![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 61. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on June 26, 2004, at 23:47:53
In reply to Always good to know what form help will take, posted by Shar on June 26, 2004, at 23:29:24
Is it just me or does it seem like men get away with "incivility" (in whatever form) more than women around here? I hope it's ok for me to raise this topic. I'm genuinely concerned, not just attacking for the sake of it. (I'll admit I'm not a big fan of sexism.)
Posted by pegasus on June 27, 2004, at 0:00:24
In reply to Dr Bob, please help, posted by pegasus on June 24, 2004, at 12:36:57
I'm still confused about why Bob is not choosing to give any kind of warning or suggestion to fires. Even if fires didn't intend to hurt people, people were being hurt. The usual guideline is not to post anything that might lead to others feeling accused or put down. Since people *are* feeling accused and put down by fires' posts, then doesn't it follow that he's posting things that might lead people to have those feelings? Thereby warranting the warning? Am I missing something? Is Bob implying that there is something wrong with those of us who feel that way rather than with fires' posts? It's hard to imagine, but I can't figure out how else to make sense of his inaction here.
pegasus
Posted by shadows721 on June 27, 2004, at 2:15:57
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, please help, posted by pegasus on June 27, 2004, at 0:00:24
I like everyone and don't want anyone to leave or be hurt. I tried one last time to reach out. Now, I wait and maybe... I will continue to dream of a happy Psycho Babble world again. Maybe, it's time for me to throw in the towel...
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2004, at 9:17:40
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, please help, posted by shadows721 on June 27, 2004, at 2:15:57
No throwing of Babble towel, please. Many have posted about just ignoring certain threads or posters. It's too bad there is not an "ignore member" function here like there is on chat (although I've never tried that to see how it works). But that might make it easier for we moths.
So, throw in the thread towel, or throw in the smoking one (or smoking jacket...;) but please stay with us. I'll help you ignore if you help me?
gg
PS, I admire your caring concern and tenacity. I can see you truly wish to understand and help. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:38:01
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, please help, posted by pegasus on June 27, 2004, at 0:00:24
> "Please respect and do not put down another's diagnosis and medically guided treatments. These treatments may include therapy and/or medication(s)."
>
> shadows721Thanks for helping with this. But would the above mean that negative posts about Effexor would no longer be allowed? Medications do have potential side effects, and I think people should be able to discuss them...
> I'm still confused about why Bob is not choosing to give any kind of warning or suggestion to fires. Even if fires didn't intend to hurt people, people were being hurt. The usual guideline is not to post anything that might lead to others feeling accused or put down. Since people *are* feeling accused and put down by fires' posts, then doesn't it follow that he's posting things that might lead people to have those feelings?
>
> pegasusI see how that's confusing. But I don't think it would work to consider something uncivil whenever someone else felt hurt. For example, someone on Effexor might feel hurt by posts about its risks, but shouldn't those risks be able to be discussed?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 10:52:09
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:38:01
That you don't see the difference between saying that CBT isn't your treatment of choice but that you're happy it's working for the other poster, that talk therapy has significant limitations but that you realize many people have benefited from it, that Effexor caused horrendous side effects in you but that you realize many are helped by it, and saying that dissociative disorders are a fraud.
The latter is saying something about the "posters" not the treatment. It is saying that the "posters" are lying, delusional (in fact fires used the simile of a schizophrenic who thinks that i don't recall what healed him), or whatever.
But you don't get it. Whether it's lack of belief yourself or lack of training or whatever. I sort of think it's lack of belief. But for whatever reason, I don't think dissociative "disorders" are a safe topic for this board because every dissociative person's worst nightmare can come true here without sanction. I suggest that everybody be *extremely* cautious in discussing this on board.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 11:14:32
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:38:01
>
> I see how that's confusing. But I don't think it would work to consider something uncivil whenever someone else felt hurt. For example, someone on Effexor might feel hurt by posts about its risks, but shouldn't those risks be able to be discussed?
>
> Bob
I see this as similar to someone saying "You shoudl never take effexor cos its rubbish, what you should have is talk therapy"
Its one thing to say "CBT has its drawback,s I find those drawback sto be x y and z", in the same way people say "I tried effexor but the side effect x and side effect y was too much for me"..What the person on psychology was saying is that talk therapy is pointless, he wasn't discussing problems he had found with it.. Just point blankly saying it was, bascially, c**p.
there is a HUGE difference here.. please try and see it.
Nikki and her pile of two pennies.
Posted by tabitha on June 28, 2004, at 13:15:12
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 11:14:32
Adding my 2c to Dinah and Nikki, couldn't you word it so it's OK to talk about drawbacks, or bad personal experiences with a treatment, but not OK to say a treatment is worthless, or suggest a patient is the victim of a hoax/fraud? Especially if it's an accepted DSM-listed diagnosis. That just seems ridiculous, to be allowed to post such extreme negative views on a support site, where people are trying to get away from the usual denial and stigma associated with mental 'illness' and treatment.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2004, at 13:42:03
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by tabitha on June 28, 2004, at 13:15:12
There is a lot of value in the above posts from Dinah, Nikki, and Tab. What I see is their ability to say something negative or contradictory to someone's experience, without denigrating that someone or their own experience.
