![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 197 to 221 of 224. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 16:27:08
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on March 16, 2005, at 16:23:29
But there isn't usually any administrative action if there is an apology.
And a PBC amounts to the same as saying you weren't playing nice.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 16, 2005, at 17:43:03
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now, posted by alexandra_k on March 16, 2005, at 12:57:02
changing that...
> Think about it Dr Bob.
> Do you really want us to decide most / all thingsDidn't Dr. Bob already make it pretty clear he wasn't going to change his mind about the blocks? I don't even think he brought the topic up. I don't think he's ever said he wanted us to decide most things either.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 16, 2005, at 21:20:01
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 16, 2005, at 17:43:03
Posted by alexandra_k on March 16, 2005, at 21:25:46
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 16, 2005, at 17:43:03
> Didn't Dr. Bob already make it pretty clear he wasn't going to change his mind about the blocks?
He ended up saying he would need a 'good reason' to change his mind. His only objection to the notion was that the 'equilibrium' may be thrown off. But it is unclear that 1) That is inevitable and 2) What the hell that means anyway. He didn't comment on the reasons that were offered. I suppose one can only assume that they didn't seem good to him. Not that he said why they weren't any good or anything like that...
But yeah, I think you are right.
I can be too much of an optimist sometimes.>I don't even think he brought the topic up. I don't think he's ever said he wanted us to decide most things either.
He does talk about Babble being 'more democratic'. Mostly when people are upset with some of his decisions.
The suggestion that he should fairly much 'leave us to it' tends to be enough to have people back off and stop voicing being upset with some of his decisions.
Useful strategy I suppose...
Posted by verne on March 16, 2005, at 21:40:54
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now, posted by alexandra_k on March 16, 2005, at 12:57:02
I think I know what you're getting at Alexandra. The debate about a "democracy" at psychobabble is a "bad-faith" fiction.
It seems like real-world ideas are encouraged, and even inserted into the babble petri dish and allowed to flourish, not for the purpose of any real change but for the sheer spectacle of watching the petri-mites wrestle over the unattainable or some scrap of an ideal.
I don't think the elaborate "civility rules" have as much to do with making this site supportive as to do with creating friction. The long blocks are more designed for the optimal, maximum, crazy-making potential than for remedy, peace, or reform.
I'm a long-time member at another site that has yet to ban or block anyone in several years. Thousands come and go. Once in awhile, a post is edited. The uncivil offender leaves in frustration, outraged that any part of their post was removed. It deflates them. Any conflict dissipates and the deleted poster, if they come back, conforms to a civilized discussion - after all, they want to be heard.
Whereas, here, a block is a challenge and call to arms, for not just the errant poster but anyone remotely interested. (lots of collateral damage) Rather than just delete a few words, move on, and treat people with respect (like adults) there's a kind of parental "scolding" and, of course, the fight is on.
The current system of blocks isn't designed to protect anyone or bring peace to the community but to maximize tension and conflict. I have to view this model as a success since the purpose and goal have been realized.
a petri mite.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 16, 2005, at 22:02:47
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on March 16, 2005, at 21:25:46
> I can be too much of an optimist sometimes.
>
: )When I wrote that post I was thinking "I wonder why Alex was surprised?" and then I remembered that I've been here a lot longer than you..
I thinking in order to stay, certain parts of you have to go numb.
Posted by Toph on March 16, 2005, at 22:22:52
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 16:27:08
> But there isn't usually any administrative action if there is an apology.
I really don't know but I suspect that there have been instances when a sincere apology has been ignored.
>
> And a PBC amounts to the same as saying you weren't playing nice.I agree. I admit that I was relieved to receive one or two of those when I was cringing about a consequence.
Has Bob ever asked or assisted two posters who have let their differences get the better of them to find a way of reconciling, compromising or fostering each to repect those differences?
Having asked this , it dawns on me that I am giving two conflicting messages. One, for Bob to butt out and let us try to run the asylum, while, two, asking Bob to open up his role as more of a facilitator of positive group dynamic. Either way its a win, win, as I see it.
Some thoughts:
1) this place is ultimately an experiment, so let's experiment (unless someone is destined to get hurt, of course).
2) a rigid, externally controlled group is severely handicapped in developing all the benefits of a positive group dynamic.
3) people can be very comfortable with a less than optimal environment and resist any change.
4) it's easy for me to suggest change without knowing exactly how to implement it, sorry.
