![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 224 to 248 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 11:18:44
In reply to Re: Rewards...Bob, I babblemailed you » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 11:01:15
> > > I've been thinking more about the point system, and although I still feel very uncomfortable about it, I am beginning to see that there might be some value in it.
> > >
> > > The kind of post that is typical of the psychology board ... is usually about feelings, often quite extreme feelings, where the poster is looking for understanding, empathy and support. To rate this is, to my mind, not possible through the fixed, yes/no questions that would be required for a points system.
> > >
> > > I would like to suggest that the points system, if it is to be implemented, should be tried out first on the medication board, and only at a later stage, with much consultation with the users, on the psychology board.
> > >
> > > vwoolf
> >
> > Thanks for being willing to consider the potential benefits.
> >
> > If a poster is looking for understanding, empathy, and support, they could simply reward those who respond with understanding, empathy, and support:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955117.html
> >
> > That's a good point, thanks, lots of times it's better to roll out changes in stages.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > If someone routinely forgets to "thank" my posts while "thanking" others, I certainly note it and recognize I am unhelpful to that poster and think twice about responding to them.
> >
> > May I ask if you feel hurt by that?
> >
> > > Lots of things are a fact of life. Lots of things are true. I thought it had long since been decided on Babble that just because something was true, pointing it out was not necessarily either civil or kind.
> >
> > I agree, pointing out that someone hasn't been thanked many times might be considered uncivil.
> >
> > > Could you tell me how you'd feel if a poster rated everyone else on a thread helpful except you? If your ranking was lower than that of the average poster? Pretend you're one of the less confident and assured people when answering.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > I might post that I feel unappreciated and unhelpful. Someone else might post what they like about me. I might feel appreciated and reward them for being helpful to me. And then I might feel helpful to them.
> >
> > --
> >
> > > it would do the weeding out of less "helpful" responders that Dr. Bob seems to desire
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > > > I sense a lot of anxiety
> > >
> > > I don't sense any anxiety in our posts. I think that frustration is a more accurate description.
> >
> > For example, I sense anxiety about being hurt and being weeded out. I certainly do sense frustration, too!
> >
> > > I feel that hurting someone with a "reward/points" system would be awful. There are posters here who lived through something like that when they were in their parent's home and this could produce feelings that they have worked hard to overcome.
> > >
> > > fayeroe
> >
> > How might parents hurt a child with a reward system?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Bob, I babble mailed you about rewards hurting children. I won't post the specifics regarding your question here on the board. I hope you read it because it is a classic example of how parents can hurt their children by "handing out gold stars".
>
>So I remembered that you could use anything I wrote and decided to not babble mail you with the specifics regarding parents hurting children with a rewards system.
I saw two children who were deeply hurt by their parents as they grew up. One was rewarded and the other child was mostly ignored. They did not become close until they were grown men. (They are brothers.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
In reply to Re: Changed my mind. No babble mail to you, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2010, at 11:18:44
> Even someone as "wise and compassionate" as me* was often tempted to rate down people I disagreed with politically, for example. Sometimes, the rating system itself becomes a kind of meta-subject in a thread, to the detriment of the actual subject. But my main concern would be that some people would be better at working the system than others, resulting in an in group & an out group & surely that would be a major problem for a community like Psychobabble, which presents itself as inclusive and supportive. There are lots of examples around the internet of sites dominated by fanboys and fangirls, who create a kind of echo chamber effect that merely amplifies the prevailing belief system of the site, while excluding (either subtly or overtly) other points of view.
>
> chujoeI seem to need to continue to repeat that there wouldn't be a "rate down" option:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955563.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955953.htmlThat's a good point, posts about points, like posts about administrative issues, might need to be redirected.
I wonder if the point of view that a point system is a bad idea might be an example of a prevailing belief system amplified by an echo chamber effect. :-)
I'm not sure I'd consider it a problem if someone "worked the system" by helping lots of other posters.
And I don't know if there would be a single out-group. Poster X might not award points to poster Y, but poster Z might.
> > > If someone routinely forgets to "thank" my posts while "thanking" others, I certainly note it and recognize I am unhelpful to that poster and think twice about responding to them.
> >
> > May I ask if you feel hurt by that?
>
> I suppose I do feel hurt. How hurt might depend on context. Or maybe I always feel hurt, and just deny feelings of hurt and defend against them sometimes more than others. May I ask why you ask?Because I thought that if you accepted that you couldn't help everyone, then you might not feel too hurt.
> > I agree, pointing out that someone hasn't been thanked many times might be considered uncivil.
>
> Isn't reporting their rankings of "helpfulness" pointing it out? I consider it to be pointing it out.I don't. IMO, making information available is different than calling attention to it. But that's another good point, it might be important not to make the information too prominent. It wouldn't need to be public which posts were and weren't rewarded with points. And point totals wouldn't need to be in every signature. :-)
> "You aren't on your way to winning a gold star today" can be hurtful. "Johnny has ten gold stars this month and you only have one" can be hurtful.
