![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 184 to 208 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 15:13:15
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:05:41
> > "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
>
> I avoided a deer the other day while driving. It remained motionless in my lane as I headed right for it at 50 miles per hour. I could have hit it if I wanted to. In the long run, however, I believe that such an exposure would have left both me and the deer destitute of future adventures.
>
> I think I understand the lesson of Helen Keller's allegory. However, my guess is that she would have been horrified to learn that someone died because they were intent on following her words to the letter such that they forgo avoiding danger and neglect working towards establishing a balance that the gift of common sense affords us.
>
> I'm just being difficult. I am surprised, though, that Helen Keller should offer such a polar perspective as a lesson.
>
>
> - ScottScott, if one takes (or misinterprets) such a statement literally, or doesn't understand the writer's intent, so be it.
When I first read it, I thought of the folks here who have so often and so passionately spoken about the need for safety in Babble. I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:19:09
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by sigismund on November 5, 2010, at 14:09:55
> Twinleaf's case has been the saddest of my time at Babble,
It affected me similarly.
> I suppose because so evidently she has tried to be a kind, considerate and supportive poster.
I felt that way about Twinleaf as well.
I don't feel comfortable with the manner in which civility is sought on Psycho-Babble. Sometimes I feel as if the quest for civility takes precedence over the health of the community, as it overshadows content. Stoic is a word that comes to mind as I ponder the implementation of civility.
I hope something changes so that PB attracts and retains more members of the posting community.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:29:25
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 15:13:15
> I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?
Perhaps.
I guess it depends upon the etiology of the agoraphobia and how it should be treated at each point along the path to recovery. I am not familiar enough with the treatment protocols devised for agoraphobia, but it is conceivable that exposing someone to a situation prematurely might do more harm than good. What has your your investigation of the medical literature regarding agoraphobia taught you?
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 20:22:14
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 5, 2010, at 15:29:25
Scott, it has taught me that I have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. I honestly cannot follow your thinking, and to be honest, I have no desire to try.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 22:05:25
In reply to Re: Babble :( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 5, 2010, at 7:49:53
> It isn't as personal as some people seem to think it is.
I guess that what I see a lot of is different people saying basically the same thing. Some are warned and / or blocked for what they said, and others are not so much as warned. The words on the page are the same. When inconsistencies of this sort are brought to his attention he declines to attend to them.
There might be a more charitable interpretation than to think that his decision is based on who the poster is...
Can you think of one?
Posted by Zeba on November 6, 2010, at 1:11:43
In reply to time to say goodbye..., posted by twinleaf on October 30, 2010, at 9:08:22
I am really sorry that I suggested twinleaf not post about issues on Administration. I used to post in the past too, but my assessment was that certain people got blocked no matter how hard they worked to avoid blocks. Others could say just about anything include insulting remarks, and they were given wide laditude. I always appreciated her posts on psychology too, and from rskontos too. You may not remember me as I have not been around in a very long time and will not be returning here either myself. I don't care for how people are treated here.
signed, Zeba who used to go by other names, and I don't even remember what names I used anymore and don't really care.
> All of the blocks I have received have been, at their core, either because I have objected to long blocks themselves, or because I was critical about how the Facebook/Twitter issue was handled.. These were not issues involving a lack of civility to anyone, Bob included. I am apparently considered dangerous, not because I am uncivil, but because I continue to express views opposite to Bob's. They are my own beliefs and principles about Psychobabble; I would not be maintaining my integrity if I changed them. I really did not intend or want to become the poster whose every sentence is scanned for incivilities which are never there except in the mind of the moderator. I have been a caring and civil poster and do not at all deserve to be treated this way. I also did not want or intend to become the poster singled out in advance for "more blocks", which in my case would be a year long.
>
> Babble would not have lost so much of its vitality and strong sense of community if the members' moderate, flexible views about civility, blocks and social networking had been taken into consideration. Instead, it has been shaped progressively into an overly-managed, non-democratic forum. In the process, it has lost much of its social relevance and personal impact.
