![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
Good 'splanation, Alex. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I couldn't muster the energy to read the article.
Thanks again. I 'spect that your 'splanation made it clearer than I would have got on my own, anyway.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:33:17
In reply to I think, therefore (I:A/M) :-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:38:23
And here I thought I:A/M was some clever way of saying I'm Auntie Mel (AM). whooops, giggles.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
Nah. I think therapy turned my brain to mush today.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 23:13:44
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
Posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
In reply to Re: very well put » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 11:24:27
Thank you Mel, I guess I should have put it on PB Psych after all.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 9:07:44
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Actually I think this was the right place to put it, since this is where it manifests most.
Now - don't argue with a compliment or you'll have to go time-out.
{smile}
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 17:25:05
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Yeah Toph, I agree - I get that too.
I find it hard not to take PBC's as a slap.I have found that if you don't understand and you ask him to explain why then he typically will. Though that could take a couple of days... Patience...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
> > Please don't be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
>
> You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he understood. I didn't know if he did or not. But I did want him to understand that if he did understand, then I didn't want him to do that.
> My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
>
> If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding
>
> DinahThat's not a new rule. There is of course a difference between the idea of gated communities and the people who might belong to them.
--
> your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
>
> TophThanks for reflecting on this. I don't despise you. I just want to minimize the fighting here. How about a new chapter in your story? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
I read over that a few times, and I don't think I feel significantly less offended.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that that's how Dr. Bob sees us. It explains rather a lot. But I'm sad about it. I'm very sad about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
((((Dinah))))
How about on an individual level, though? I mean, I can see how I tend to swing to those two extremes (with a preference towards narrowing my boundaries). If it happens with people on an individual level then I don't think it is all that suprising that those dynamics should play out in a group environment too...
I dunno.
I agree that parts of it were a bit hard to take.
And that they didn't really talk about it on an individual level - but I needed to do that so as to 'translate' it for myself to try and figure out what was being said. Lots of the terminology was unfamiliar to me.What about how you have said before that sometimes you need to try to emotionally withdraw. I wondered if that could be seen as a narrowing of boundaries when caring for Babble becomes a bit too much. That you have said stuff before about having to lower your expectations. I just wondered whether that might be a swing from one to the other right there. And there hasn't been a successful resolution of that stuff yet, has there?
I dunno.
Tell me to stoppit if ya like.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:10:43
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
by the way I really should emphasise that that was *my* take on it. Probably one that wouldn't be endorsed by either the author or Dr B.
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
Well, to be fair, I'd probably be outraged if I knew what my therapist thought of me, especially in clinical terms.
I think as much as I say I want to know what makes Dr. Bob tick, I really don't - any more than I want to know what my therapist really thinks of me.
But it does make me sad, because it does explain so much.
Of COURSE Dr. Bob doesn't understand what we're trying to say, or understand us, if he's thinking in those terms. And of COURSE we don't understand him.
The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:34:38
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
I don't understand why you say it's not a new rule. One minute we were able to argue with you the attributes of gated communities, then Alexandra said that people might feel like they would be disliked for joining them, then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative, then you started handing out PBC's.
Am I missing something in the timeline?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:54:18
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and...
As opposed to?
> then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative
Sorry, I see how I may not have been so clear:
> > If someone who joins up to a smaller board reads that other people think that smaller boards are elitist and co then they may take that personally.
>
> I agree. If we go ahead with this, that might need to be considered uncivil...I guess it depends what's said, and how. I do think saying smaller boards are elitist could lead members of smaller boards to feel accused of being elitist...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
So one way of looking at Babble is looking at the unique individuals that comprise it. (And on that score we would quite like Dr Bob to just LOVE Babble).
> How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
And another way of looking at Babble is in terms of group dynamics where it is something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time).
But you can see it both ways.
You can like the particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being satisfyed with the group dynamic.
