![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 149 to 173 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:01:38
In reply to I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 21:07:52
My point was...
That it isn't that the values are different.
It is just that you are weighting the value differently.
Everyone seems to value inclusion and think that exclusion is a bad thing.
So it is about weighting the inclusion versus the exclusion and making a decision.With respect to small boards...
Everyone is welcome to join.
But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.With respect to the Babble party...
Everyone is welcome to go.
But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.In both cases the intention isn't to exclude people.
The intention is to make people feel more included.But the reality in both cases is that people can't join / go who would like to.
Sorry if you don't like the comparison, but I have to say that it strikes me...
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 0:40:15
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:56:01
> I care enough about this site to stay, even if this place isn't always representative of my values.
I hope it stays representative enough! Thanks for being open to giving it a try...
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 1:38:06
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:01:38
> My point was...
> That it isn't that the values are different.
> It is just that you are weighting the value differently.
> Everyone seems to value inclusion and think that exclusion is a bad thing.
> So it is about weighting the inclusion versus the exclusion and making a decision.
>
> With respect to small boards...
>
> Everyone is welcome to join.
> But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.
>
> With respect to the Babble party...
>
> Everyone is welcome to go.
> But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.
>
> In both cases the intention isn't to exclude people.
> The intention is to make people feel more included.
>
> But the reality in both cases is that people can't join / go who would like to.
>
> Sorry if you don't like the comparison, but I have to say that it strikes me...
Sorry if you don't like this comparison but...Boards: Everyone is welcome to join.
> But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.There are other options, people don't need to be openly excluded. Of course everyone can join! "This is a group of three, oh sorry too late!"
It is a self negating concept to say it's open
to everyone but only a select number can join.
With respect to the Babble party...
>
> Everyone is welcome to go.
> But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.
I do not think they are comparable.I can't concieve of anyone thinking they are comparable. Life isn't math.
Everyone was invited, if everyone had showed up it would have been great. Life placed the constraints on who could go or not, NOT Babble and NOT those who attended the party.
I remember you saying to me, when I was saying that I felt left out, but was trying to explain that I didn't think there was anything wrong with the party, that you did't want the people who attended the party to feel bad about going. Don't you think this might have that effect?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:03:07
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 1:38:06
> I remember you saying to me, when I was saying that I felt left out, but was trying to explain that I didn't think there was anything wrong with the party, that you did't want the people who attended the party to feel bad about going. Don't you think this might have that effect?
I didn't want people not to go because of how other people might feel. It was a wonderful oportunity for people. I'm not trying to make people feel bad about going. I'm just trying to point out that for every benefit for some there is a cost for others and that is life.
That is life.
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:03:07
And that the people who are against small boards, who worry about people feeling excluded, well they are typically the people who feel most included the way things are at present.
They don't see that people feel excluded the way things are currently. But some people do feel excluded.
And small boards aren't so much for the benefit of people who feel included already as they are for the people who presently feel excluded.
And for every benefit there is a cost
And that is life.And sometimes people will feel excluded.
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:17:30
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
Don't worry about it
Forget about it
It doesn't matter.
I won't bring it up again.
I think I get a little too involved in the boards sometimes
Good to be reminded of that
Time to find the real world
Time to find the real world
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 5:47:37
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
Yes, I don't think I want to post anymore on this subject. I was feeling bad for Dinah, actually who'd asked for a reprieve and didn't seem to get it.
> And that is life.
>
> And sometimes people will feel excluded.
> And there it is.It's not that cut and dried to me.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 5:51:07
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:01:38
I have to disagree.
But you're entitled to your opinion.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 5:58:19
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 5:47:37
Well, to be fair, I could have continued to refrain from answering the posts that occurred while I was refraining to answer. :)
It's just that it came to me over that period of time that the difference had to be core values, and that made it so much easier for me than thinking I wasn't explaining well enough, or that people were violating values. Thinking that people weren't violating values, just had different ones made it easier not to fight. I understand many situations where people have different values, and I manage to be understanding of that.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:06:40
In reply to Re: values, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 0:40:15
Well, I don't think it will be. But I love Babble anyway. You just won't get new posters who believe as I do. Particularly if you make them publicly viewable. I never would have decided to become part of such a place, I assure you.
But you could conceivably get many new posters who have different values.
Although, if something is already implemented on a site, people might not think about it. Unless they try to post an answer to a publicly viewable post and get a little message slapping their hands. So I still think you should make them nonviewable.
