![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 18:51:58
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
> > Way more effective than idealistic, and much less ambiguous "tone". An excellent model and excellent post.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > gg
>
> The use of quotation marks is unnecessary and exactly the kind of attitude to which I was referring gg. Its a style that someone could find provocative, annoying and uncivil, but probably not the adminstration.Thanks for pointing that out so, well, pointedly. I still recall your earlier remarks on this topic, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Well, except for this part: the use of quotes was necessary for me, as I was quoting your word choice instead of using my own. In this case, it also indicates that I read your post. I had a reaction to it just as you appear to have had a reaction to mine.
I think the more interesting and perhaps, dare I say, pragmatic issue, instead of debating, discussing, characterizing, talking about, intimating, judging the behavior of others, is what will our behavior choice be? That's all we have under our own control, after all.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:53:28
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Toph, this *is* an example of what I was talking about. I suppose it could be read as attitude or sarcasm. But it can also be read exactly as it appears on its face. I have no reason to believe that gg meant it as anything but a very gracious statement to me. And perhaps an even more gracious acknowledgment on her part.
Or maybe even as a feeling of hurt at believing herself referred to as having tone? I think were I to use quotation marks, it would likely be a mark of the fact that I felt hurt.
If you aren't sure how to read it, perhaps you can very politely ask? You might find out that there is merely a misunderstanding.
As I've said, I've been on both sides of a misunderstanding. It isn't fun either way. People may think that the civility rules don't allow a frank discussion and reflection of what one person hears to make sure it is what the other person means to say. I don't think that's true. I've had misunderstandings that I've cleared up on board. It may be easier in chat, where it's real time, but it is possible on board. It just requires that we use a certain amount of restraint and tact.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 18:54:37
In reply to And Dinah...., posted by 10derHeart on July 27, 2008, at 17:29:02
No correction needed, 10der. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 17:11:54
Seeing another side, challenging or testing our thinking, feeling or experiencing something outside of our routine, looking through a different lens, changing our perspective...these are bad things? Oy, I feel my brain hardening and becoming a static entity.
Now, someone please bring me a bucket? ;)
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
In reply to And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 19:01:04
Well, perhaps my view is skewed because I really don't like to have to hand out PBC's. But I think I prefer nonprovocative methods of encouraging a change of perspective in this particular venue. The internet is just too two dimensional. It doesn't allow for any of the softening that a real life provocation might involve. A smile or body posture can really help in real life to indicate that no harm is meant. It's like with my dogs. Behavior that could provoke a tussle in other circumstances can be made playful by the play bow invitation.
And for me personally, a topic introduced provocatively is more likely to harden my heart and turn my mind than persuade.
Still, what's civil is civil.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
In reply to ''smoke and mirrors'' (nm), posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 19:57:06
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
Posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
>>>Still, what's civil is civil.<<<
perhaps what is civil here is merely Dr. Bob's definition of civil?
the definitions of civility experienced by this poster IRL and elsewhere online have been vastly different from this site's definitions.
civility is not a universal concept. if it were maybe there would be no more war.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:27
In reply to 'what's civil is civil' » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on July 27, 2008, at 20:09:20
Well, that's what I meant. What's allowable is allowable. I meant civil in the babble defined guideline sense.
Goodness only knows that I get annoyed at times. But not everything that annoys me is uncivil under Babble guidelines. And my best attempts to convince Dr. Bob that it should be fail as much as anyone's.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:06:09
> I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Were you trying to communicate something to me?
>
> What is smoke and mirrors? It's a phrase used to refer to a magician's trick, isn't it? Do you see something in my post as a trick or sleight of hand?
>
> I was being boringly earnest, I assure you. As is my boringly earnest custom.
No, Dinah, I wasn't replying to you. There is no name on my heading. pat
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:45
Ah, ok.
I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
Posted by fayeroe on July 27, 2008, at 20:28:21
In reply to Re: ''smoke and mirrors'' » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:16:16
> Ah, ok.