As a T in training, I try to be really careful when responding to posts about others' therapy or therapists. I recognize that I may have concerns, but it is THEIR therapy. I can give them information about what I believe, what my own experience has been, or what the literature says, but I still need to respect their own experiences. And I also try to wait to be "asked" for my opinion rather than just to post an emphatic and sweeping "slam" of one approach.
I'm certainly not saying that I am the most civil, and responsible poster. But to add to the discussion of adding a new clause, what I would like to see is perhaps something which emphasizes that it's okay to disagree with the board's "conventional wisdom", but at all times, posters' rights to choose their own paths to wellness, their own experiences, practices, and beliefs must be respected as well. Thus, a poster should not appear to "pass judgement" on another approach or another poster's beliefs, but rather should frame their response or post as their own beliefs, experiences, or knowledge.
I'm sure that can be worded better. But that is the gist that I would like to see posters follow more consistently.
Thanks for your consideration,
gg
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 13:51:25
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by gardenergirl on June 28, 2004, at 13:42:03
Someone being banned or PBC'd for saying negative things about effexor.
Not in an "i had x experience so think effexor is evil" but in an "effexor is simply evil and it says so on the internet" kind of way.
I'm so sure I remember that.. anyone else??
Nikki
Posted by gabbix2 on June 28, 2004, at 14:54:16
In reply to I'm sure I remember.., posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 13:51:25
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 16:34:08
In reply to This one?. » NikkiT2, posted by gabbix2 on June 28, 2004, at 14:54:16
Phew..
So pleased I wasnt hallucinating during that time.
Dr Bob.. seems we have precedent.. So??
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on June 28, 2004, at 17:02:44
In reply to Thats the bobby! » gabbix2, posted by NikkiT2 on June 28, 2004, at 16:34:08
Yes, Dr. Bob, please explain your inconsistency.
Posted by shadows721 on June 28, 2004, at 19:54:17
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 10:38:01
No, there could still be debates on anything. But, debates shouldn't "imply" a put down.
For example, "Anyone taking (drug X or therapy X) is just putting more cash in Y's pocket.
That's implying a put down to those choosing to use drug X or therapy X.
Implying is just a more deceitful way of putting one down. I feel a lot of what went on on the Psych board recently was done in this method. As many of us saw, one can put one down directly or indirectly in a post. An indirect put down is just as painful as a direct one.
So, I think the word "implying" in regard to put downs could be added to the current guidelines.
Furthermore, how would the above stmt be educational or supportive? It appears to be just judgmental. I could see where people taking drug X or therapy X would feel really put down, hurt, and angry.
A better way of stating the above to not put down someone would be as follows:
I feel that drug X/therapy X was a not useful for me.
orIt has been my experience that drug X/therapy X was ineffective.
orI don't have experience with drug X/therapy X, so please tell me about your experience.
What do you think?
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2004, at 4:07:46
In reply to new clause in civility guidelines, posted by shadows721 on June 28, 2004, at 19:54:17
> dissociative disorders are a fraud.
>
> Dinah> talk therapy is pointless
> it was ... c**p.
>
> Nikki> a treatment is worthless... a patient is the victim of a hoax/fraud
>
> tabitha> this demonic antidepressant, Effexor
>
> Clayton> Anyone taking (drug X or therapy X) is just putting more cash in Y's pocket.
>
> shadows721The above are examples of exaggeration or overgeneralization, but IMO, the posts this time didn't quite go that far. If I missed something, let me know?
--
> a poster should not appear to "pass judgement" on another approach or another poster's beliefs, but rather should frame their response or post as their own beliefs, experiences, or knowledge.
>
> I'm sure that can be worded better.
>
> ggThe wording is the hard part! What if someone said:
> I think Effexor would be a bad choice for you.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 2, 2004, at 9:26:32
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2004, at 4:07:46
> The wording is the hard part! What if someone said:
>
> > I think Effexor would be a bad choice for you.
>
> BobThat wording to me is not offensive. I might disagree with the post, and I certainly would like to know why they think so, but what is written above is framed from the poster's perspective. I have no problem with that.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2004, at 19:50:41
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on July 2, 2004, at 9:26:32
> > > a poster should not appear to "pass judgement" on another approach or another poster's beliefs, but rather should frame their response or post as their own beliefs, experiences, or knowledge.
> > >
> > > I'm sure that can be worded better.
>
> > The wording is the hard part! What if someone said:
> >
> > > I think Effexor would be a bad choice for you.
