![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 61. Go back in thread:
Posted by AdaGrace on October 19, 2004, at 19:59:03
In reply to Re: Q's, posted by Mark H. on October 19, 2004, at 18:02:15
Answer the question Mark pweeeeeze
I really want to know what you think is the relationship between Munchousen Disease and the Occult and how in the world do you think there are several people here who have it.
Just wondering.
By the way, I don't want to be a project for your school paper either. Please respectfully leave me out.
Posted by fayeroe on October 19, 2004, at 20:17:17
In reply to Re: Q's about restrictions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 19, 2004, at 3:29:18
I've been thinking about internet access. If I put a photograph up on a website and do not enable a technical block (where one cannot "save" it to their files), it's there for the taking. That's a fact. What is going to prevent someone from doing that with the posts that are here?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 19, 2004, at 21:31:57
In reply to Re: Q's, posted by mattw84 on October 19, 2004, at 16:14:28
You may have better luck researching under *factitious* disorders, rather than *fictitious*
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 19, 2004, at 21:34:16
In reply to Re: Q's about restrictions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 19, 2004, at 20:17:17
You know, that's a very good point. I have copied posts before and saved them, although I have asked the poster in advance. But yah, you can pretty much cut and paste anything you want. IRB approved or not.
gg
Posted by Glydin on October 19, 2004, at 21:46:31
In reply to Re: Q's about restrictions » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on October 19, 2004, at 20:17:17
> What is going to prevent someone from doing that with the posts that are here?
I don't think there is anything for prevention. The only advantage, in this instance, is there was a request placed. I do think if this board is cited as a reference in a publication there are some safeguards, but someone writing a paper for a class.... I don't know how that could be addressed. Stealth activity of usage is certain something to consider. I also have been thinking about this for but I'm unsure I really "got it" until now. Shame on me. This issue has bothered me enough that public forums will no longer be where I seek support. Folks come here and disclose intimate, painful details - mental and emotional matters. I shutter now to think how that could be utilized. Whether it's actually hurtful or harmful to posters is questionable but it certainly feels exploitive to me. Again, shame on me for not being more careful or being smarter.I hope others will at least think about what we are doing.
This request brings it to reality for me.
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 8:29:58
In reply to Re: Q's, posted by mattw84 on October 19, 2004, at 16:14:28
> Portland Community College
>
> Ficticious disorders are a portion of my final research essay. I still have 1.5 months to work on it, just sorting out possible sources of relevancy. It is actually for a philosophy class, 195 - analysis of the occult.
>
>Matt, I've posted about my dog here several times. I give you permission to use him in your paper. After all, sometimes he has the delusional belief that he is human, and lately he has been sacrificing my shoes in a devilish way. I'm certain he's become a Wiccan.
-Toph
Posted by Dinah on October 20, 2004, at 9:01:59
In reply to Re: Q's, posted by Mark H. on October 19, 2004, at 18:02:15
> Portland Community College (Oregon)
>
> Course Descriptions
>
> Phil 195 Critical Thinking: Science and the Occult, 3 credits. Introduces scientific method, assessment criteria for scientific observations and explanations and the difference between genuine and bogus science.
>
>
Which category would analyzing posts to an anonymous internet bulletin board fall into?
Posted by fayeroe on October 20, 2004, at 9:20:16
In reply to Re: Q's about restrictions » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on October 19, 2004, at 21:34:16
I am friends with Douglass Kent Hall, photographer extraordinare.....the photograph of all of the bullriders boots is his. It was on his website. I went to Montreal to visit yet another photographer, Andre! Went for lunch one day in a funky little mall and right there before my eyes was Douglass' print, advertising a shoe store!!!!! I went into the store, got the owner's name and phone number, called Douglass. He ended up having to sue the guy to make him quit using it....so that cost a few thousands to Douglas.......and that's a photo...not someone's private, so to speak, thoughts.......it's coming. just you wait and see!
