the picture. it makes me feel dizzy?
what are the Dependent Variables? what are the Independent variables. I LOVE me some statistics. Data don't lie. people do. If dependent variables are not quantified yet, then they will need to be coded. I think that this would be a real boon to the literature. I don't know how to write up a case report (unless it's my own, in which case I'd say psychobabble is a good thing)
now I'm just procrastinating
((((((student SPSS)))))))
I just splurged and got an upgrade to do advanced regression, mixed and linear models. now I'm super-woman. don't mess with me!
-Ll
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2007, at 21:23:53
In reply to oh, just to impress muffled..., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
Lurpsie well I'm messing with you as the pic is changed it's a baby do you know who's it is? Not mine but a posters. Love Phillipa
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.