Toph
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 1:01:30
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on March 16, 2005, at 22:22:52
> Please don't ask for volounteers if you only have certain people in mind.
>
> It is exceptionally hurtful for someone to offer and for you to ignore them...
>
> alexandra_kI don't only have certain people in mind. And if I ignored someone, it wasn't intentional, and I wish they'd contact me again.
--
> couldn't a wise and just facilitator facilicate such a civil reconciliation by asking the parties to kiss and make up?
>
> TophCouldn't wise and just posters? I don't see myself as needed for that. I see myself as needed for failures to reconcile.
--
> My recollection was that no one had any problem iwth the button idea
Sorry, I didn't mean to raise that issue again, let's redirect discussion of it back to that previous thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/471936.html
> (p.s. There are problems with pure democracies. Didn't we de-facto consider you our representative in a representative democracy by choosing to post here?)
>
> DinahThat's one way to look at it. But still it would be a question, what an *even more* democratic structure might be...
> Do you really want us to decide most / all things
Not now, no, but I do think I'd like to move in that direction, yes.
> Democracy = liberty freedom and justice for all
>
> alexandra_kI disagree, democracy = more people being involved in determining the limits of liberty and freedom and the view of justice to be imposed.
> it dawns on me that I am giving two conflicting messages. One, for Bob to butt out and let us try to run the asylum, while, two, asking Bob to open up his role as more of a facilitator of positive group dynamic.
>
> 3) people can be very comfortable with a less than optimal environment and resist any change.
>
> TophIs any environment optimal? One way to look at it is that this site has selected for posters who are comfortable with, or at least willing to tolerate, me running it. Whereas a more democratic structure would require people who wanted to run it themselves. Again, if people would like to try, I'm still looking for volunteers. They can also contact current or past deputies rather than me if they'd prefer...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 2:15:13
In reply to Re: volunteers, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 1:01:30
> > Do you really want us to decide most / all things
> Not now, no, but I do think I'd like to move in that direction, yes.> democracy = more people being involved in determining the limits of liberty and freedom and the view of justice to be imposed.
Then why do you ignore it when posters do express a fairly strong consensus on certain issues? Just as an example: the length of Chemists block. Another example: small boards. It is examples like these that had me figure that you don't really want decisions to be based on what the majority of posters want after all. If you thought that the posters who voiced their opinion on the issue were not representative then there could have been a proper anonymous poll (through Yahoo).
You don't really seem to be moving towards letting us make those kinds of decisions...
Yet they would seem to be small (fairly minor) steps on the way to us making more decisions.
> a more democratic structure would require people who wanted to run it themselves.
So we have you running it on the one hand, and us running it on the other. But we aren't required to choose between them. There must be a middle ground.
I would prefer you to run it than posters.
But I do think that when posters have a clear preference and you disagree then you would be better to take peoples opinion seriously. Instead of (in effect) ignoring the issue and going on your merry way.
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 9:41:26
In reply to Re: volunteers, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 1:01:30
> > couldn't a wise and just facilitator facilicate such a civil reconciliation by asking the parties to kiss and make up?
> >
> > Toph
>
> Couldn't wise and just posters? I don't see myself as needed for that. I see myself as needed for failures to reconcile.That almost never works when I try it, and people just get madder. :(
> > Do you really want us to decide most / all things
>
> Not now, no, but I do think I'd like to move in that direction, yes.Why, Dr. Bob? Are you getting tired of us?
What would happen to those who selected this site because they were comfortable with you running it? What would happen to me?
Posted by partlycloudy on March 17, 2005, at 9:51:44
In reply to Re: volunteers » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 9:41:26
> > > Do you really want us to decide most / all things
> >
> > Not now, no, but I do think I'd like to move in that direction, yes.
>
> Why, Dr. Bob? Are you getting tired of us?
>
> What would happen to those who selected this site because they were comfortable with you running it? What would happen to me?And me, too?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 10:31:54
In reply to Re: volunteers, posted by partlycloudy on March 17, 2005, at 9:51:44
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 10:46:05
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 16, 2005, at 22:02:47
It's called 'serenity.'
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 10:57:47
In reply to Re: but we can do some of that now » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on March 16, 2005, at 22:22:52
1) this place is ultimately an experiment, so let's experiment (unless someone is destined to get hurt, of course).
Life is an experiment, all net forums are experiments, we experiment with meds, therapies and alternative treatments .....
But many are drawn to here instead of 'brand x' because of the feeling of comfort and safety, because real lives are in turmoil and a constantly changing babble would be too much to handle.
