![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2004, at 10:36:06
From above:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/374892.html
> > Think of it also as cognitive gymnastics? Gymnastics can be a good workout...
>
> I feel unsatisfied reading this response. I can't decide if it was meant to be funny or if it is meant that we all need to "work out" our communication skills. Either way, I feel like I have no better understanding of the reasons for such a fine semantic line with civility.I guess I was thinking of regular gymnastics as becoming more flexible and learning to do something you couldn't before. In a physical way. So cognitive gymnastics would be becoming more flexible in terms of how you think of things and learning to think of things in ways you didn't before.
This also reminds me of a previous discussion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/301021.html
Does that make more sense now?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on August 7, 2004, at 11:01:25
In reply to gymnastics, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2004, at 10:36:06
I suppose it does make more sense, and thank you for taking the time to clarify. However, developing cognitive flexibility is not what I seek at Babble. I'm not sure I would rank it as vital to Babble's mission were I the one developing the mission statement.
I suppose it feels to me like unsolicited advice. I often detect an underlying criticism in it, which is off-putting.
gg
Posted by Aphrodite on August 7, 2004, at 14:05:55
In reply to Re: gymnastics, posted by gardenergirl on August 7, 2004, at 11:01:25
GG, I think a mission statement would be a great idea for each board. What do you think, Dr. Bob?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2004, at 11:03:02
In reply to mission statement » gardenergirl, posted by Aphrodite on August 7, 2004, at 14:05:55
> I suppose it does make more sense, and thank you for taking the time to clarify. However, developing cognitive flexibility is not what I seek at Babble. I'm not sure I would rank it as vital to Babble's mission were I the one developing the mission statement.
I don't think I'd consider it part of the *mission*, either, just a potential fringe benefit.
> I suppose it feels to me like unsolicited advice. I often detect an underlying criticism in it, which is off-putting.
>
> ggMentioning I-statements feels like that? The main idea is just to help people not get blocked...
> I think a mission statement would be a great idea for each board. What do you think, Dr. Bob?
>
> AphroditeThere's already something at the beginning of the introduction to each board. You don't think that's enough?
Bob
Posted by Aphrodite on August 8, 2004, at 20:29:19
In reply to Re: mission, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2004, at 11:03:02
>
> There's already something at the beginning of the introduction to each board. You don't think that's enough?
>Well, I believe that the PB board could be clearer. For instance, since the majority of posters aren't looking for debate, maybe state something like, "this is not a board for debate." Kali suggested that on our posts we should state we're looking for support, empathy, etc. Maybe that should be made clear for the entire board. I think most of the posters would be in agreement. Perhaps you meant for it to be a place of debate, too-- I don't know. Should we have a separate "debate" board where these things could be directed?
I just think that the PB board needs a careful and thorough explanation along the lines of what you've done for the Faith board.
Just a thought. Thanks for reading.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2004, at 23:09:24
In reply to Re: mission » Dr. Bob, posted by Aphrodite on August 8, 2004, at 20:29:19
> I believe that the PB board could be clearer. For instance, since the majority of posters aren't looking for debate, maybe state something like, "this is not a board for debate."
I think the issue then would be how to distinguish discussion and debate. I assume discussion would be OK?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2004, at 12:59:33
In reply to Re: debate, posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2004, at 23:09:24
I hate to ask for another board to be added, but I'm going to anyway.
I see that there are people here that have a need for the mutual support part of psychobabble and to some of them discussion (or debate, whatever we want to call it) is painful. And I think that they have a right to post unaccosted.
There are others that have prefer to discuss things on a clinical level with back-and-forth as their primary 'psychic' need - a desire to find order in the universe.
And many, many other that are either one, depending on the topic................
So, maybe we need two boards. One with a mission of 'To provide support to those in therapy or those looking to go into therapy'
And another with a mission of 'To discuss various methods of psychotherapy and the pros/cons involved'
Of, course, those that like both can go to both. And if any non-support discussions get started on the 'psychosupport' board, they can just get redirected to 'psycodiscuss'
It's worth a thought.
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 9, 2004, at 22:59:28
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on August 9, 2004, at 12:59:33
Not a bad idea, AuntieMel. A board for support and a board for debates on medications/therapies/treatments, etc. hhmmmmmm Sounds okay to me. I think, by George. I like it.:)...Others?
Posted by gardenergirl on August 10, 2004, at 3:38:14
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution?, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 9, 2004, at 22:59:28
I like the idea in spirit, but it seems like it could get really convoluted. Even right now I am reading posts that seem to me that they belong on another board, but the thread itself is in the right place. If the suppor turns into discussion or debate, it seems sticky. And what would be the criteria?
