![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 24 to 48 of 152. Go back in thread:
Posted by Honore on December 6, 2006, at 10:11:51
In reply to Babbleometer » Honore, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 15:09:48
Thanks for that information, gg.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:56:25
Hi, everyone,
What an interesting variety of ideas! Here's one way to organize them:
1. Group dynamics
> all the different people and the way they get on
> The interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions2a. Surveys
> how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> left brain/right brain narratives
> level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> number of symptoms/level of functioning
> the quality of medical advice
> what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians2b. Correlations
> how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
2c. Differences between boards
> any survey results
> post-length, posters per week, thread-length2d. Differences over time
> if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> if the group as a whole is changing3. Outcomes
> learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> or even just report on how reading/posting helpsWhat do you think? Any other ideas?
In selecting a project, issues to consider will be (1) how a study would actually be done (procedures, measures, etc.) and (2) what the significance of the results would be...
> ps. If you do this, I want to be an author. ;)
If we do something, we'll need to track who does what so everyone gets credit for what they do. :-)
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 8:07:24
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:56:25
> I do hope you remember your problems last time with complaints from the participants and questions about consent etc. If you used some form of measurements rather than quotes as you did last time maybe people wouldn't feel as exposed. Are you asking for the board to research itself as a way of avoiding getting permission from the research board at your university? Does the APA invite contributions from amateurs?? That seems awfully broadminded of them. Is the P psychology or psychiatry?
>
> I assume your planning to get money to bring all your co-presenters to the convention with you?
>
>
>
> Your friend
>
> zazenduckie
>
>
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
In reply to Re: one way to organize the ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
Did you notice that you totally ignored all the suggestions that we study the blocking system?
Thought this was going to be poster generated research.
There seemed to be interest among posters.
Let's be objective and impartial here.
Please rework your list to include these suggestions too.
Hi, everyone,
>
> What an interesting variety of ideas! Here's one way to organize them:
>
> 1. Group dynamics
>
> > all the different people and the way they get on
> > The interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions
>
> 2a. Surveys
>
> > how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> > left brain/right brain narratives
> > level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> > number of symptoms/level of functioning
> > the quality of medical advice
> > what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
>
> 2b. Correlations
>
> > how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
>
> 2c. Differences between boards
>
> > any survey results
> > post-length, posters per week, thread-length
>
> 2d. Differences over time
>
> > if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> > if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> > if the group as a whole is changing
>
> 3. Outcomes
>
> > learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> > or even just report on how reading/posting helps
>
> What do you think? Any other ideas?
>
> In selecting a project, issues to consider will be (1) how a study would actually be done (procedures, measures, etc.) and (2) what the significance of the results would be...
>
> > ps. If you do this, I want to be an author. ;)
>
> If we do something, we'll need to track who does what so everyone gets credit for what they do. :-)
>
> Bob
Posted by sunnydays on December 8, 2006, at 13:20:23
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
While I think studying blocking would be interesting, I'm not sure if Dr. Bob was saying this would be completely poster-generated research. After all, he should have final say in the topic if it's his name and professional reputation being associated with it, I think. Also, he would probably end up doing a majority of the work in terms of writing any findings or organizing a presentation just because of how hard it is given group dynamics in any group to get something big like this accomplished in any reasonable amount of time without someone acting as a leader and taking on a lot of the work.
And after all, it is Dr. Bob's site. I suppose he can ignore whatever he wants...
sunnydays
Posted by muffled on December 8, 2006, at 13:26:02
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
LOL!
You gotta admit Zaz has a point there Bob!
Was there a reason you chose not to add blocking?
I can understand if there is.
Just wondered what you might say.....
Thanks,
Muffled
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2006, at 0:59:12
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
> Did you notice that you totally ignored all the suggestions that we study the blocking system?
Oops, I had that in there, I guess the server ate it. :-)
4. Administration
> the blocking system
> other aspectsSorry about that,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2006, at 2:37:42
In reply to Re: one way to organize the ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
Posted by capricorn on December 14, 2006, at 19:33:39
In reply to more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2006, at 13:16:52
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Research has been done here before, but it's always been my idea. What about a more democratic project?
>
> Is there anything you'd like to study here? We could work together on that, we'd learn something ourselves, and it might be something we could present at the APA annual meeting in May 2008 in Washington, DC, while we're there for our annual birthday party.
>
> Let me know what you think...
