![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 152. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by zazenduckie on January 28, 2007, at 8:23:43
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2007, at 0:41:59
Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 22:39:39
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else? well there's me » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on January 28, 2007, at 8:23:43
> Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
Thanks for your proposal. Would you be willing to work on any that are already on the list?
Bob
Posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:01:03
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
I would have put the question of the administrator's role (and the blocking system, which has evolved into one of the main componenet of the Admin's role now) under the heading of group dynamics.
What's most interesting to me here is group dynamics in an online community.
I'm not sure how to capture other questions about it.
You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are-- ie those who have issues or concerns, those who primarily use the board to give support, those who are attracted to moments of crisis, etc (I'm not sure how to characterize types, that would really take more thought); or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question. The role of lurkers overall is a confusing one, worth study, but hard to capture. They almost seem not to exist-- yet their presence is known-, but they're really pretty much ignored-
They constitute the pool of future posters-- yet no one tries, for example, to engage their interest or to reach out to them.
There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why? if so, are there experiments we want to try to reverse this? or is there something in the natural life of groups that they may wax and wane or go out of existence?
I could go on.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 22:12:12
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 11:01:03
> You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are ... or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
Right, that would be #1. I guess there's overlap between 1a and 1b...
> How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question.
That would be a survey, so #2.
> There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why?
Those would be #1, too.
> if so, are there experiments we want to try to reverse this? or is there something in the natural life of groups that they may wax and wane or go out of existence?
An experiment would be an interesting *next* project. The natural life of groups I think would be beyond the scope of anything we do here...
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on February 7, 2007, at 10:22:32
In reply to Re: thanks, anybody else?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 29, 2007, at 22:39:39
> > Dr Bob my latest proposal hasn't been acknowledged :)
>
> Thanks for your proposal. Would you be willing to work on any that are already on the list?
>
> BobAre you declining to add my proposal to the list?
It didn't get a number unless the server ate it ;)What kind of work do you have in mind?
Posted by thuso on February 12, 2007, at 21:16:43
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
I've been hiding for awhile, but I don't mind helping. I can help both with the research and with any planning (live in DC). If we do any kind of survey, I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
In reply to Re: what research to work on » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on February 12, 2007, at 21:16:43
> I've been hiding for awhile, but I don't mind helping. I can help both with the research and with any planning (live in DC). If we do any kind of survey, I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
Thanks! Would you prefer a survey project? If so, any particular surveys? The whole list's at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/721552.html
Bob
Posted by muffled on February 26, 2007, at 0:56:27
In reply to Re: what research to work on » thuso, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
Posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 7:36:57
In reply to Re: what research to work on » thuso, posted by Dr. Bob on February 25, 2007, at 16:31:35
My proposal to study gender has not been added to the list and you did not answer my question. I feel castration anxiety. Please reassure me that all members are valued and none will be cut off.
How much data are you willing to share with others? It would be nice to have any statistics you have gathered or records you have kept before designing a new survey. Welcome back.
Your friend
Zazenduckie
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
In reply to Sharing data » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 7:36:57
I think we should use heirarchical linear modelling to examine whether posters who identify with one particular "board" on babble show improved outcome relative to other posters.
poster nested within board repeated measures, of course. that will let us look at outcomes for people who participate on different boards. Are there group differences, or do individuals account for most of the variability in outcome.
can you tell I've been stuck in statistics land too much?
(((((((data)))))))
but Dr. bob, before analyses can be run, we gotta get data.
welcome back, by the way. I missed you. and please change the picture. it makes me feel dizzy?
what are the Dependent Variables? what are the Independent variables. I LOVE me some statistics. Data don't lie. people do. If dependent variables are not quantified yet, then they will need to be coded. I think that this would be a real boon to the literature. I don't know how to write up a case report (unless it's my own, in which case I'd say psychobabble is a good thing)
now I'm just procrastinating
((((((student SPSS)))))))
I just splurged and got an upgrade to do advanced regression, mixed and linear models. now I'm super-woman. don't mess with me!