Although another sight I've been to has a forum that is just for support. It seems pretty narrow in that it basically is a place for threads for virtual hugs and good wishes. That's nice to use, though when you just want to boost someone up or give them a hug when they are down. The supportive stuff here seems more related to specific needs and events, and thus seems more rich in content.
Ack, I don't know. Maybe an icon or something that could signal that the poster just wants support? I don't know.
I think it's a tough question.
Take care,
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2004, at 9:01:53
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution?, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 9, 2004, at 22:59:28
I meant two psychological boards (at least psych only now) because that seems to be the hot button location.
One would be for 'support' only. This would contain the types of things that *everyone* now agrees should be on the current psychology board. This would be more a personal experience place.
The other one would be a more theoretical board. Somewhere to discuss different types of therapies, pros/cons. An example of what would be more at home there (in my opinion, for what that's worth) would be some of Rod's coaching views.
If a thread starts to get more into "debate" then that part of it could be redirected. The part that relates to personal experiences would stay where it is.
Does this make more sense?
Posted by Dinah on August 10, 2004, at 9:33:33
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution?, posted by gardenergirl on August 10, 2004, at 3:38:14
I think I agree, gg. I think that frequently people challenge others on Psychology. But if the challenging is done gently, with plenty of validation, some admission that we might be wrong, and usually with some familiarity with the poster and a good relationship already built up, I think it's part of the support.
I think it's hard to draw the line between where support ends and something else begins. I'm not even sure debate is the proper word for the something else...
My best solution is that it be considered proper etiquette on the board to ask permission before you say something "tough love" that might be offensive before you do it. Offensive as in causing offense, not as in uncivil of course. But even that is only a partial solution.
I still think that the board has reached a critical mass that makes such remarks very likely and the only way to protect yourself if you are vulnerable is to not be open.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2004, at 10:07:37
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution? » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on August 10, 2004, at 9:33:33
I agree that gentle challenges that stay on topic should not be diverted.
I'm talking about the more "theoretical" topics that have historically caused problems on psych. A possible example would be the types of threads that Rod starts. I personally find them fascinating on one level, while others may read them another - and maybe even be hurt.
What are the choices now? Avoid particular posters? Much easier said than done. It's there, right in front of you and the brain says "what's that creep up to now." An even harder one to do is bow out when you're in a thread and someone comes in and takes it another direction.
If the scarey monsters get put in their own closet they are easier to avoid. Don't open that door Pandora. The people that hang out their *know* that what they say might upset you.
I guess the real problem (maybe?) is that those that would really like to toss around ideas freely (but civilly, of course) don't have any real place to do it. Med board? Nope. Books? I don't think so. Faith? maybe.... Social? That's not being social;)
It feels sometimes like there is a place under Dr. Bob's sun for everyone else (sigh)
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 10, 2004, at 13:04:39
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2004, at 10:07:37
Believe it or not the med board gets hot and heavy into debate over benzo's and Effexor to name two right off the top. I got my 1st PBC on that board. <Hanging head down low>
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2004, at 13:46:11
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution?, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 10, 2004, at 13:04:39
Oh, I know things get hot over there!
The difference is in how it *feels* over there. I don't think anyone that is "heatedly debating" on the med board feels things as personally, to the core, as on the psych board.
I'm talking about people that are genuinely upset by reading things that deviate from support. And I was talking about a separate board mainly so the people that get hurt by this kind of talk will have a safe place to be.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2004, at 13:50:06
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution?, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 10, 2004, at 13:04:39
If it was just a couple of people in psych maybe?? it would be different. Like if the general expectation was that this would happen. OK? maybe not, but possibly not worth creating a separate space.
But there are a fair number that feel this way, so I think it's worth considering.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2004, at 15:21:01
In reply to Re: debate, mission - solution? » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on August 10, 2004, at 9:33:33
> I still think that the board has reached a critical mass that makes such remarks very likely...
Would it help to limit how many people can post there? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 10, 2004, at 15:56:51
In reply to Re: critical mass, posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2004, at 15:21:01
It's no secret how I feel about restricted boards.
I think that Babble just gets a lot of google hits now on psychology matters like it used to with meds. That's good in a way, because people who want to discuss things like transference can find the site. But it brings bad things too.