>
> Bob
Block duration and suicide levels
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 21:25:03
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by capricorn on December 14, 2006, at 19:33:39
> Block duration and suicide levels
Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
Bob
Posted by capricorn on December 15, 2006, at 19:36:41
In reply to Re: more research here » capricorn, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 21:25:03
> > Block duration and suicide levels
>
> Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
>
> Bob
It would be interesting to see what effects differing lengths of block duration have on the individual re
suicidal ideation and other negative mental health factors.
Most blocks are for breaching subjective technicalities re how things are expected to be phrased rather than based on any sound moral reasoning and it must hurt and no doubt confuse already vulnerable people to be punished when for the most part they have not done anything wrong.
Posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
In reply to Re: more research here » Dr. Bob, posted by capricorn on December 15, 2006, at 19:36:41
> > > Block duration and suicide levels
> >
> > Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> It would be interesting to see what effects differing lengths of block duration have on the individual re
> suicidal ideation and other negative mental health factors.**Like self injury to punish themselves for being bad.
> Most blocks are for breaching subjective technicalities re how things are expected to be phrased rather than based on any sound moral reasoning and it must hurt and no doubt confuse already vulnerable people to be punished when for the most part they have not done anything wrong.
**Hurts real bad.
But I think there's less of it.
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
> Hurts real bad.
> But I think there's less of it.I'm sorry it hurts, but glad there's less of it.
I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
This is a great simple introduction to online research.
It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
Good Luck
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
In reply to Re:how to conduct online research, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
Having been PBCed twice on my first day back for reasons I do not understand, I would like to clarify that this post was not a direct reply to Bob. I was not suggesting he needed an online guide to research nor that anyone else did. I just thought it was well done if someone wanted an idea of how to carry out his/her idea for research. I mentioned ethics and consent as an example. I did not mean to accuse or put down anyone. It also has sections on methods etc.
I'm not a huge fan of the social sciences and I don't want to participate but I thought it might be fun for some of you.Your friend
zazenduckie
> http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
>
> This is a great simple introduction to online research.
>
> It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
>
> Good Luck
>
>
Posted by muffled on December 17, 2006, at 14:20:25
In reply to clarification of previous post, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
thanks :)
Muffled
Posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
thanks Zazenduckie,
Im glad to know where you stand, and thats a good link.I dont want to change psychobabble, I only want to suggest research.
1) an analysis of posting frequency on the admin board vs. the supportive boards. hypothesis- when things get heated (i.e. more frequent posts) on the admin board, the frequency of posts on the supportive boards decreases.
2) Why do people post on psychobabble- hypothesis that there are distinct communities of psychobabblers, i.e. those who post to provide information, but rarely seek information. those that post to feel socially engaged and connected with others. those that post to provide emotional support. those that post who seek emotional support. those that post who seek treatment advice. those that post who want to engage in an esoteric intellectual dialog. etc
Id be interested to see how babblers see their own role on the site at any given time, and how they perceive their role changing. who they feel are their closest companions, and how their perception of belonging to the psychobabble community changes as they first start posting, and as they post more rarely. who are the long term babblers, and what are their motivations. are there patterns?
-lurp
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
> I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
OK, let's see if we can decide on a direction. Here are the proposals we have so far. Which would you all be willing to work on?
1. Group dynamics
> a. all the different people and the way they get on
> b. the interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions2. Surveys
> a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> b. left brain/right brain narratives
> c. level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> e. the quality of medical advice
> f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
> g. why people post on psychobabble
> h. how babblers see their role on the site, who they feel are their closest companions3. Correlations
> a. how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
4. Differences between boards
> a. any survey results
> b. post-length, posters per week, thread-length5. Differences over time
> a. if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> b. if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> c. if the group as a whole is changing6. Outcomes
> a. learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> b. or even just report on how reading/posting helps7. Administration
> a. the blocking system
> b. other aspectsThanks,
Bob
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 12, 2007, at 7:47:08
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
> > I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
>
> OK, let's see if we can decide on a direction. Here are the proposals we have so far. Which would you all be willing to work on?
>
> 1. Group dynamics
>
> > a. all the different people and the way they get on
> > b. the interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions
>
> 2. Surveys
>
> > a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> > b. left brain/right brain narratives
> > c. level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> > d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> > e. the quality of medical advice
> > f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
> > g. why people post on psychobabble
> > h. how babblers see their role on the site, who they feel are their closest companions
>
> 3. Correlations
>
> > a. how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
>
> 4. Differences between boards
>
> > a. any survey results
> > b. post-length, posters per week, thread-length
>
> 5. Differences over time
>
> > a. if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> > b. if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> > c. if the group as a whole is changing
>
> 6. Outcomes
>
> > a. learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> > b. or even just report on how reading/posting helps
>
> 7. Administration
>
> > a. the blocking system
> > b. other aspects
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Bob, what are you doing?!?! thinking about research at 2 in the morning?!? lol
I think I'd enjoy working on
1a
2abcfgh
3a (this is a big topic, but I think is very important to report to scientific community)
4a (4b is interesting to psychobabble community, but perhaps the community at large may find it less meaningful?)