I still think you should consider nonviewable small or large boards because:
a) It would be less likely to cause that problem. and
b) Nikki has said that the major draw of the small boards would be to have a place to post that wasn't viewable by the entire internet. I'm sure that's true of many many people. So if you really want to increase numbers, giving a private board where they don't have to be afraid of their therapist or boss running across the site would probably bring a lot of new posters who may not even give a rat's derriere about the size or restrictions of the small group.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:11:49
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 1:38:06
BTW, Gabbi. You're right.
Posting here about the experience has taken something that felt purely positive and made it feel sad. We didn't intend or want to exclude anyone. And my efforts to make those who couldn't have come feel part of the experience have apparently just backfired.
Now I just can't feel very good about it.
But I learned a valuable lesson for next year.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:19:35
In reply to Re: values » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:06:40
In fact even I would be tempted to post on a nonviewable board for things that i didn't want to be seen.
I don't think there are any left, but if there were...
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 8:39:59
In reply to Re: values » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:06:40
> Everyone was invited, if everyone had showed up it would have been great.
>
> Gabbi-x-2In some ways, yes, but...
> a private board where they don't have to be afraid of their therapist or boss running across the site would probably bring a lot of new posters
>
> DinahWell, their therapist or boss still *might* be there...
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 9:04:20
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:11:49
> BTW, Gabbi. You're right.
aww, Cr*p, I wondered, that's how I would have felt too. I didn't agree with the comparison in the first place, and I think it would have been thoughtful to leave what was such a happy experience for you guys alone for awhile.
> Posting here about the experience has taken something that felt purely positive and made it feel sad. We didn't intend or want to exclude anyone. And my efforts to make those who couldn't have come feel part of the experience have apparently just backfired.
>
> Now I just can't feel very good about it.
>
> But I learned a valuable lesson for next year.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 9:26:22
In reply to Re: values, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 8:39:59
Please, Dr. Bob. You know as well as I do that the chances, already low, would still go down exponentially from having a publicly open and googleable board.
Nikki has strong feelings about this. And so might others. It might be good to request input from those who might feel more comfortable posting if the board weren't readable by anyone with internet access.
For myself, I've already spilled my secrets.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 9:40:04
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Dinah, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 9:04:20
I felt a bit hurt this morning that what I meant to be attempts to include those who couldn't make it weren't universally received in that spirit.
However, I'm also feeling unusually resilient right now, and I think I'll manage to put it in perspective. Some posters understood and appreciated what I was trying to do, and some didn't.
You can't please all the Babblers all the time, I suppose. Especially in such a delicate situation.
I am truly sorry that those who wanted to come and couldn't felt hurt by this event. :(
I hope you (and others) realize that I couldn't feel one whit fonder of you if you lived down the street than I already do.
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 9:46:43
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 9:40:04
Maybe the most suitable solution would be to offer to babblemail the epic saga to anyone who wanted to see it.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 7, 2005, at 11:31:13
In reply to Re: my two cents - Minnie Ha Ha, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 7:08:00
Sorry, I missed your post yesterday.
> I didn't see the women's group as having anything to do with small boards. As far as I could tell you invited everyone.
I invited all *women* so it was exclusive to a degree. And some people spoke up about that.
> Different thing altogether.
My intention was to exclude men; not because I wanted to hurt or anger them, but because sometimes women (a lot of women I know anyway) have things they don’t want to talk about around men. So it isn't different altogether, IMO, but only to the degree. The women's group was limited by sex; the smaller groups will be limited by size, because some people are uncomfortable in crowds. (Kinda like the small room thing I talked about in a previous post. As long as there's room, you're welcome. When the room is full, you have to wait for someone to leave -- or be inactive, if I remember Dr. Bob's description rightly.)
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 12:52:29
In reply to Re: my two cents » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 7, 2005, at 11:31:13
Well, I hadn't seen it that way. But certainly you knew the intent behind your own group better than I.
But as far as the other is concerned, I'd just as soon agree to differ. I think anything else would not be terribly productive.
Posted by so on June 7, 2005, at 15:01:26
In reply to Re: values, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 8:39:59
> Well, their therapist or boss still *might* be there...
>
> Bobwhat are the odds a therapist or boss would become a member and read the posts in the same privately viewable small group as compared to the chances a therapist or a boss would view a board readable by anyone with internet access?
Posted by KaraS on June 7, 2005, at 15:36:30
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 6:11:49
> BTW, Gabbi. You're right.
>
> Posting here about the experience has taken something that felt purely positive and made it feel sad. We didn't intend or want to exclude anyone. And my efforts to make those who couldn't have come feel part of the experience have apparently just backfired.