I agree, those I'd consider calling attention to that information.
> it would feel to me that you were pointing out that you would prefer more helpful people to post here and I ought to leave.
>
> Gold stars can be withheld or granted based more on the feelings of the granter than the behavior of the grantee. The withholding of gold stars can be used as coercion to a sensitive child. Some children might grow to believe that they just aren't capable of gold stars. ... A child can believe they are being helpful, and be simply devastated at the end of they day when they didn't receive a gold star. Standards by other posters are unlikely to be as clearly outlined as a proper behavior modification program should be ... Peers might be more likely to reward those whom they like, those who are popular, those they perceive as powerful (if they wish to curry favor or appease, for example). Being popular and being helpful are not synonymous. I'm not even suggesting any maliciousness of motive. It's a fairly normal thing to reward our friends or people who agree with us.
>
> Are you now saying that you don't consider the act of caring enough to answer supportively helpful enough for this site?
>
> DinahAgain, the idea would be to help people feel good:
> > Getting points would just be a bonus reward, so you feel good about helping others out and you have tangible proof of your helpfulness. You can look at all the points you have and think, wow, I've helped a lot of people! Then you feel good about yourself.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/954811.html
I haven't meant to imply that posters aren't helpful enough or anyone ought to leave. I think the posters here are great! But that's yet another good point, "appreciated" might be better than "helpful". Someone might not appreciate being disagreed with, but hearing a different perspective might actually end up being more helpful.
I understand that, whatever the terminology, some posters might feel bad about their point total. For example, it could trigger old feelings of being unpopular. But some people feel bad about their weight, and the answer isn't not to have scales.
> > If people felt bad about not having many points, maybe others could help them with their answers, or not to feel so bad about it?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/953078.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/956078.htmlThis might also lead to discussion of feeling rejected, unpopular, and envious here. Those are sensitive topics, but talking about them might be productive.
--
> So I remembered that you could use anything I wrote and decided to not babble mail you
>
> fayeroeThat's just posts, not private communications.
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2010, at 13:57:53
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
>It wouldn't need to be public which posts were and weren't rewarded with points.
It wouldn't"need" to be? What does that mean? Who decides? You? Each poster?
Confused, as usual. If this is so, then why is there even a discussion here? If points weren't public, how would anyone know anything about them enough to feel hurt or good. etc? And if "private" (whatever that means) the why do it at all?
I don't get it.
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2010, at 17:09:45
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
> Because I thought that if you accepted that you couldn't help everyone, then you might not feel too hurt.
How hurt I would be would depend on how surprised I was at the poster's choices, not on how I feel about myself. If it was someone I know doesn't care overmuch for me, I'd shrug my shoulders and tell myself that at least I tried to be supportive. If it was a surprise, it would hurt a lot more.
Of course I accept that I can't help everyone. What would hurt is if someone pointed out that I wasn't helpful (by rating others helpful and excluding me) when I tried to be helpful. Maybe it's the way my mama raised me. I was taught that one showed appreciation to everyone who tried to be helpful. If I failed to do so, I'd have had to have a long discussion with her about empathy before she let me out in public again.
I dunno. Maybe other people's mamas didn't stress this point so other people would feel differently about it. Perhaps your mama taught you different mores, so you don't see it as an issue to show appreciation to only some of the people who care enough to take time out of their days to try to be helpful to you.
What did your mother teach you about showing appreciation to some but not others of the people who give you a gift, depending on whether or not the gift was to your taste? If she didn't teach you that value, what value did she teach in its place? I'd like to understand how different people come to have different standards, in the interests of mutual understanding and better communications.
Posted by BayLeaf on July 31, 2010, at 22:50:22
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
This is too confusing.
Instead of describing what this *isn't* going to to by replying to posts, how about you tell us about the list of requirements that will go into the design?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
In reply to Re: Appreciation » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2010, at 13:57:53
> >It wouldn't need to be public which posts were and weren't rewarded with points.
>
> It wouldn't"need" to be? What does that mean? Who decides? You? Each poster?
>
> Confused, as usual. If this is so, then why is there even a discussion here? If points weren't public, how would anyone know anything about them enough to feel hurt or good. etc? And if "private" (whatever that means) the why do it at all?
>
> I don't get it.It could be completely private, and posters could still feel good about having been appreciated by others:
> > Getting points would just be a bonus reward, so you feel good about helping others out and you have tangible proof of your helpfulness. You can look at all the points you have and think, wow, I've helped a lot of people! Then you feel good about yourself.
But I think there's something to be said for it not being completely private. If people can see which posts a poster appreciates, that could help them help that poster in the future. And if they can see the point totals of other posters, that would give them a context for their own point total.