2) a rigid, externally controlled group is severely handicapped in developing all the benefits of a positive group dynamic.
We are all suffering from varying degrees of different mental conditions. Aren't we already handicapped when it comes to group dynamics?
I personally like having a 'controlled' way to work on how I relate to other people. If it were left up to other posters to tell me when I was wrong - well I'd never know if it is me or them with the problem. While the punishments may (and do) seem unfair at times the *concept* of what is acceptable and what is not is pretty constant. It doesn't change based on personalities, time of year, weather or phase of the moon.
How many of us had problems with constantly changing or unrealistic expectations while growing up? How many were unaccepted because of being 'different' for some reason or another? I fit both of those - and am grateful I don't see it here.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 17, 2005, at 17:25:09
In reply to Sounds Better Than OK, posted by verne on March 16, 2005, at 21:40:54
Posted by Toph on March 17, 2005, at 18:18:51
In reply to Re: some thoughts » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 10:57:47
>
> Life is an experiment, all net forums are experiments, we experiment with meds, therapies and alternative treatments .....
>
> But many are drawn to here instead of 'brand x' because of the feeling of comfort and safety, because real lives are in turmoil and a constantly changing babble would be too much to handle.
>I'm glad you like it here, mostly I do too. I can't speak for Bob but I suspect that he is relying on a sort of evolutionary theory of change. Some change is good and some change is not so good, but as someone said the only thing in life that is consant, is change.
> 2) a rigid, externally controlled group is severely handicapped in developing all the benefits of a positive group dynamic.
>
> We are all suffering from varying degrees of different mental conditions. Aren't we already handicapped when it comes to group dynamics?
>You know, there are some incredibly capable people here, including you, Mel, so I say, no, our group might just be different from the others.
> I personally like having a 'controlled' way to work on how I relate to other people. If it were left up to other posters to tell me when I was wrong - well I'd never know if it is me or them with the problem. While the punishments may (and do) seem unfair at times the *concept* of what is acceptable and what is not is pretty constant. It doesn't change based on personalities, time of year, weather or phase of the moon.
>
Yeah, I think its a good idea to coerce competent adults to wear seatbelts. I would wear them anyway, but I don't have to like it.> How many of us had problems with constantly changing or unrealistic expectations while growing up? How many were unaccepted because of being 'different' for some reason or another? I fit both of those - and am grateful I don't see it here.
Me too, if that's what you think would happen then it would be a big mistake to even try anything different. I am beginning to be convinced by some people here that have a greater investment in PB than I, that a tribunal would foster even more resentment which would be bad.
I'll stick to my guns that mitigating circumstances, character witnesses for someone unfamiliar to Bob, plea bargaining, and a simple right to confront one's accuser (Bob) with their interpretation of the facts would be an improvement and hopefully not divisive. Some of this indeed goes on here. I've seen Bob change blocks because of compelling advocacy by members. Let's see if PB can develop some wings.
I appreciate you discussing this with me Mel.
Toph
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 19:12:07
In reply to Re: some thoughts » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 10:57:47
> > > Do you really want us to decide most / all things
> >
> > Not now, no, but I do think I'd like to move in that direction, yes.
>
> Then why do you ignore it when posters do express a fairly strong consensus on certain issues?1. I didn't ignore them, I just didn't change my mind.
2. We haven't moved that far yet. :-)
> you don't really want decisions to be based on what the majority of posters want after all.
No, not now. At this point, these aren't votes, they're requests for input.
> You don't really seem to be moving towards letting us make those kinds of decisions...
Sorry, but change is slow.
> So we have you running it on the one hand, and us running it on the other. But we aren't required to choose between them. There must be a middle ground.
>
> alexandra_kHow about me supervising posters running it? :-)
--
> Why, Dr. Bob? Are you getting tired of us?
>
> DinahOf course not, you guys are great! But (1)
> Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where ... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425076.html
(2) it could be an opportunity for posters to grow, and (3) I won't be around forever.
> a constantly changing babble would be too much to handle.
>
> While the punishments may (and do) seem unfair at times the *concept* of what is acceptable and what is not is pretty constant.
>
> AuntieMelThat's why it can be good that change is slow. The idea would be to balance (1) retaining the current culture and (2) giving posters more say in determining what's acceptable.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 20:06:35
In reply to Re: some thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 19:12:07
Posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 22:57:09
In reply to Re: some thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 19:12:07
> 1. I didn't ignore them, I just didn't change my mind.