>
> I'm personally very sorry to see that happen, I feel that I did my small part as best I could to help prevent that outcome. But now, it's time to leave. I am going to miss many, many posters, so I won't name them in case I leave out someone important to me. Many of them aren't actively posting any longer, but perhaps they are still reading. I have much to thank people for here, including learning about the physiological basis of depression, as well as about TMS and tianeptine, which were clinically very helpful to me. Even more, I am grateful for the support and mutual sharing which took place on Psychology. In any event, I wish everyone the very best, now and in the future. I'll plan to drop by from time to time.
>
> 'Bye all.
Posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 7:28:36
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 20:22:14
> Scott, it has taught me that I have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. I honestly cannot follow your thinking, and to be honest, I have no desire to try.
Perhaps you underestimated the depth of the waters here.
I merely was attempting to answer the question you posed to me in a previous post:
"I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968658.html\
I find your analogy regarding agoraphobia to be inadequate to support your various theses. The therapeutic milieu of therapy for agoraphobia begins in the safety of the home and often employs imagery rather than physical exposure. Acute exposure too early in the recovery process has been found to be counterproductive and can actually further sensitize the sufferer to phobic stimuli. Desensitization is a systematic process.
Oops. Perhaps your question was rhetorical?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 7:34:08
In reply to Re: Babble :(, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2010, at 22:05:25
In the example you gave, you said that it was an older post that was brought to his attention.
Dr. Bob sometimes reads the board more carefully than other times. Sometime he doesn't seem to be directly on board at all. Even if he opens a post, say to redirect it, it doesn't mean he's read every word. I've read posts and not noticed unasterisked words before. Like anyone else, he probably has variations in his attention level and definitely in his time available. As you said, he doesn't go too far back in his pbc's and blocks. I don't really have an objection to that. I wouldn't want to suddenly see a very old post of mine receive a pbc. I never did mind having a statute of limitations for all but the worst of crimes.
I'm not saying that's always the reason. Perhaps Dr. Bob does sometimes take context into account. Perhaps he does take history into account.
There will always be some inconsistency in application. And Dr. Bob is not as consistent as I might prefer.
I'm not saying he's perfect. I don't think he's an angel or a devil. I know people are hurt here, and not just by Dr. Bob, but by their interactions with fellow posters. I'm sorry when people are hurt. I'm guessing Dr. Bob is too. It's just that it isn't one sided. As they tell us in therapy, it's not just the facts, it's also the interpretations we put on those facts. Interpretations that are formed by prior experience and native temperament, etc. And yes, of course that's also true of Bob.
Someone reminded me recently that *sometimes* when I've been hurt by Dr. Bob, it isn't that Dr. Bob is being *entirely* unreasonable. Sometimes it has to do with my own expectations. Expectations about authority in general, and possibly expectations about how Dr. Bob *should* treat me. I might think they're reasonable expectations. I still do really. But imagine how hard it must be to be one administrator, dealing with one board, yet dealing with the pasts and expectations of so many posters. He could say one thing, and people could hear a great number of things.
It's my experience that it isn't really personal with Bob, yes. History may play a part in interpretation, but with Dr. Bob history (negative or positive) takes a back seat to what a poster is doing now. For all I disagree with what happened with Twinleaf in this thread, I don't think that Bob was trying to persecute anyone. I think he was just being, as usual, more strict about interpreting something that a person has just been warned (blocked) for. I think if someone has been blocked for posts protesting (or being critical of) Bob, it might be better to avoid making comments about Bob for a while. Or to have a civility buddy review those comments. If someone has been blocked for posts about another poster, it may be better to avoid speaking to or about the other poster, or to have a civility buddy review comments about the other poster.
Would it surprise you to hear that I really wish there was more balance on Admin at least in part because I'd prefer to be mad at him myself sometimes without feeling the need to be fair to him?
Posted by ron1953 on November 6, 2010, at 8:34:51
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 7:28:36
> > Scott, it has taught me that I have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. I honestly cannot follow your thinking, and to be honest, I have no desire to try.
>
> Perhaps you underestimated the depth of the waters here.
>
> I merely was attempting to answer the question you posed to me in a previous post:
>
> "I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?"
