![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 7:43:17
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 7:06:29
Hi one more time.
Ok. Having reviewed portions of the thread, the part of me that remains not stupefied will give you the benefit of the doubt this one time. I am really reaching on this one, Dr. Bob. As I am writing this, I am still tempted to change my mind about releasing you from a judgment of culpability of making a mistake. Some of the posts did drift a bit. No. You know, I am going to have to call you on this one. The reason you cited for redirection was for "multiple levels". I'm sorry, I am going to have to issue you a warning. I am warning you that you have removed from the main Psycho-Babble board valuable exchanges of infomation and ideas regarding the nature and treatment of major mental illnesses. You have also interrupted a process of synthesis of thought and debate that could have provided more information and education and support. I believe your actions were detrimental to the health of the community.
I doubt that you will transfer back to the main board the segment of thread that now resides on the Social board. However, perhaps in the future you can allow general discussions of the value of multimodal approaches to treating mental illness to remain on the main board, as it is unquestionably of therapeutic value. If a discussion becomes focused on the details of psychosocial issues, that might be redirected to the Psychology board. Issues involving social work might best be redirected to Work or Social or Health, depending on the content.
- Scott
> Hi again.
>
> I just realized. You transferred a huge portion of that thread over to Social. What is this all about? Was it an eyesore? It was a debate regarding the fundamental nature of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and how it should be treated. What does that have to do with being social? It certainly has everything to do with medication, as treatment modalities were being discussed. I am almost, but not quite, stupefied.
>
> Why did you transfer the thread if we were discussing the importance of using medication in treating bipolar disorder and schizophrenia?
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Dr. Bob.
> >
> > How are you?
> >
> > I'm not doing too well. But I've been worse.
> >
> > > > Where are we supposed to discuss integrative / multi-level approaches?
> > >
> > >
> > > On social?
> > >
> > > I thought social was for... Just being social.
> > >
> > > Aren't you just promoting dualism?
> >
> >
> > I was a little disappointed at the redirection myself. I thought it was just a bit premature. I thought it was just about to blossom into a discussion regarding a comprehensive approach toward recovery from mental illness including the biological, psychological, and social therapeutic modalities that might be used promote mental health. Where would a discussion of such a comprehensive approach towards mental health be best located? I don't think it belongs on the social board, where mirth is the general theme. Psychology - almost, but it wouldn't support enough of the discussion regarding the standard psychiatric treatments.
> >
> > I really think a discussion of a multimodal treatment approach towards mental illness belongs on the main board. Also, I would like to mention that I don't like to consider the main board to be limited to issues regarding medication only. I would prefer that it be geared towards mainstream biological psychiatry in general. This would allow discussions regarding ECT, VNS, and rTMs. It might also allow enough lattitude to allow discussions similar to the one that was about to occur here. I think if the thread were to drift towards issues regarding the psychological and social (as in psychosocial) aspects of mental illness and recovery, the Psychology board would have been the ideal venue to redirect it to. I would have allowed the thread to develop a bit more to see in which direction it was headed.
> >
> > I really think you should change the Main board to "Biological Psychiatry" if not "Psychiatry".
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 10:39:44
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 0:13:35
Thanks SLS.
There are different groups of people who hang out on different boards, Bob.
There are people over on the main Babble board who seem happy to have these conversations with me over on the main Babble board but I never see them on psychology and I very rarely see them on Social.
Because typically Social is about... Just being social.
I am having difficulty seeing why you want stuff that mentions a multi-levelled approach to go on the social board.
You have already split the 'good medicine' 'bad medicine' by seperating the side effects from the reccomendations. While I understand that some people do manage to find the withdrawal board so they can make a better informed decision about their medication I'm sure it is also true that other people don't.
I was talking very abstractly about approaches that are holistic rather than solely focused on biological treatment. I provided examples of other levels of intervention solely with the intention of clarifying what I meant by a level and in order to delimit the concerns of the biomedical paradigm. I wasn't going to go on about alternative treatments like particular varieties of therapy or sociological interventions. I was more interested in the abstract issue of how these different levels of explanation / theoretical frameworks relate to one another.
People posted to the thread. I guess that means they were happy with it. People can ignore the thread should they choose and it seems that some other people did that too.
If I had posted to the social board do you think I would have been able to talk to the people I got to talk to? No. It would have been a very different thread indeed.
By the way... You might want to think about whether you are catering mostly for Americans or whether you consider this board to be more internationally oriented. As an example, you talk a lot about not importing into the US medications that haven't been authorised... Surely you don't want people of other countries importing meds that are illegal either? Just one e.g., of cultural bias on the boards... You should really put a little note at the top of the politics board so that people understand that your priority is sanctioning statements that might lead americans to feel accused or put down...
Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 11:29:46
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 7:43:17
My impression was that thread was a serious discussion that drew in a fair number of people as it evolved.
When a thread gets redirected, doesn't it tend to shortcircuit the discussion? Not by necessity, but possibly some kind of signalling, that this discussion isn't so important? That could be unconscious, and my sense of it could be an accident of where threads tend to be redirected (and my personal interests, which have often not been in those areas). I"m not sure.
But when threads are redirected, unless I frequent the page that they're redirected to, or I'm much more than usually interested in the topic. I tend to stick to the pages I stick to. Which means I move on past that discussion to other discussions.
The structure of the board is for discussions to crop up and then die down, of themselves, but frequently because they've slightly fizzled, and something else grabs one's attention. The subject may well reemerge, with many of the same discussants, later. So the structure of moving-on tends to get ingrained, and one easily just moves on, if the topic isn't planted where it was before, and doesn't have any bright yellow "new" markers in it.
Where does the topic under discussion fit, exactly?
To me, the Main Board is the best fit. It does address the interactions of biological and psychological treatments and explanations (as I understood--I admittedly wasn't reading it--although I had begun to get interested).
The "Social" Board isn't so much "everything else" in equal measure, as it is odds and ends, thises and thats-- tv shows (Grey's Anatomy), the vicissitudes of one's pets' health, ones' hair style, the bad (or great) weather, hiking trips, jokes you want to share etc. That discussion is out of place with the mood and content of the Social board.
Like Scott, I could see it on Psychology. But I'm at a loss to think of another board. One could call those matters of Belief or Theory-- but not belief as used on the Faith board or theory in any really Political sense-- so those wouldn't work.
Of equal importance is that people, in general, inhabit certain boards. There are regulars, often people who visit only selected areas, and concentrate their energies there. They interact with one another and with others who are looking for something specific on a day or week or occasionally. They provide continuity, and inform many discussions. So each is invested in topics, but also their regular interlocutors.
In that sense, it's the participants who are the core "content" of discussions. One (as a psychobabbler) looks for people whose ideas and knowledge interest one, and tends to read and engage with them. (At least I do-- not entirely, of course, but it is one element of how I read.) So one is invested as much in people as in topics--especially because of the episodic, moving energy of the discussion.That's why the topic, beyond fit, even more belongs on the Main Board. If the discussion had some particular fit to another board (if it were about omega-3) you might enhance it by moving it. In this case, even if it doesn't fit the Main Board perfectly, there's no other perfect fit to justify the discontinuity imposed.
People on the Social or Psychology Board will not have been aware of the discussion. It will simply be a long, unfamiliar thread, of matters already, visually and psychologically settled (no yellow "new" markers). Therefore "old news." So you've ended the discussion among the originators and replanted it in new ground--where it may very well appear as dormant, and remain so.
Anyway, having run out of things to say (although not I'm afraid quickly enough), I do think it would be a boon to put it back on the Main Board.
Jost
Posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 22:18:28
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » SLS, posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 11:29:46
It would be a shame if this issue couldn't be revisited sooner rather than later.
Maybe Bob won't reconsider, but it seems a loss for this discussion not to continue where it was.
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 22:19:39
In reply to Re: How often does Bob visit here?, posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 22:18:28
> It would be a shame if this issue couldn't be revisited sooner rather than later.
> Maybe Bob won't reconsider, but it seems a loss for this discussion not to continue where it was.he doesn't often change his mind.
too late its dead now anyways
Posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2006, at 7:27:04
In reply to Re: How often does Bob visit here?, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 22:19:39
sorry. i'm sorry i said that. its ok
Posted by SLS on September 26, 2006, at 8:39:23
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 25, 2006, at 7:43:17
> I'm sorry, I am going to have to issue you a warning
I have to apologize here.
This didn't turn out the way I meant it. There was suppose to be a little bit of humor slid in there somewhere. I don't think it worked. Yes, I was angry and there was meant to be some tone in the post, but I was not really issuing you any kind of real warning.
I guess I should have issued you a PBS instead.
PBS = Please be serious.
Ok.
Again, I apologize.
- Scott
Posted by Jost on September 26, 2006, at 11:03:34
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on September 26, 2006, at 8:39:23
The thing is, Scott, I have a tendency to that sort of anger/half mock-anger- and it doesn't translate onto the page well, unless you really spent time on the writing-- in spoken language you can get it into intonation, facial expression, easily--
but online, it comes across much more angry, and much less amused--
which I've found to my dismay previously.