Posted by AdaGrace on October 20, 2004, at 10:52:03
In reply to Q's about restrictions for Dr. Hsiung, posted by mattw84 on October 18, 2004, at 22:59:08
Posted by AdaGrace on October 20, 2004, at 10:59:29
In reply to Q's about restrictions for Dr. Hsiung, posted by mattw84 on October 18, 2004, at 22:59:08
It has come to my befuddled mind that Matt was the original poster and I think I confused him with Mark, so now.......
I post again to Matt the following.....
Just replace the "Mark" with "Matt"Answer the question Mark pweeeeeze
I really want to know what you think is the relationship between Munchousen Disease and the Occult and how in the world do you think there are several people here who have it.
Just wondering.
By the way, I don't want to be a project for your school paper either. Please respectfully leave me out.
Posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 14:53:47
In reply to Re: Q's about restrictions for Dr. Hsiung » mattw84, posted by AdaGrace on October 20, 2004, at 10:59:29
Sorry for the confusion. I'm not Matt. I was simply quoting public information from the website of the philosophy department at Portland Community College. I thought the actual course description was interesting.
Verne's brilliant one-liner (thank you, Verne!) resulted in my finding an on-line article by Dr. Roy Sorensen at Dartmouth entitled, "Faking Munchausen's Syndrome," an exchange of letters between a fictitious doctor and an imaginary insurance company.
I too am curious as to what might constitute evidence of Munchausen's Syndrome in a public forum, and what its relevance would be to a course on analytical thinking.
And I'm glad that Matt asked for permission. Who knows how many people out there don't?
Mark H.
Posted by AdaGrace on October 20, 2004, at 15:38:00
In reply to Faking Munchausen's Syndrome thanks, verne!, posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 14:53:47
However, not sure that Matt asking for permission constitutes justification for usage, should he gain it. And what would the consequences be should he choose not to follow the guidelines given in regards to privacy here? I see none.
Basically I too am a bit miffed at myself for being so public with my own information on this website. Knowing now what I didn't think about then makes me want to ask Dr. Bob to delete my own posts for fear of them being scrutinized in a classroom setting.
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 16:27:09
In reply to Faking Munchausen's Syndrome thanks, verne!, posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 14:53:47
Thanks Mark. Some seem sensitive to Matt using posts that, while public on the internet, are mainly intended to be communication exchanged within this community. I am more puzzled by Matt's assertion of Munchausen's, as if people fake mental illness to participate here. As far as I know, you don't have to have a psychiatric diagnosis to babble, just an interest.
PHL 195 CRITICAL THINKING: SCIENCE AND THE OCCULT, 3 cr.--Introduces scientific method, assessment criteria for scientific observations and explanations and the difference between genuine and bogus science.
I wonder whether Matt intended to use PB communications as evidence of the genuine or bogus variety of science.
Posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 19:53:05
In reply to Re: Munchausen's Syndrome, posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 16:27:09
Here's a link to a thought-provoking article by Marc D. Feldman, MD, called "Munchausen by Internet: Detecting Factitious Illness and Crisis on the Internet."
http://www.sma.org/smj2000/julysmj00/feldman.pdf
Although there may have been other instances, Dr. Feldman's profile (see Tables 1 and 2) fits only one person I can think of during the past four years here, and it fits uncannily well.
However, Matt wrote:
"The concept of this forum is fantastic, but in a few short weeks I have come to recognize numerous individuals who would appear to be suffering from MÜNCHAUSEN'S SYNDROME..."
*Numerous* individuals?
Matt also wrote:
"I also would like to do the same -- to evaluate the true potential of impersonal, undirected, and anonymous group 'therapy.'"
How would you evaluate that?
And finally, what does any of this have to do with "analysis of the occult"?
Thanks for your consideration,
Mark H.