The more settings there are, the more complicated it would be, but one way to do it would be to give each poster these options:
1. giving points
a. give points and show which posts receive them
b. give points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't give points2. receiving points
a. receive points and show posts which receive them
b. receive points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't receive points3. showing total
a. show total
b. show total only if in top 10
c. don't show point totalThe initial poster would have to give (1a or 1b) and the appreciated poster would have to receive (2a or 2b) for points to be awarded at all.
The initial poster would have to give and show (1a) and the appreciated poster would have to receive and show (2a) for it to show which post the initial poster appreciated.
Maybe a separate page would show the posters who agreed to be shown. 3b (only the top 10) could be the default. Even if a poster's point total weren't shown, they would still be able to find out for themselves where they stood relative to others.
How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2010, at 8:50:30
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
> But I think there's something to be said for it not being completely private. If people can see which posts a poster appreciates, that could help them help that poster in the future. And if they can see the point totals of other posters, that would give them a context for their own point total.
Those are both things that I object to, so while something can certainly be said *of* if, I'm not sure if I see anything to say *for* it.
I'm sorry you chose not to respond to my post. I hope you didn't see it as an insult. I saw it more as an effort to feel more positively about you by understanding you better. An experiment in sociology or anthropology or something. Not unlike what you do with us. And while I know that you aren't here for support and education, but for Administration, if those questions are part of Administration on one side, aren't they part of Administration on both?
I've seen you twice in person. Both times it struck me that you were both polite and very... I can't think of the word. You were interested in other people and their points of view. You were careful to phrase yourself so as to be respectful of them. You were even adept at responding to me on occasion in such a way that I understood that I had been less than tactful, without ever making me feel bad about being less than tactful. Yes, you were very polite, tactful, interested in others, and very very civil.
Which is why I really really *really* don't understand why you don't understand what I'm saying here.
Unless your proposed changes, which I confess are still a bit too complicated for me to grasp, are intended to indicate that you *do* understand how this could be hurtful to posters?
I like the opt out, of course.
But what I'd really like is for you never to show on any given thread which people were thanked. On the one hand, I'd like the opportunity to post *my* appreciation to anyone who wasn't appreciated by the originating poster (as long as they were civil of course). On the other hand, it might cause a lot of bad feelings among posters, which would decrease the overall civility on board. And it might give me information I'd just as well not know about the originating poster.
Especially if I don't understand what values other people were taught on the topic of appreciation, if they weren't the ones taught by my mother.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2010, at 9:04:19
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
Overall if you want to award points, I think I'd rather see them awarded purely for number of posts. At least there's no judgment involved in that.
And to be honest, if this were done, I'd probably opt for seeing as much information as I could. Yes, it might lead to hurt feelings for me, or angry feelings on my part towards the original poster, on my behalf or the behalf of others. But if the information is going to be there for the world to see, I just as well know the worst or best myself. Yes, it might change my feelings about other posters. But oddly enough, not in the way you seem to wish. Although I'm guessing you have some positive spin on how it can be helpful to know whether original posters share my values or have different ones altogether on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. You always seem to have positive spin on the most surprising (to me of course) things.
Posted by chujoe on August 1, 2010, at 9:17:49
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
>>The more settings there are, the more complicated it would be, but one way to do it would be to give each poster these options:
1. giving points
a. give points and show which posts receive them
b. give points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't give points2. receiving points
a. receive points and show posts which receive them
b. receive points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't receive points3. showing total
a. show total
b. show total only if in top 10
c. don't show point totalThe initial poster would have to give (1a or 1b) and the appreciated poster would have to receive (2a or 2b) for points to be awarded at all.
The initial poster would have to give and show (1a) and the appreciated poster would have to receive and show (2a) for it to show which post the initial poster appreciated.
Maybe a separate page would show the posters who agreed to be shown. 3b (only the top 10) could be the default. Even if a poster's point total weren't shown, they would still be able to find out for themselves where they stood relative to others.
How does that sound?<<
It sounds like you have been reading Kafka. I mean, invisible points? It's a stroke of genius worthy of the master!
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by chujoe on August 1, 2010, at 9:17:49
> your proposed changes ... are still a bit too complicated for me to grasp
>
> I like the opt out, of course.
>
> But what I'd really like is for you never to show on any given thread which people were thanked.With those changes, whether that were shown wouldn't be up to me.
> Overall if you want to award points, I think I'd rather see them awarded purely for number of posts. At least there's no judgment involved in that.
Thank-yous can mean more when they involve judgment. :-)
> I'm guessing you have some positive spin on how it can be helpful to know whether original posters share my values or have different ones altogether on a topic that is near and dear to my heart.
>
> DinahWould you rather not know their values?
--
> It sounds like you have been reading Kafka. I mean, invisible points? It's a stroke of genius worthy of the master!