So I'm sure you only meant to issue Bob, a PBB-- (Please be Bob), or a PBR ((Please be Reasonable) or a PDWWW (Please do what we want).
I do think we can get the discussion going, Alex_k. But "Social" isn't the place for it-- or the place where it will flourish.
I 'm issuing an all-points bulletin for Bob: BWAY (Bob where are you)?
Jost
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 26, 2006, at 21:53:46
In reply to Re: levels and etc. » SLS, posted by Jost on September 26, 2006, at 11:03:34
For my own selfish reasons, I'm glad the topic ended up on Social. I am not really spending much time on the meds board, as my pdoc seems to be taking a "wait and see" approach, to see how i adjust to my new T. the medical treatments are currently less relevant to me (personally)
So, I live on psychology. Sometimes I'm social. For I while, I had stuff to say on Self-Esteem.
Mainly, I just stalk Alex. Or maybe Alex stalks me. Maybe Alex *Is* me. oh- crap just added a "with psychotic features" element to my diagnosis. strike that from the record.
I wish there were a "Multi-Disciplinary" board.
or a "Nerdliness board"
Maybe this thread should just travel around until everyone has commented on the Brain.
Personally-- the board it fits in with the most is the Psycho-Babble Board. Yep. the Main Board. The Meds Board.
SLS, will you still stop by for cupcakes?
-Li
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 9:08:11
In reply to Re: Redirect: the other two levels » SLS, posted by Jost on September 25, 2006, at 11:29:46
> I thought social was for... Just being social.
>
> Aren't you just promoting dualism?
>
> alexandra_k> I was a little disappointed at the redirection myself. I thought it was just a bit premature. I thought it was just about to blossom into a discussion regarding a comprehensive approach toward recovery from mental illness including the biological, psychological, and social therapeutic modalities that might be used promote mental health.
>
> I really think a discussion of a multimodal treatment approach towards mental illness belongs on the main board. Also, I would like to mention that I don't like to consider the main board to be limited to issues regarding medication only. I would prefer that it be geared towards mainstream biological psychiatry in general. This would allow discussions regarding ECT, VNS, and rTMs.
>
> I really think you should change the Main board to "Biological Psychiatry" if not "Psychiatry".> You have also interrupted a process of synthesis of thought and debate that could have provided more information and education and support. I believe your actions were detrimental to the health of the community.
>
> - Scott> There are people over on the main Babble board who seem happy to have these conversations with me over on the main Babble board but I never see them on psychology and I very rarely see them on Social.
>
> If I had posted to the social board do you think I would have been able to talk to the people I got to talk to? No. It would have been a very different thread indeed.
>
> I was talking very abstractly about approaches that are holistic rather than solely focused on biological treatment.
>
> By the way... You might want to think about whether you are catering mostly for Americans or whether you consider this board to be more internationally oriented. As an example, you talk a lot about not importing into the US medications that haven't been authorised... Surely you don't want people of other countries importing meds that are illegal either?
>
> alexandra_k> When a thread gets redirected, doesn't it tend to shortcircuit the discussion? Not by necessity, but possibly some kind of signalling, that this discussion isn't so important?
>
> The "Social" Board isn't so much "everything else" in equal measure, as it is odds and ends, thises and thats-- tv shows (Grey's Anatomy), the vicissitudes of one's pets' health, ones' hair style, the bad (or great) weather, hiking trips, jokes you want to share etc. That discussion is out of place with the mood and content of the Social board.
>
> Of equal importance is that people, in general, inhabit certain boards. ... each is invested in topics, but also their regular interlocutors.
>
> In that sense, it's the participants who are the core "content" of discussions. ... one is invested as much in people as in topics--especially because of the episodic, moving energy of the discussion.
>
> People on the Social or Psychology Board will not have been aware of the discussion. It will simply be a long, unfamiliar thread, of matters already, visually and psychologically settled (no yellow "new" markers). Therefore "old news." So you've ended the discussion among the originators and replanted it in new ground--where it may very well appear as dormant, and remain so.
>
> JostSorry about disrupting things. I understand that it can hurt if a thread you've put a lot of time and energy and thought into is uprooted. But I don't mean to be critical or dismissive or to imply that it's not an important topic. It's just that the main board, for example, does focus on biological treatment (and not just medication). Is it dualistic to have meat in one section and produce in another? My idea is for Social to be the section for general discussion and support. Though I know, "Social" may not convey that best.
I also understand that it's not just the topic, but also the people. But redirecting may promote interaction between people who usually don't mix. Like cross-pollination. Redirected posts should in fact get the yellow "new" markers. They may feel out of place, but people who aren't interested can just move on, and people who are can keep the thread going.