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968658.html\
>
> I find your analogy regarding agoraphobia to be inadequate to support your various theses. The therapeutic milieu of therapy for agoraphobia begins in the safety of the home and often employs imagery rather than physical exposure. Acute exposure too early in the recovery process has been found to be counterproductive and can actually further sensitize the sufferer to phobic stimuli. Desensitization is a systematic process.
>
> Oops. Perhaps your question was rhetorical?
>
>
> - ScottObfuscation is what it is.
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:46:30
In reply to Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 5, 2010, at 13:13:29
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
The problem is that that quote could be used to talk about those who are afraid to post on Babble as well as those who prefer safety on Babble. I wouldn't urge those who are afraid to post on babble because the civility rules upset them, to post anyway to experience the daring adventure.
That's the problems with quotes. They can be a double edged sword.
Plus, of course, they are the belief of one person. I don't happen to think life is a daring adventure or nothing. I think it can be wise to respect fears. The fact that Helen Keller said otherwise doesn't change that. I don't think that consistency is a bad thing either. Perhaps embracing consistency to the point of ignoring anything else might be. But that would be a judgment call.
I also think that wanting a safe environment on Babble doesn't have to do *only* with fear. It can also have to do with choosing the environment one wishes to be in. I'm all in favor of people choosing what environment they wish to be in. Were Babble not to my taste, I'd post elsewhere.
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:51:26
In reply to Re: Food for thought » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:46:30
I should of course add that quotes can be a way of saying what one wishes to say in a way that someone else said very well.
It doesn't add weight that it is a quote, IMO. It doesn't detract it either. It's just another way of saying something.
I'm sure that a quote could be found to say just about anything. If I quoted "Greed is good." it would say a great deal about me, my beliefs, my priorities, and my attitudes. It wouldn't say nearly as much about greed and it's relative worth in an objective sense.
Posted by SLS on November 6, 2010, at 9:26:10
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by ron1953 on November 6, 2010, at 8:34:51
> > > Scott, it has taught me that I have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. I honestly cannot follow your thinking, and to be honest, I have no desire to try.
> >
> > Perhaps you underestimated the depth of the waters here.
> >
> > I merely was attempting to answer the question you posed to me in a previous post:
> >
> > "I wonder what these folks would say to support a person with Agoraphobia; would they tell her to stay home and be safe?"
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968658.html\
> >
> > I find your analogy regarding agoraphobia to be inadequate to support your various theses. The therapeutic milieu of therapy for agoraphobia begins in the safety of the home and often employs imagery rather than physical exposure. Acute exposure too early in the recovery process has been found to be counterproductive and can actually further sensitize the sufferer to phobic stimuli. Desensitization is a systematic process.
> >
> > Oops. Perhaps your question was rhetorical?
> >
> >
> > - Scott> Obfuscation is what it is.
Obfuscation?
I understand the meaning of the word, but I don't see how asking your question was a purposeful obfuscation of your own arguments. That would be silly. I know how you love words. Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining your choice of diction here.
Or not.
How are you liking this adversarial intercourse? Is this the type of interaction you so ardently advocate for the health of the Pyscho-Babble community? Personally, I find it to be ugly.
I will pause here to reflect upon my motivations to post such ugliness.
Okay. I'm all done reflecting.
Have a nice day.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 9:51:52
In reply to Re: Food for thought, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 8:51:26
I shouldn't have said that. I'm trying to back out of my involvement on this thread.
Posted by ron1953 on November 6, 2010, at 12:45:14
In reply to I'm sorry, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 9:51:52
with one last quote:
"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun" - Billy Joel
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Free on October 22, 2010, at 23:42:21
> the reasons for reduced rate of posting
Free, thanks for recapping. I've tried to consolidate and categorize the reasons that have been suggested:
A. Issues about which nothing can be done
3) More alternatives on the internet
10) Can't control who posts
30) Posts can be used for research (since they're public)B. Issues only I can do something about
5) Site old fashioned
6) Facebook and Twitter issues/taciturnity/not acknowledging suggestions x 2
11) Can't delete own posts
29) Posts turn up in google searchesC. Issues only posters can do something about
8.5) Fighting/cliques/the atmosphere/not being objective x 2
11.5) Not enough joking, positives
16) Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
27) Spam-like postsD. Issues both I and posters can do something about
1) People left/new people aren't coming/inactivity x 3
4) Babble gets fewer hits on googleWe can both try to engage new people who are coming and to recruit new people, including by spreading the word online.