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:33:47
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet, posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 19:53:05
You're quite the sleuth Mark. Four years on PB makes you certainly more of an expert than Matt and possibly even Dr. Feldman for that matter. I don't suppose you'd want to give up the name of your Munchhausen babbler for those of us wanting to research your theory. Feldman's paper does shed some light on the notion that people are studying us here, it makes my quip of PB as Bob's ant farm more unsettling to me now and may explain why he didn't seem to find the analogy amusing. I wonder if symptoms of pseudologica fantastica (I wish my diagnosis had fantastica in it) also include claims of having an incredibly rare condition and the use of habitual poor spelling to fein a neurological disorder? Anyway, this idea of people (pseudomedicus fantastica, if you will) studying us freaks me out a little. If they are diagnosing me, do they have an ethical obligation to let me know if there is a treatment that can help me? Don't put that magnifying glass away just yet Mark. I appreciate your comments immensely.
-Toph
Posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:58:41
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet, posted by Mark H. on October 20, 2004, at 19:53:05
This whole Munchhausen thing is really bugging me. I recall posing a while back this idea that there were fake characters, alter-egos, that Bob created to fill his PB site created to test the reaction of others, spurn idealization of the moderator, whatever. I got what felt like a terse denial which I accepted. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the posters aren't actually Munchers - researchers like Feldman who dabble in PB while doing their research, or Bob's graduate students, who like Matt, need a little material for a paper, or therapists who hear about PB from patients and can't help themselves by investigating the forum that their patients rave about in session. Bob, how about a survey of participants to see how many of us have ever received psychiatric treatment, how many are voyeurs, and how many are clinicians, students, researchers, etc? Maybe you already have an estimate of how many participants are not recovering psychiatric patients. I for one would like to know.
-Toph
Posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
In reply to Re: Munchausen by Internet » Mark H., posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 22:58:41
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:56:08
In reply to Re: Munchausen's Syndrome, posted by Toph on October 20, 2004, at 16:27:09
> I am more puzzled by Matt's assertion of Munchausen's, as if people fake mental illness to participate here. As far as I know, you don't have to have a psychiatric diagnosis to babble, just an interest.
>No, but careful study might find evidence that a dx has some currency toward community standing in this forum. This post ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/403442.html ) might be cited as an example. Our analysis, which doesn't require an IRB's review because it is protected as free speech, has found some evidence that people who present complaining of symptoms are more readily accepted at forums such as this than those who present primarily as one offering support or education, or who suggest they recovered from a previously dx'ed disorder.
In response to the original query, investigation of an existing opus does not meet the same requirements for institutional review as investigations in which a researcher employed by a federally funded institution creates and controls a situation for the purpose of conducting research into human behavior. State laws, such as those of Illinois, introduce additional controls, but the first amendment right to free speech always weighs against efforts to control critical review of published works or spoken words. Literature reviews and other non-invasive surveys of public behavior do not always require approval of an IRB. If a research project is affiliated with an institution that receives federal funds, it is more likely an instrument such as a poll would be required to have IRB approval. If CNN, however, chooses to do a 30-minute special in which PBabble messages are reviewed under fair use principles of copyright law, there would be little Robert Hsiung could do to protect his clients. The same goes for any publication that might choose to prepare an in-depth report about this forum.
They can talk, write or broadcast images about the forum all they like, as long as their comments are not libelous. They can reproduce some content of this site in keeping with fair use principles, which take into account the educational nature of the intended use, the extent to which the work is excerpted and how excerpting might effect marketability of the copyrighted opus. In that regard, CNN can use material from this site more freely than can Robert Hsiung, because Hsiung is a researcher whereas CNN would be reporting about interaction among people who posted here knowing that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy beyond the anonymity afforded by technical measures. If you were sitting in your living room, or in an AA meeting, or if you posted to a closed e-mail list, it would be a different matter, because then you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which a publisher would violate by revealing your private correspondence (unless of course you are a public figure, whose private correspondence might be a matter of public interest).
Posted by Toph on October 21, 2004, at 0:06:23
In reply to Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. (nm), posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 7:09:44
In reply to Re: Munchausen's Syndrome, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 20, 2004, at 23:56:08
..and that means my posts, too. Thank you.