>
> I just noticed that it was in reply to my post (technically at least), and I didn't want to ignore you if you were talking to me.
it is cool.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 21:32:12
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing?, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 19:29:15
All good things to keep in mind, thanks.
Going back to a recent conversation about regrets, as I've said before, never for quitting. I'll add now, if I haven't said it before, absolutely for ever starting. Clearly you can't go back. There's no shuffling off that admin coil once it's attached. :(
Thanks,
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 21:56:11
In reply to Re: And 'provocative' is a bad thing? » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 21:32:12
:(
Do you think that's because of how other people treat you? Or how you feel yourself?
Turnover is so high here that a lot of people might not even know. But maybe the link is always in some people's minds. And maybe they expect more of you?
I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the topic.
I know that my posting style changed when I became a deputy, especially as Dr. Bob backed off. I don't think, overall, that I mind that. But I can think of a lot of ways that it might be a problem to be an ex deputy. Do you think that's a factor in what's going on now?
I'm sorry you have regrets about becoming a deputy. And glad you have no regrets about quitting being a deputy. I have no regrets that you chose to become a deputy, other than that it continues to cause you pain.
Posted by Toph on July 28, 2008, at 10:45:15
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » toph, posted by gardenergirl on July 27, 2008, at 18:51:58
I apologize if I read something into your post gg. As far as this whole tone thing goes I think as we get to know posters and their styles of expression we "hear" (oops, quotes) tone in their written speech. And since we somehow got engaged in this discussion, when I met you in Chicago gg, I was struck by how pleasantly we disagreed about the implimentation of the civility rules on PB. Our discussion was not contentious and I left thinking that you seemed bright and articulate and non-judgmental about someone who didn't share your same views. Maybe that's why when I witnessed some of your encounters with others here over the years I was surprized to sense a tone/attitude/curious choice of phrasing that led me to believe that you were being sarcastic, critical or condescending towards someone who disagreed with you. We were going to discuss this once privately but somehow never got around to it. I don't mind that you express your reaction honestly BTW, it just seems unfortunate to me when two people get testy with each other that usually only one gets sanctioned because they were less deft at communicating within the rules.
But, again, if I have unfairly ascribed tone to some of your posts, I am sorry.
Posted by fayeroe on July 29, 2008, at 19:38:48
In reply to Re: 'what's civil is civil' » zenhussy, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2008, at 20:14:27
Posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 21:00:20
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » gardenergirl, posted by Toph on July 28, 2008, at 10:45:15
Thanks, Toph. I'm taking this all in, but I'm not really all that up to talking about my character flaws, what they mean, and so on here. Maybe not at all. But here is definitely not a safe place, unfortunately. I recall fondly that afternoon in Chicago. And it's because of that experience, and what it means to me that I care about your comments.
About all I can say is that in person it's different. You get so much more than just words on a page. Okydoky highlighted Kali Munro's stuff about interactions online in a post somewhere around here, and I think a lot of that applies.
Maybe someday we can have that dialog we've talked about. It's just not an easy subject, and I guess I need to make hay while I'm doing okay versus when I'm struggling with high sensitivity.
Maybe when we do talk about it, you can tell me what about it seems so, something, upsetting or something?
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to express your reactions. At the very least, it means that something about me means something, even if it's not positive.
Damn.
gg
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2008, at 21:35:42
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Toph, posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 21:00:20
I don't think it needs to be thought of in terms of character flaws, gg. Perceptions and misperceptions and endless cycles seem to be not uncommon in the spoken word.
You should see my therapist's emails. :(
It occurs to me that if you took three regular posters, and had them write exactly the same thing, it may well be interpreted three different ways by different people. Playfulness might be seen in one person, and straight literalness might be seen in another, and sarcasm in another.
Which is why Dr. Bob prefers us to judge on actual words and not perceived tone, as you know.