-Ll
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2007, at 21:23:53
In reply to oh, just to impress muffled..., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
Lurpsie well I'm messing with you as the pic is changed it's a baby do you know who's it is? Not mine but a posters. Love Phillipa
Posted by muffled on February 26, 2007, at 21:58:52
In reply to oh, just to impress muffled..., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
Posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 22:48:40
In reply to oh, just to impress muffled..., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 26, 2007, at 20:04:46
What is "improved outcome" and how are you measuring it?
I like that regression thing too like we could ask everyone who they were in past lives and see if they sort themselves out by historical era like do all the Cleopatras and Egyptians mostly post to each other and are all the admin regulars 18th century rationalists or the psych board 19th century romantics etc etc etc
I'm glad you're feeling sparklier :)
> I think we should use heirarchical linear modelling to examine whether posters who identify with one particular "board" on babble show improved outcome relative to other posters.
>
> poster nested within board repeated measures, of course. that will let us look at outcomes for people who participate on different boards. Are there group differences, or do individuals account for most of the variability in outcome.
>
> can you tell I've been stuck in statistics land too much?
>
> (((((((data)))))))
>
> but Dr. bob, before analyses can be run, we gotta get data.
>
> welcome back, by the way. I missed you. and please change the picture. it makes me feel dizzy?
>
> what are the Dependent Variables? what are the Independent variables. I LOVE me some statistics. Data don't lie. people do. If dependent variables are not quantified yet, then they will need to be coded. I think that this would be a real boon to the literature. I don't know how to write up a case report (unless it's my own, in which case I'd say psychobabble is a good thing)
>
> now I'm just procrastinating
>
> ((((((student SPSS)))))))
>
> I just splurged and got an upgrade to do advanced regression, mixed and linear models. now I'm super-woman. don't mess with me!
>
> -Ll
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on February 27, 2007, at 11:43:40
In reply to Impressed and bedazzled!!!!! » Llurpsie_Noodle, posted by zazenduckie on February 26, 2007, at 22:48:40
> What is "improved outcome" and how are you measuring it?
That's the million dollar question. My personal favorite measure is improvement on the babbleometer scales. Dr. Bob was smart to select Babbleometer scales like the CES-D that are widely reported in the literature, and that people in the mental health field know well.
>
> I like that regression thing too like we could ask everyone who they were in past lives and see if they sort themselves out by historical era like do all the Cleopatras and Egyptians mostly post to each other and are all the admin regulars 18th century rationalists or the psych board 19th century romantics etc etc etcMy pick for 19th century romantic is probably Honore or Racer- although Honore is also dangerously close to being part of Dada.
Personally I'd like to regress to the womb. I believe my mom took me to France when I was prenatal. That sounds pretty good, huh?
> I'm glad you're feeling sparklier :)
You noticed! well, I'm glad too. really glad. starting to feel more llurpsie and less limp noodle.
happy day to you zazenduckie :)
-Ll
>
>
> > I think we should use heirarchical linear modelling to examine whether posters who identify with one particular "board" on babble show improved outcome relative to other posters.
> >
> > poster nested within board repeated measures, of course. that will let us look at outcomes for people who participate on different boards. Are there group differences, or do individuals account for most of the variability in outcome.
> >
> > can you tell I've been stuck in statistics land too much?
> >
> > (((((((data)))))))
> >
> > but Dr. bob, before analyses can be run, we gotta get data.
> >
> > welcome back, by the way. I missed you. and please change the picture. it makes me feel dizzy?
> >
> > what are the Dependent Variables? what are the Independent variables. I LOVE me some statistics. Data don't lie. people do. If dependent variables are not quantified yet, then they will need to be coded. I think that this would be a real boon to the literature. I don't know how to write up a case report (unless it's my own, in which case I'd say psychobabble is a good thing)
> >
> > now I'm just procrastinating
> >
> > ((((((student SPSS)))))))
> >
> > I just splurged and got an upgrade to do advanced regression, mixed and linear models. now I'm super-woman. don't mess with me!