Well... You do try... And I have learned to be persistent. To say 'perhaps we should just agree to disagree' seems to say 'my mind is made up and I am not prepared to discuss it'. I thought that showed an unwillingness to listen to reasons that people may have. Your only reason why you had made up your mind the way you did was that you were concerned that the 'equilibrium would be upset'. But you don't seem willing to 1) clarify what you mean by that or 2) to consider whether there may be ways of minimising that risk. When reasons why such a change could be beneficial were suggested you didn't comment on whether you thought these were good reasons or not. You didn't seem to want to consider them at all.
Like you said before... Your mind was closed.
Right from the start.
> 2. We haven't moved that far yet. :-)You Dr Bob... You haven't...
> At this point, these aren't votes, they're requests for input.When you request input you typically are receptive. But when you don't like what you are hearing you tend to avoid...
> How about me supervising posters running it?Sure.
How about opening your mind a little more when people feel strongly about something?
You did allow a discussion to unfold about VSG's. But that was an issue you brought up. You don't seem that receptive to some that posters bring up.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:30:02
In reply to Re: some thoughts » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 22:57:09
>not numbness It's called 'serenity.'
>Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
>The courage to change the things I can,
>And the wisdom to know the difference.Yeah AuntieMel. You are right :-)
It can just be really hard to figure out just WHAT it is that you have to accept. And deciding how to formulate that is half the battle with respect to whether you are able to accept it or not...
But yeah.
Sorry.
I didn't mean to be accusatory or hurtful.
I was just feeling frustrated.
But it has been a really hard week and that probably hasn't helped.
Just ignore my rave...
Really.
Posted by Toph on March 18, 2005, at 10:22:55
In reply to Re: some thoughts, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2005, at 19:12:07
>... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
>
>...That's why it can be good that change is slow. The idea would be to balance (1) retaining the current culture and (2) giving posters more say in determining what's acceptable.
>As I see it, part of the problem with a democatization of a support group is the dependency thing that you mentioned somewhere, but also that with members gaining authority comes responsibility. We now individually choose to object to an unsupportive poster. As a member with authority we would have a duty to object. Likewise, we choose to support a harmed or stuggling member under the current format (and we do it well IMO), but a democratic structure would rely on representatives to care for all members and to manage all threatening conduct.
But with responsibility doesn't one develop a greater investment in the welfare of the community? I guess Bob could best answer that question.
Toph
Posted by Toph on March 18, 2005, at 10:36:24
In reply to 3) You won't???? :-O (nm), posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 20:06:35
Sigmund would say that Bob's new photo with his prominent wings is an unconscious means of preparing us for the inevitable in much the same way as #3 hints at his future flight.
Posted by Jai Narayan on March 18, 2005, at 17:31:59
In reply to Re: some thoughts » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 22:57:09
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 19, 2005, at 17:02:39
In reply to Re: some thoughts, posted by Toph on March 18, 2005, at 10:22:55
> As I see it, part of the problem with a democatization of a support group is ... that with members gaining authority comes responsibility. We now individually choose to object to an unsupportive poster. As a member with authority we would have a duty to object.
I agree, that's a potential problem. But all of the deputies wouldn't need to object, just one. They *as a subgroup* would have a duty. There would be responsibility, but it would be diffused among them.
> Likewise, we choose to support a harmed or stuggling member under the current format (and we do it well IMO), but a democratic structure would rely on representatives to care for all members
You do it well IMO, too. :-) That's a "responsibility" that's already diffused, among all posters.
And it doesn't extend to me, so I wouldn't see it as extending to deputies in their deputy roles, either. It would still be up to them in their poster roles whether or not they supported particular members.
> But with responsibility doesn't one develop a greater investment in the welfare of the community?
I agree, and that's a potential benefit.
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 20, 2005, at 7:34:47
In reply to Re: responsibility, posted by Dr. Bob on March 19, 2005, at 17:02:39
>
> >...a democratic structure would rely on representatives to care for all members
>
> ...That's a "responsibility" that's already diffused, among all posters.
>
> And it doesn't extend to me, so I wouldn't see it as extending to deputies in their deputy roles, either. It would still be up to them in their poster roles whether or not they supported particular members.
>But isn't it ultimately the responsibility of the administrator to support a group member who is injured and not receiving support. Support could take the form of vigilance against a "mob-like" action against a peticular individual. So, your resonsibility in more "devolved" than "diffused." I'm curious, was there a time in the beginning when you had to model support to participants?
Toph
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.