7) Blocks x 10
I could block less/more predictably/for shorter periods/more respectfully.
Posters could be more civil.9) Too many redirects
I could redirect less.
Posters could stay on-topic more.33) Don't like getting blamed for others' blocks
I could see posters as uninfluenced by each other.
Posters could help each other avoid blocks.So blocks were the issue mentioned most often. x 10 = 10 times. I haven't finished this thread yet, I just thought I'd pause here and respond to the recap.
Bob
Posted by Free on November 6, 2010, at 18:09:14
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
Bob... "It's all part of interconnectedness."
Do I see you on a path to facilitating the interconnectedness? If so, I will walk with you. :-)
BTW, math+sensitivity+street is a great formula. :)
Posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2010, at 16:59:03
Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dr. Bob, posted by Maxime on November 6, 2010, at 23:06:07
> Dr. Bob, I think redirects are necessary to keep the medication board on track. What is the point of having the other boards if everything gets dicussed on the med board where it doesn't belong? If I am visiting PB for information on meds, I don't want to have to wade through all the threads that shouldn't be there to begin with.
I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Maxime, posted by ed_uk2010 on November 7, 2010, at 3:18:57
> Do I see you on a path to facilitating the interconnectedness? If so, I will walk with you. :-)
>
> BTW, math+sensitivity+street is a great formula. :)
>
> FreeOK, let's walk together. :-)
> I think the problem here is that threads sometimes get redirected to boards which get very little traffic. Personally, I think there are too many boards. Faith, Health and Politics could all be merged with social ie. to create a general non-psych-med discussion board.
>
> ed_uk2010I see the problem as how much traffic the other boards get. If there were more interest in those topics, then those threads wouldn't die (as soon).
I'd be open to redirecting Health to Social, what do others think?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:35:38
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
I'd be ok with combining Health and Social.
I'd rather Faith and Politics be kept separate.
Posted by muffled on November 7, 2010, at 11:47:58
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:32:46
Are you willing to admit you were wrong bout some what you did?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 18:41:37
> It's more like a teeny weeny clique.
I'd like to ask those who care about ron -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Protests haven't proved all that effective at preventing blocks and may even encourage behaviors that lead to them. You have the right to protest (as long as you're civil), but if your goal is to prevent more blocks, please consider a different strategy.
Bob
--
> You have the power to pick your battles.
>
> Battling Dr. Bob on PB Admin? Generally results in frustration and effects on policy ranging from
> - none
> - the exact opposite of what you intended to accomplish
> - some other seemingly random policy change that isn't what you wanted.
>
> Choose wisely!http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/893534.html
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
In reply to Re: another block, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 2010, at 11:48:01
> I'd like to ask those who care about {poster} -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block.
Would you consider changing the standard working to "I'd like to ask those who would like to see Poster be able to continue posting (or avoid a block) -- or object to blocks in general -- to do what they can to try to prevent another block."
I think asking those who care about a poster to do this makes a lot of assumptions about what those who care about a poster think is appropriate for that poster.
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
In reply to How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:01
Speaking of a change in wording, I meant "in the best interests of" not "appropriate".
Posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 12:07:24
In reply to Re: How about a small change in wording?, posted by Dinah on November 7, 2010, at 11:57:51
Of course, in keeping with what I said earlier in the thread, what I'd really like to see if I had my druthers (which clearly I do not) is something more like:
"I'd prefer Poster to choose to remain at Babble and continue to post. I'd like to ask those of you who agree with my goals to encourage Poster to make that choice by rephrasing or retracting the above statement. Perhaps one of you could also volunteer to be Poster's civility buddy, to help Poster avoid future rephrasings and retractions."
To me, that helps put responsibility where it actually lies.
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.