>
> That wording to me is not offensive. I might disagree with the post, and I certainly would like to know why they think so, but what is written above is framed from the poster's perspective. I have no problem with that.OK, I thought it might still be considered passing judgment. How about:
> I think therapy would be a bad choice for you.
or even:
> I think therapy is a bad choice for you.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 2, 2004, at 21:24:31
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2004, at 19:50:41
Dr. Bob,
It's really hard to evaluate wording without context. But just looking at those two statements, I believe both are stating an opinion. This is based on the words "I think". In addition, the first sentence is softer, and seems to me less likely to be perceived as uncivil. Presumably the second sentence would related to facts or issues discussed supporting why the poster feels therapy "is" a bad choice. But I am assuming a great deal of context here.I guess I am assuming that said opinion was asked for or at least given within an otherwise civil post. There might be very good reasons a poster might think that. The poster is not saying all therapy is bad, or that said person is flawed or a lesser or weaker person if they are not a good therapy candidate.
Can you tell me a bit about your thougts on how this might be judgemental?
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2004, at 16:28:16
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on July 2, 2004, at 21:24:31
> > How about:
> >
> > > I think therapy would be a bad choice for you.
> > > I think therapy is a bad choice for you.
>
> It's really hard to evaluate wording without context. But just looking at those two statements, I believe both are stating an opinion.There isn't always more context, someone can just show up and post a one-liner...
> There might be very good reasons a poster might think that. The poster is not saying all therapy is bad, or that said person is flawed or a lesser or weaker person if they are not a good therapy candidate.
I agree...
> Can you tell me a bit about your thougts on how this might be judgemental?
Just that "bad" implies having judged that it's not good...
Bob
Posted by pegasus on July 5, 2004, at 20:50:38
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2004, at 16:28:16
I think GG meant judgmental in the more narrow sense that we usually interpret as meaning "judging another person as bad in some way (weak, stupid, gullible, evil, ugly, etc)". People post various judgments in the form of opinions all the time, and I don't think that's the problem here.
I really liked shadows' idea about adding something about implying put downs in the guidelines. Personally I think that covers the problematic things that have been going on lately. It seemed to me to be one big imply fest, which apparently gets around your normal civility rules.
Of course, the trick is that something may sound as though it implied a put down, but really did not. So, maybe in this case, the warning that the poster gets could accomodate that possibility. E.g., "your post sounded like it could imply a put down. Please avoid wording that may lead others to feel accused or put down."
Maybe even add something about how sometimes wording can be misinterpreted. Would that work? I think a lot of us might have felt better during recent events if the poster(s) that elicited so much response had gotten at least some mild warning about wording.
pegasus
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2004, at 21:38:55
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by pegasus on July 5, 2004, at 20:50:38
> I really liked shadows' idea about adding something about implying put downs in the guidelines...
>
> Of course, the trick is that something may sound as though it implied a put down, but really did not. So, maybe in this case, the warning that the poster gets could accomodate that possibility.And if they keep sounding as though they imply a put down, but really don't?
> I think a lot of us might have felt better during recent events if the poster(s) that elicited so much response had gotten at least some mild warning about wording.
I know, but you don't get warnings for going 54...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on July 6, 2004, at 11:23:06
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2004, at 21:38:55
Okay, I'm missing something because I have no idea what that means.
Please help.
gg
Posted by pegasus on July 6, 2004, at 12:08:49
In reply to going 54? » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on July 6, 2004, at 11:23:06
GG, Bob means if the speed limit is 55, then you don't get a warning for going 54. You also don't get a ticket until you're going over 60. Do we want babble to be like that? I guess some do. I would have voted for a more cautious approach (in terms of being more sensitive). But it's Bob's site.
I think if someone continued to use wording that could imply put downs after they were warned not to, then they could get a new warning telling them to ask for help in wording (or asking others to help them with wording). And after some number of poorly worded posts, they get blocked. Doesn't that seem fair? We're a pretty helpful bunch, especially when people aren't implying that we're bad in some way. If someone shows a sincere desire to be supportive, and possibly just lack of communication skills, then we'll definitely help.
pegasus
Posted by shadows721 on July 6, 2004, at 18:10:48
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2004, at 21:38:55
It's not okay to imply a put down on one's **choice** in Faith. Then, it shouldn't be okay to imply a put down in one's **choice** of tx for depression.
If someone is NOT implying a put down, they can say so and/or give further explanation. No harm done. As a matter of fact, I think that an explanation would benefit all involved.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 6, 2004, at 19:50:39
In reply to Re: going 54?, posted by pegasus on July 6, 2004, at 12:08:49
Aha! I get it. Toeing the line so to speak, and sometimes leaning over spitefully. Some posters are more professional at this than others.
What bothers me is that many people who try to express how they are affected by the post get zapped. It's really hard to maintain assertiveness and use "I" statements and not appear to be "putting someone down". If a post hurts my feelings, it may be helpful to the poster (assuming they are not a troll) for me to express exactly what about the post hurt. But what if they are hurt in the process?
If we all were always assertive in the face of stressul situations, then we may not be the type of person who utilizes this board.
Just some thoughts.
gg
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.