> >
> > -Ll
>
>
Posted by vwoolf on March 24, 2007, at 10:17:10
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
I'd be interested in working on 2a, 2d, 2f, i.e. surveys.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2007, at 16:27:31
In reply to Re: what research to work on, posted by vwoolf on March 24, 2007, at 10:17:10
> I think I'd enjoy working on
> 1a
> 2abc[d]fgh
> 3a
> 4a
> 5c
> 7a
>
> Llurpsie_Noodle> > You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are ... or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
>
> #1.
>
> > How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question.
>
> #2.
>
> > There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why?
> >
> > Honore
>
> #1, too.> If we do any kind of survey [#2], I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
>
> thuso> I'd be interested in working on 2a, 2d, 2f, i.e. surveys.
>
> vwoolfOK, it looks like there are 5 of us and we'd all be interested in working on a survey. I do think that would be a good way to start. The particular topics that were mentioned were:
a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
c. level of participation/lurking
d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physiciansCan we decide on one of those?
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on March 27, 2007, at 20:46:37
In reply to Re: what survey to work on, posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2007, at 16:27:31
You seem to have overlooked me :(
Was that intentional?
I feel hurt and confused.
You have not acknowledged my latest input. Or answered my questions.
Am I counted among your "5" who are participating? Perhaps the server deleted my name? Please clear this up. Thanks :)
> > I think I'd enjoy working on
> > 1a
> > 2abc[d]fgh
> > 3a
> > 4a
> > 5c
> > 7a
> >
> > Llurpsie_Noodle
>
> > > You could look at the role of those who post frequently and what types of frequent posters there are ... or how they do or don't sequester themselves or show interest in one or several different boards.
> >
> > #1.
> >
> > > How or why people started posting after lurking, or withdrew to luring is also sort of an interesting question.
> >
> > #2.
> >
> > > There are lots and lots of topics re: group dynamics that I find very interesting. Eg why are there periods of very few posts, and other times of many posts? Is the board beginning to decline in attracting interest by posters? if so, why?
> > >
> > > Honore
> >
> > #1, too.
>
> > If we do any kind of survey [#2], I don't mind keeping track of the responses. And I still have my student version of SPSS, so as long as there aren't more than 1500 answers to a survey (I doubt there would be), then I can even run whatever statistics we want in seconds.
> >
> > thuso
>
> > I'd be interested in working on 2a, 2d, 2f, i.e. surveys.
> >
> > vwoolf
>
> OK, it looks like there are 5 of us and we'd all be interested in working on a survey. I do think that would be a good way to start. The particular topics that were mentioned were:
>
> a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> c. level of participation/lurking
> d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
>
> Can we decide on one of those?
>
> Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on March 27, 2007, at 21:03:19
In reply to Dr Bob you forgot me again » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on March 27, 2007, at 20:46:37
Bob several other people besides me have also expressed interest and you left them out too. Not even a word of thanks.
I am really shocked. I know I shouldn't be.
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on March 27, 2007, at 21:12:28
In reply to Civility?, posted by zazenduckie on March 27, 2007, at 21:03:19
Zazenduckie,
I feel just awful that Bob seems to have overlooked you. I didn't though. I read everyone of your posts to this thread with interest. I think you have good ideas, but I'm not the boss around here...thank you for speaking up for yourself. You're not the only one who was overlooked either. I think only one of my roughly 30ish ideas made it into Dr. Bob's list. so many interesting questions. so little time...
If you think Dr. Bob has forgotten you, please know that there was a bottle of wine ordered at the last babble-get-together and the bottle had a duck on it, and we all thought of you.
well, sorry if it's a small consolation prize. I just don't know what to say.
-Ll
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.