5c (especially regarding things like outcome measures and survey results about 2c& 2d)
7a I can't work on it, unless someone gives me data to analyse, but I can't read the posts that surround blocking issues anymore. too much vitriol and strife.If I had to pick ONE topic to work on, It would be 3a. I think that we can figure out a way to use some kind of standardized measure (such as the CES-D or other self-report scales) and compare the posting behavior of those who score low vs. those who score high on some scale. We can come up with a little coding scale for how distressed they seem in a post vs. how confident/satisfied/happy they seem in a post.
I think that it will be important to separate support-seeking posts from support-giving posts. I know from my own behavior that I can write that I'm in agony, and then 5 minutes later, respond to someone else that I'm confident that they are going to feel better soon.
Positive psychology folks say that feeling good comes from doing good. I often "feel good" if I know that what I have written to another has helped them in some way. This may be one of the most important phenomena that sustains the psycho-babble community. The positive feeling we get from making a difference in someone else's life. For me it's important to have my questions answered about medication, or psychotherapy practices. It's helped me a lot to get pep talks when I'm feeling really low. On the average day, however, I get more positive feelings from supporting others rather than receiving support myself.
Now I go to work on my own research. whee...
-Ll
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 18:57:44
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 12, 2007, at 7:47:08
Posted by Honore on January 17, 2007, at 9:59:37
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 18:57:44
A project to determine how much the participation and type of participation of the administration/leader of an online MB affects participation might be interesting.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Honore on January 17, 2007, at 9:59:37
> A project to determine how much the participation and type of participation of the administration/leader of an online MB affects participation might be interesting.
Thanks, I guess that would be 7b?
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 27, 2007, at 16:03:23
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
I read this old but intriguing article and it led me to wonder about the role of gender at Babble.
The rules seem to be distinctly feminine at least as described in the article.
All 6 of the deputies are female. 37 % of the posters are male. .
What percentage of the blocks particularly the long blocks are given to male posters? It would be interesting to see if they are given more blocks or blocked with fewer warnings than posters who are identified as female.
Is there a higher turnover of male than female posters? Do more males try it and can't fit in (adapt to the feminine style outlined in the faq)?
There has been a slight increase in male posters since the first year you report statistics. What would account for that?
The article
Gender differences in computer-mediated communication
http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Gender_issues/cmc_and_gender.article
4. Different styles
As a result of these findings, I propose that women
and men have different characteristic online styles. By
characteristic styles, I do not mean that all or even the
majority of users of each sex exhibit the behaviors of each
style, but rather that the styles are recognizably -- even
steoretypically -- gendered. The male style is characterized
by adversariality: put-downs, strong, often contentions
assertions, lengthy and/or frequent postings, self-promotion,
and sarcasm....Less exclusively male-gendered but still characteristic
of male postings is an authoritative, self-confident stance
whereby men are more likely than women to represent themselves
as experts, e.g. in answering queries for information....The female-gendered style, in contrast, has two
aspects which typically co-occur: supportiveness and
attentuation. 'Supportiveness' is characterized by
expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community-building
activities that make other participants feel accepted and
welcome. 'Attenuation' includes hedging and expressing doubt,
apologizing, asking questions, and contributing ideas in the
form of suggestions.Entire lists can become gendered in their style as
well. It is tactily expected that members of the non-dominant
gender will adapt their posting style in the direction of the
style of the dominant gender...
Most members of the non-dominant gender on any
given list however end up style-mixing, that is, taking on
some attributes of the dominant style while preserving
features of their native style, e.g. with men often
preserving a critical stance and women a supportive one at
the macro-message level. This suggests that gendered styles
are deeply rooted -- not surprising, since they are learned
early in life -- and that some features are more resistant to
conscious reflection and modification than others...flaming is tolerated and
justified within a system of male values
One might even say
there is a striking *lack* of proscription against flaming,
with the exception of a few women-owned and women-oriented
lists.
Posted by Honore on January 27, 2007, at 21:41:50
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 3:06:02
why, was there a 7a?
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 0:41:59
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on January 27, 2007, at 21:41:50
> why, was there a 7a?
Yes, the whole list's at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/721552.html
Bob
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.