Having boards determined by people rather than topics has come up. I think it would be interesting to try, but also that it would facilitate cohesion on those boards to limit the number of people on each one, and that hasn't been so popular.
I'd rather this site weren't used to facilitate any illegal activities, but (1) I'm just not as familiar with the law elsewhere and (2) I'm not sure it would work to try to follow every law everywhere. I'm sorry if this makes people from other countries feel they or their countries don't matter, but that's not my intent.
Scott, I'm sorry you weren't doing very well. Thanks for helping out so much here despite that.
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 29, 2006, at 10:04:54
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 9:08:11
> Scott, I'm sorry you weren't doing very well. Thanks for helping out so much here despite that.
Thanks for your patience and tolerance.
- Scott
Posted by Jost on September 30, 2006, at 11:30:17
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 9:08:11
> >
>
> Sorry about disrupting things. I understand that it can hurt if a thread you've put a lot of time and energy and thought into is uprooted. But I don't mean to be critical or dismissive or to imply that it's not an important topic. It's just that the main board, for example, does focus on biological treatment (and not just medication). Is it dualistic to have meat in one section and produce in another? My idea is for Social to be the section for general discussion and support. Though I know, "Social" may not convey that best.
>
> I also understand that it's not just the topic, but also the people. But redirecting may promote interaction between people who usually don't mix. Like cross-pollination. Redirected posts should in fact get the yellow "new" markers. They may feel out of place, but people who aren't interested can just move on, and people who are can keep the thread going.
>
>
>
> BobJust to give the data on how this worked in this instance.
The topic, "the brain" had, as best I can gather, about 125 posts from at least 12 particpants between Sept. 16-Sept 25, in its original location.
After being redirected on Sept. 25, there were only 12 more posts, between Sept. 25-26, fully 7 of which simply discussed where the thread belonged, and 5 of which discussed a substantive question related to the topic.
Since Sept. 26, there have been no additional posts.
This much raises a question as to whether cross-pollination was stimulated through moving the thread.
It answers the question of whether moving the thread was beneficial to its development.
I'd say redirection of threads to a part of the board where they have questionable relevance, on the basis of this particular instance, doesn't serve anyone particularly well.
Jost
Posted by muffled on September 30, 2006, at 11:44:40
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 9:08:11
LOL!
Cross pollination don't always work!!!!
I farm.
If you plant eg. sweet corn, too near supersweet corn, and the wind blows the pollen over and they cross pollinate.....you get COW CORN-YUK! LOL!!!
So from a farmer point of view, that was kinda funny!!!
(and yes, it HAS happened to us more than once!- unmarketable corn gone to waste).
No offense intended of course.
Just wanted to share the humour of it.
It was good that Bob gave it due consideration anyhow eh?
Muffled
Posted by gardenergirl on September 30, 2006, at 11:58:29
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Jost on September 30, 2006, at 11:30:17
I wonder if it would be smoother if threads were redirected sooner versus later. One that has gone on for nine days (not sure how long the faith/social one went) is pretty established. If it had been redirected early on, say within a day or two, assuming it would be appropriate to move it, would the thread have been as long at the new location and established itself there versus at the originial board?
Just wondering.
gg
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 30, 2006, at 18:24:54
In reply to Re: Redirecting » Jost, posted by gardenergirl on September 30, 2006, at 11:58:29
My thoughts on the matter kind of go like this:
If I'm interested in hearing people's opinion about something kind of multi-disciplinary (something that could go in health, relationships, main PB, psychology, faith and social
[a purely hypothetical example might be: I caught a VD from my pdoc, who is also my T. Do I tell him that my antibiotics might clash with my psychopharm drugs? How do I break the news to my lover? What will my rabbi think when I have to miss my pdoc's son's bar mitzvah? etc...]
I'm probably going to start the thread whereever I feel that I could get the best feedback. Wherever the personalities are such that it would stimulate an interesting discussion. Often that has to do with the presence of specific posters on some boards more than others.
My feeling is that the original poster posts on a particular board because they are hoping to get a particular kind of support. I think that the intention of the original poster should be maintained wherever possible.
To follow up my extremely hypothetical example, if the most important immediate concern is to learn more about drug side-effects and interactions from the antibiotic and psychopharm drugs (since pdoc is not exactly a great resource for me right now!), redirecting the thread from the main "PB" board to "faith" is not going to help me very much.
my 2 cents. I've often posted things on a less-relevant board on purpose, simply because I knew that I would be more likely to get a good discussion going that might include include certain people's perspectives on my particular issues I value.