You can like the particular posters while being satisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.All I mean to say is that what Dr Bob thinks of Babble (as an abstract entity process group) is a seperate issue from what Dr Bob thinks of the individual posters who comprise Babble. Or at least that one doesn't have to reflect the other.
Or have I missed your point completely?????
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:27:02
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
I suppose I go back to the coral colony again.
And I am sad that Dr. Bob would see Babble as "something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time)".
I think that Dr. Bob's actions say that that's exactly how he views it. You've hit the nail on the head.
And it makes me sad.
I should be happy to have such insight, so that I won't get so frustrated in trying to communicate with him.
But I just want to cry.
Anyone want to cry with me?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:35:26
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:27:02
> I suppose I go back to the coral colony again.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that one.
> And I am sad that Dr. Bob would see Babble as "something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time)".Oh, but wait. That doesn't mean that he doesn't see it the other way AS WELL. That doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the particular posters. Just because he looks at it as a process group sometimes doesn't mean that he sees it that way all the time.
From a group dynamics perspective you can see patterns over time that don't emerge unless you look at it as a process group. I guess his primary allegance has to be with the process group though, but the reason why is that by looking out for the process group you can maintain the group well for the benefit of many many posters over time. Instead of just helping out the odd individual (which is not to be sneezed at that is true) but isn't it better to help out the majority of present and future posters too?????
> I think that Dr. Bob's actions say that that's exactly how he views it. You've hit the nail on the head.
>
> And it makes me sad.
>
> I should be happy to have such insight, so that I won't get so frustrated in trying to communicate with him.
>
> But I just want to cry.
>
> Anyone want to cry with me?
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:46:26
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:35:26
No, that's not quite what I meant. I didn't mean that he does or doesn't care about individual posters.
I meant about the coral colony. But I think that I don't know how to explain. Those that see things the way I do will understand without explanation. And I don't think those who don't see things the way I do will understand with a million posts. At least I know Dr. Bob won't. I imagine it's true of other posters as well.
Which is what makes me want to cry. But I can't explain that either.
It just makes me too sad to try.
P.S. By see things the way I do, I don't mean agree with me, I mean see things the way I do. It's a completely different thing, but that's beyond me to explain as well.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:53:47
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:46:26
Well now I JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. I am like that - see??? Someone tells me I can't and then I will make it my whole life's mission.
So, you will not get out of it that easy, ok???
So.
A coral colony. Hmm. Are you going to tell me about it, or am I going to have to do a google???
Is it a metaphor???
What does that mean to you???
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 0:07:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:53:47
I don't mean to be tantalizing.
But I don't think I'm up to it right now, Alexandra. Trying to translate from my head to the world gets exhausting sometimes.
I think I used the metaphor or simile or something in a post somewhere. But I doubt it was much more comprehensible there than here.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:13:10
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 0:07:36
Does this help???
>a coral colony can be thought of as an apartment building with many different rooms and hallways that house different marine species. Not all coral species build reefs. The actual architects of coral reefs are hard or stony corals, which are referred to as hermatypic or reef-building corals. As the polyps of stony corals grow, they produce limestone for their skeletons. When they die, their skeletons are left behind and are used as foundations for new polyps, which build new skeletons over the old ones. An actual coral mound or tree is composed of layer upon layer of skeletons covered by a thin layer of living polyps.
>Hard and soft coral, as well as sponges and clams, make up the structure of a coral reef.
>Other types of animals and plants also contribute to the structure of the reef. Many types of algae, seaweed, sponge, sediment and even mollusks like giant clams and oysters, add to the architecture of a coral reef. When these organisms die, they also serve as foundations for new corals.
http://www.coralreef.org/coralreefinfo/about.html
Just whenever you feel up to it.
(((Dinah))))
I really want to try to understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:18:07
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:13:10
Unfolding as opposed to going round and round?
Is that the point???
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:23:41
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:18:07
Our posts are the skeletons upon which future posters build?????
Posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 2:38:04
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
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.