>
> chujoeThink of it like your money in the bank. It's "invisible" to others, but not to you.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2010, at 8:49:35
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
> Would you rather not know their values?
Well I'm trying to have them explained to me, but you refuse to answer. I'd be happy to ask anyone who thanked some but not all of those who tried to be helpful to them, if you would prefer that to answering yourself.
I think it's pointless for me to continue this conversation. I bow to my feelings of impotence.
Posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
By basic notion regarding any system of points or rewards, visible or invisible, or recorded only by the hand of God in some celestial ledger, is this: Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
Posted by BayLeaf on August 2, 2010, at 22:11:03
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
Nicely put.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:45:33
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
The greatest politeness
Is free of all formality.
Perfect conduct
Is free of concern.
Perfect wisdom is unplanned.
Perfect love is without demonstrations.
Perfect sincerity offers
No guarantee.From Apologies by Chuang Tzu
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 7:58:32
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
I would like to voice my protest at the installation of a rating system of posts. I don't feel it's appropriate at a mental health forum, particularly on boards like Psychology and Social, no matter how they are cloaked. I have attempted to make light of the situation on the Social board with the "how can we get more babblers babbling?" thread - dancing emoticons and coupons were a joke, btw.
Just wanted to make sure this Who in Whoville was heard.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by chujoe on August 4, 2010, at 9:10:21
In reply to Re: Karma is not a vending machine » chujoe, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:45:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
> Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
It's an inexact vending machine. You don't necessarily get compassion out. But the more compassion that goes around, the more likely some is to come around.
Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
Bob
Posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
I agree with that, Bob - it could be helpful. The more conscious we become of ourselves, the more able we will be to make clear ethical choices in our lives. As long as it is not invasive and unsafe, I think it could be a valid idea.
I am not sure why this discussion has become so polarised and emotional.
Posted by sigismund on August 6, 2010, at 3:09:44
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
I must have missed something.
I don't see the connection between civility and compassion.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:32:50
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
It wouldn't bother you if the original poster found other posts on the thread helpful but not yours? How about if the original poster found every other post on the thread helpful, but not yours? You wouldn't feel any different about the original poster? Would you feel as likely to respond to the original poster?
It wouldn't bother you if you had one of the lower helpfulness ratings on the board of those who posted about the same number of times?
I suppose it would be a way of people expressing their negative feelings about a poster without being "uncivil" by Bob's standards. He'd probably like not giving so many pbc's.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:57:12
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Actually I suppose an administrator might see that as a positive thing. Instead of a poster asking another poster not to post to them, or telling them their post is a load of hot air, which wouldn't be civil by your standards, the poster could just choose not to mark them as helpful while marking others as helpful. The point would be made without it being uncivil by your standards.
Under the radar, so to speak.
You could even suggest it in your future pbc's. "If you don't find a poster helpful, please use the ratings system to tell them so, instead of being insensitive by saying it in words."
Although if you find it so normal and ok to tell posters they find some responses helpful and others not so helpful through a rating system, why isn't it ok to say it out loud? According to you, it's perfectly ok to indicate that some gifts are appreciated while others are not. Do you see a significant difference between telling them in a ratings system and telling them with words?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
I've never actually found the prospect of being graded or having a ledger of my good qualities all that helpful. Even if I score well, it's unpleasant to be constantly scored. And it's not like there is a guarantee of a good ledger. Are you're saying a bad ledger would help those with poor self esteem?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 9:07:39
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Eh, never mind.
As you say, Babble can't be right for everyone. I suppose as someone with an academic interest in group dynamics, you might find the results interesting. I care about Babble so I hope more people are attracted by the possibility of earning points (and venting frustration) with the ratings system than are hurt by it or put off by it.
And I hope the net effect on civility is positive rather than negative.
Best of luck with all this, I'm bowing out of a discussion I can't possibly hope to influence.
Posted by chujoe on August 6, 2010, at 9:12:22
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
I'm the one who brought up Karma & compassion because I think they make a more valid framework for interaction than civility and different grades of helpfulness. I agree with what Bob says above that the more compassion you spread around the more you're likely to have some splash back in your direction, but I think that's very unlike any sort of vending machine, exact or inexact. I'd go so far to say that expecting compassion in return for one's compassionate acts disqualifies the act as compassionate. Real compassion is unmotivated. And that's why the day that any sort of rating system appears on Psychobabble will be the last day I participate here. And please don't anyone take that as a threat or think that it means I don't like you, whatever your views on a rating system might be.
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:10:31
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> > Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
>
> It's an inexact vending machine. You don't necessarily get compassion out. But the more compassion that goes around, the more likely some is to come around.
>
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
>
> BobYou are going to rate posters as compassionate or compassionate? A ledger? What are you going to do with a ledger? Like in heaven? When St. Peter keeps a checklist of sinners and do-gooders?
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.