>
> Now I just can't feel very good about it.
>
> But I learned a valuable lesson for next year.
Dinah,I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading all of the posts about the Babble meeting in Chicago. Please don't let one negative viewpoint get to you or stop you from telling the rest of us about it.
K
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 7, 2005, at 15:37:59
In reply to Re: my two cents » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 12:52:29
> Well, I hadn't seen it that way. But certainly you knew the intent behind your own group better than I.
Yeah, this was how I explained it to Wee Willy back in April:
"... sometimes I want the company of other women *just for socializing* -- especially if I want to talk about *girlie* things like fashion and makeup or hairstyles, or delicate or potentially embarassing "female things," if you get my drift. I don't mean to stereotype, but it's kind of like men wanting to go out for a beer with the boys...
"Also, for what it's worth, this site was NOT set up for man bashing...
"I think it might also be a refuge for women who have experienced abuse, particularly at the hands of a man or men. I think sometimes it is hard for these women to unburden themselves in front of men. Perhaps they might learn to relax and trust again, but that kind of healing takes time."
> But as far as the other is concerned, I'd just as soon agree to differ. I think anything else would not be terribly productive.Well, I don't think we're gonna change each others' minds, if that's what you mean, but maybe understand each other better and see that we both have valid points. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 16:28:36
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:56:01
I'm sorry Dinah.
I'm used to keeping arguments going
Not so used to being diplomatic
And sensitive to other peoples pov
Used to dragging out the common ground
So as to engage.I'm sorry.
And...
Just for the record
I never said that I wished people wouldn't post about the party or anything like that. This is what I did say - down to 'thats life'.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/508780.html
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 18:00:08
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 16:28:36
> I'm used to keeping arguments going
> Not so used to being diplomatic
> And sensitive to other peoples povI don't understand. It appears to me that most of the discussions, or arguments you've had on admin have been about hypothetical situations or potential situations wherein people might be hurt.
But if you aren't accustomed to being diplomatic, or sensitive to the person with whom you are discussing the subject, you're likely hurting someone in reality, while arguing how not to hurt people theoretically. It seems contradictory to me.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:22:40
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 18:00:08
> > I'm used to keeping arguments going
> > Not so used to being diplomatic
> > And sensitive to other peoples pov
> I don't understand. It appears to me that most of the discussions, or arguments you've had on admin have been about hypothetical situations or potential situations wherein people might be hurt.Well... Yes.
But I try to look at the situation
At the best arguments from either side
And make a decision from there as to what I think.
Sometimes people think of points that I hadn't thoguht of.
I add them and think about them and weigh what I believe again.
And so for me arguing (which is sort of a technical term) is a rational process.
But emotions and how people feel etc become part of that too.
When you have to weigh costs to some and benefits to others.
The 'strength' of the feeling factors in when weighing the costs and benefits.
And... It is rational to take 'irrational' (and even non-rational) responses into account if you can predict that they are likely to occur...> But if you aren't accustomed to being diplomatic, or sensitive to the person with whom you are discussing the subject, you're likely hurting someone in reality, while arguing how not to hurt people theoretically. It seems contradictory to me.
I'm used to arguing with people who are doing that same process... We use the same process and sometimes (actually most times) come to a different result.
So then we look at the factors that we considered before making our decisions.
Sometimes there is a relevant factor that someone didn't consider and once they are made aware of it they change what they think.
Sometimes there is a flaw in one of the arguments and once that is brought to the persons attention they change what they think.In philosophy we don't much go in for 'it is all subjective' or 'different people just have different values' because it PREVENTS arguments it rules them out. There is no point arguing because people are really talking about different things.
What you need to do is agree on a backdrop first. So xxx things count as polite and xxx things count as impolite and everyone agrees and everyone agrees that politeness = good and impoliteness = bad and then what is left to argue about is whether the particular thing you are discussing counts as being polite or not. How it is similar or different to the things that were agreed on as being part of the politeness or impoliteness list or whatever.
Getting to the heart of the dispute is the point.
Drag out the common ground and find the precise point of disagreement.It doesn't work out that everyone always agrees (philosophers have disagreed with each other for centuries) but it does work in a hell of a lot of cases...
But...
I buy into that process.
I think it is a worthwhile thing to do.
We think of it as a way of getting to the truth
Because 'the truth' is what interests us.
That is what the process of argument is about.But people don't talk just to argue.
There are other considerations than 'truth'.
Maintining friends is one.
And I have to remember that my world view is rather odd really.
Thats why I alienate most people.
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.