Since respect isn't something that you can apparently moderate, I don't see any solutions whatsoever. For myself, I've always insisted that I deserve a certain level of respect in every aspect of my life. Babble is no different. Since Babble isn't a place where the moderator will even try to ensure that things that are important to me are treated respectfully, the only answer *to me* is to no longer bring those things to Babble. For those robust enough to stand the fray, it's still a good outlet.
And I can still bring those things to the board that have no real emotional charge from me. I've drawn my lines there. Everyone has to choose where they are comfortable drawing the line.
I don't think limited size boards are the answer at all.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2004, at 0:17:00
In reply to Re: critical mass » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 10, 2004, at 15:56:51
> It's no secret how I feel about restricted boards.
I know, that's why I included the smiley...
> Since Babble isn't a place where the moderator will even try to ensure that things that are important to me are treated respectfully, the only answer *to me* is to no longer bring those things to Babble.
>
> Everyone has to choose where they are comfortable drawing the line.I agree, you have to look out for yourself.
OTOH, I thought Kali had a number of suggestions that didn't involve redrawing the line, for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/374194.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/374521.htmlOTOH, reading her posts again, I was struck by:
> in the examples you give, I would say they are being questioned in an insensitive or rigid manner.
I know I can be dense, but framing it that way does help me see it differently. Yes, it's OK in general to ask questions, but doing so in an insensitive manner could be considered uncivil. The FAQ even mentions being sensitive to the feelings of others, just not in that paragraph with the specific examples.
What do you think? Might it be possible to express skepticism in a sensitive and respectful way?
Bob
Posted by tabitha on August 11, 2004, at 0:53:05
In reply to Re: being sensitive to the feelings of others, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2004, at 0:17:00
> > in the examples you give, I would say they are being questioned in an insensitive or rigid manner.
>
> I know I can be dense, but framing it that way does help me see it differently.I'm glad, but I can't help thinking that if a poster here made that same comment using the words insensitive and rigid, they'd be PBC'd or blocked. So how the heck are we supposed to get such points of view across to you? Geez Louise!
Regardless, I vote for more influence from Kali Munro. Do you think you could get her to give you some more tips, even behind the scenes if she doesn't want to be a presence here? She seems wise in such things.
Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 0:59:13
In reply to Re: being sensitive to the feelings of others, posted by Dr. Bob on August 11, 2004, at 0:17:00
> What do you think? Might it be possible to express skepticism in a sensitive and respectful way?
>
> BobI think that of course that's possible, and even healthy. That's how I always *try* to do it, although I'm sure I miss the mark from time to time. And I think that *has* been the point where I've disagreed with your moderation.
It's an area where, with the most rare of exceptions, a Please Rephrase is likely to be more suitable than a Please Be Civil or a block. But I think, to my eyes at least, that a Please Rephrase would do a lot to foster more supportive and respectful exchanges and soothe hurt feelings.
Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 1:02:01
In reply to Re:being sensitive » Dr. Bob, posted by tabitha on August 11, 2004, at 0:53:05
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2004, at 5:10:31
In reply to Re: being sensitive to the feelings of others, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 0:59:13
> > > in the examples you give, I would say they are being questioned in an insensitive or rigid manner.
>
> I can't help thinking that if a poster here made that same comment using the words insensitive and rigid, they'd be PBC'd or blocked. So how the heck are we supposed to get such points of view across to you? Geez Louise!I know, discussing whether someone's been civil invariably involves you-statements. There's always the constructive criticism option, for example: Maybe they could have asked their questions in a more sensitive manner? Or just say "insensitive", but in an email to me?
> I vote for more influence from Kali Munro. Do you think you could get her to give you some more tips, even behind the scenes if she doesn't want to be a presence here? She seems wise in such things.
>
> tabithaWe stay in touch, but I think it may be less abstract to her now that she's actually visited. :-)
----
> I think that *has* been the point where I've disagreed with your moderation.
Maybe the real conflict that needed to be resolved was between the moderator and the posters? :-)
> It's an area where, with the most rare of exceptions, a Please Rephrase is likely to be more suitable than a Please Be Civil or a block.
>
> DinahOops, well, I'll try to remember that next time...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 12, 2004, at 21:20:21
In reply to Re: being sensitive to the feelings of others, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2004, at 5:10:31
>
> Maybe the real conflict that needed to be resolved was between the moderator and the posters? :-)
>
Well, I've always thought so. :) Thanks for being willing to listen to things in a new way.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 13, 2004, at 10:26:28
In reply to Re: being sensitive to the feelings of others » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 12, 2004, at 21:20:21
> Thanks for being willing to listen to things in a new way.
Thanks for not giving up on me!
Bob
This is the end of the 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.