Posted by Glydin on October 21, 2004, at 8:29:41
In reply to Paranoid? Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. (nm), posted by mattw84 on October 20, 2004, at 23:50:16
Yes, and if we assume that postings are true - which is questionable as baiting and deception are possibilities - there are some private details about the orginator of this request, if one cares to search, so anything COULD be used to any purpose about anyone who has posted here - good, bad, or indifferent.
I think everyone should think deeply about that risk. Some may be comfortable with that prospect, others may not.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
In reply to Leave me out of your discussion » Mary_Bowers, posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 7:09:44
As I appreciate the body of rules Robert Hsiung has attempted to construct, a person can ask that others don't expressly direct messages to them. I have found no record of a provision that others don't write about them, but it might be reasonable to conclude the "not to me" request extends to "not about me."
If there is a provision that allows others to ask that somebody not write about them, then it would seem reasonable to expect the provision cuts both ways. If a person asks me not to talk about them in posts here, it seems part of the agreement would be that the requesting party cease any discussion, directly or implicitly, about the other. If it doesn't it would be easy enough for a person to counter-request that the one asking to be excluded from discussion also refrain from discussing the person they don't want discussing them. However, it would be impractical in the context of this or any open discussion site to presume a person has an exclusive right to a topic, which is to say, if a person raises a subject, any "member" in good standing may continue to discuss that subject. As far as I know, nobody may say "I talked about that first, so now you can't talk about it."
Beyond the context of this site, no person enjoys any reasonable expecation of privacy for what they have posted here except general copyright provisions and the technical measures intended to afford anonymity. If I or anyone else chose to work within fair use principles to review on another web site, in a published book or in a broadcast program particular posts, posters or personal problems disclosed by particular posters, there is nothing a person can do to prevent it. Hsiung might decide to consider additional arbitrary rules, such as a requirement that members swear an AA-style promise of secrecy concerning things they have read on Psychobabble, but that would probably be impractical; members would enjoy less opportunity to discuss Psychobabble in real life than would any other person, if a member wanted to retain their good standing. Such a rule could prohibit a husband, for example from discussing with his wife a scenario he read on psychobabble. The likely result would be that members who discuss details of the site in other venues would no longer advise other members here of their activities elsewhere in relation to the site. Within the context of this site, such a rule would give members an unusual degree of control over the behavior of members who participate in other venues. It would potentially limit discussion of other psych sites - for example if I mention to another site that I prefer that site to psychobabble (or visa-versa), I would have offended the theoretical rule about discussing psychobabble off-site.
Robert Hsiung has provided his clients at Psychobabble publishing tools, and has composed some language advising them of the non-private nature of the venue in which he is inviting publication, but may not have effectively impressed on participants the extent to which they sacrifice their privacy by publishing to a public readership.
For my part, unless I have expressly assured another person a degree of secrecy, I retain full rights to discuss freely any conversation of which I have been a part, or which was conducted in my presence with no reasonable expectation of privacy. These are the standards adopted during two centuries of jurisprudence in a society that is represented as the model of civil society around the world. However, although I enjoy a civil right to do so, I don't believe I have stated an intent to publish information about particular posters elsewhere.
I have suggested several venues that might be accessible to me, but I have reached no conclusions as to how I will eventually discuss technical analysis of this site. I can suggest that our primary goal at this point is to develop protocols - ways of measuring behavior at this site - that can be applied to any portion of the opus and discover the same result, within a reasonable margin of error. I am advising my peers at psychobabble the only thing Robert Hsiung could do to stop somebody who chose to review the site and its contents under fair use principles of copyright law would be to limit their participation in this site, which probably wouldn't stop CNN or Fox or anyone else who was intent on reporting their findings about this site.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:46:18
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
Exclusion, no exclusion - it doesn't matter.
She asked you to leave her out of any discussion and decent manners, not to mention humanity, should keep you from doing so.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 21, 2004, at 11:48:24
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
Poor choice of words. Change "humanity" to "common decency" and you'll get my point.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 21, 2004, at 11:54:28
In reply to Excluding others from discussion, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 11:37:43
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.