^^That's a friggin' long sentence! Can I have extra babble bonus points for grammaticality under stress?
-Li
Posted by Jost on September 30, 2006, at 18:36:45
In reply to Re: Redirecting, posted by Lindenblüte on September 30, 2006, at 18:24:54
>
> [a purely hypothetical example might be: I caught a VD from my pdoc, who is also my T. Do I tell him that my antibiotics might clash with my psychopharm drugs? How do I break the news to my lover? What will my rabbi think when I have to miss my pdoc's son's bar mitzvah? etc...]
>
>
>
>
> -LiThis may not be the best example of cross-pollination...
Although if you have to break the news to your lover, who's also your rabbi, and the T of your Pdoc's son-- at least things get more interesting!
oh wait, but your lover is also your Pdoc. Does that make your lover his own T's rabbi's son--your Pdoc's son's rabbi, or what?
Whew.
Jost
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 30, 2006, at 22:07:26
In reply to Re: Redirecting » Lindenblüte, posted by Jost on September 30, 2006, at 18:36:45
You think that the cross-pollination is fun? You should try the transferance game! In my (hypothetical) example, is my unusual attraction to my pdoc related to the fact that he is also the father of a bar mitzvah? or is it because I want my rabbi's approval? Or, maybe I just cooked up this whole scheme to have an excuse to visit the STD/VD clinic, 'cause McDreamy works there? Oh wait, that's a TV show. Dammit!
Maybe it was because I was secretly hoping to get a referral for a new pdoc from McDreamy, because my currentT/pdoc was making it hard for me to understand a woman's role as the lover of a Jewish Divorced pdoc/T? I mean- Do I go to the holiday Seders? What are the boundary issues here?
lol
I wish my own life were so colorful... um. maybe not.
Posted by TJO on October 1, 2006, at 23:20:42
In reply to Re: Redirect: multiple levels, posted by Dr. Bob on September 25, 2006, at 0:18:04
> > I'd like follow-ups regarding the other levels to be redirected to the other boards.
>
> I know there's not a board specifically for multi-level approaches. So let's consider it a "general" topic, and those go to Psycho-Babble Social. Here's a link:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060922/msgs/688931.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Bob,
I have an idea-why not put multi-level discussions on ALL the boards that the discussion relates to-this way pertinent information will not be overlooked. Is it worth a try?Tammy
Posted by alexandra_k on October 1, 2006, at 23:20:47
In reply to Re: Redirect: multiple levels, posted by TJO on September 25, 2006, at 20:55:11
> I have an idea-why not put multi-level discussions on ALL the boards that the discussion relates to-this way pertinent information will not be overlooked.What a good idea.
Posted by TJO on October 1, 2006, at 23:20:50
In reply to Re: Redirect: multiple levels » TJO, posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2006, at 7:12:00
Posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:10:32
In reply to ThanksAlexandraK, (no message) (nm), posted by TJO on September 26, 2006, at 7:13:59
If a discussion is just starting, redirect it.
If there is an ongoing and lively discussion, wait till it dies down naturally, then redirect it.
If a discussion encompasses other topics, but also keeps it's original focus, don't redirect it.
If it clearly changes nature or was clearly posted on the wrong board, redirect it.
I'd actually like to see a few more redirects in some cases. Some of the smaller boards need a bit of a nudge, I think. I'd hate to see the Parents board die, but am sometimes at a loss of how to jumpstart it.
Posted by Jost on October 2, 2006, at 11:21:13
In reply to Another suggestion, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:10:32
I'm wondered, though, at what point things would become too anatomized.
You do need a certain momentum or a board really falls off.
There are already so many separate domains here, and I haven't noticed that any is unmanageable.
I was wondering what the drive for bifurcation of discussions is: just theoretical preference for orderliness and unity, or are there practical considerations that led to it? (Ie, some makes eminent sense, but some I may not find so compelling.)
Jost
Posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 11:46:12
In reply to Re: when are there too many boards? » Dinah, posted by Jost on October 2, 2006, at 11:21:13
Well, my concern is mainly the Parents board, which I think has the potential to become a much needed resource if it ever gains momentum.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:25:41
In reply to Another suggestion, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:10:32
> If there is an ongoing and lively discussion, wait till it dies down naturally, then redirect it.
Thanks, I think your suggestions make sense. But what if a discussion is ongoing and lively and doesn't die down naturally?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 4, 2006, at 21:41:28
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:25:41
Wow! What a wonderful thread that would be!
I wouldn't think you'd care where such a wonderful lively thread that never dies would be!
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.