It all ends up to an endless cycle, since people respond to the original poster in terms of their perception, and the original poster feels flattered/stung/hurt in response to the responses and posts in ways that just reinforce the perceptions. And so on.
It's my opinion, and I certainly have no weight of research or authority on this, that the only way to end cycles like this is to take a step back, stop, post reflectively (as in "I hear you say this. Am I hearing correctly?") and take some risks in vulnerability. I think the cycle can actually be broken by anyone in it.
I'm in one right now, and no it has nothing to do with any Babbler(s). I wouldn't post about it if it did. I'm in the process of taking that step back and trying to establish a break in the cycle. It will involve risk taking on my side, as I make myself vulnerable. But I don't want it to continue the way it is.
Don't give up, gardenergirl. IMO, and I could be wrong of course, Babble is worth fighting to relationship. Not the destructive sort of fighting. But the building sort of fighting.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 22:04:59
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on July 29, 2008, at 21:35:42
Posted by toph on July 29, 2008, at 22:34:37
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » Toph, posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 21:00:20
If I'm guilty of being unfair its probably in the unreasonable expectations I have for you and Dinah and others who are fervent supporters of the guidelines here. When I percieve you guys as sounding even just miffed or frustrated or defensive I'm afraid I view you as unsupportive where under similar circumstances I might give anyone else a pass. You probably already know that I and others have high standards critical of Bob in this regard. This must be a difficult burden for you guys if others are equally sensitive to any of your perceived flaws as I seem to be.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 23:03:32
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » gardenergirl, posted by toph on July 29, 2008, at 22:34:37
Ah Toph, at the moment, I don't know just what I want to say. I'm moved by your honesty and courage in expressing it. And unfortunately I'm pretty wiped out tonight. But I won't avoid so long as I did before. Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking reply.
gg
Posted by okydoky on July 30, 2008, at 11:46:16
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack » toph, posted by gardenergirl on July 29, 2008, at 23:03:32
When I read these last few posts on this thread I feel snubbed because no one responded to my thread or post, and it was about the same or similar issue. I apologize for making my posts all about gg. It was and is not. The last post I wrote was addressed to her mainly because of Toph's post I found to her which addressed my initial reactions on reading through some of the board. I read more and as my post stated saw Lous posting behavior and do not know if I had read further if there would have been more like it.
To be clear I am referring to asking for many many clarifications by my use of posting behavior
There is more than one reason why this posting behavior upset me. Some of it is stated in my post addressed to gg, some in the linguistic gymnastics" post which no one responded to. To be clear I feel snubbed by everyone on this board.
Besides my initial response on initially reading a page or so on the board, which Toph articulated better than I ever could, when I took a few steps back it is becoming clearer to me why I have such strong objection.
My feelings are that if I do not have the cognitive or language skills to respond to the clarifications or write the post initially so that people would not ask for infinite clarifications than there will be no discussion or response. No resolution of the issue I might be posting about.
I do not even remotely possess the cognitive language skills and feel very hurt and put down as it appears on this board it is a requisite skill. I know I am not articulating this well and perhaps I should spend another few hours trying to get it all very concise , but I just cannot do it . It is asking more than my abilities provide. I read through several threads or almost an entire page of posts and later went back to read older posts in an attempt to understand and perhaps sooth my hurt feeling. I do not know all the background on this board. I do not know much which is why I tried to see what the TOS (here I am not sure I am using the correct term) had to say. I also spent a short amount of time searching the internet for answers and perhaps something to inform me and the board if needed. I posted this all on the thread about linguistic gymnastics. I was hoping to gain some understanding but no one has responded. Perhaps I am jumping the gun. To clarify, I am being impatient and need to give people on the board some time to respond.
I am aware that I over react but to put it all out there this upset me so much I cried on and off for two days, took tranquilizers for one day in order to sleep and as you might read into this I am having trouble letting it go. The acceptance of the posting behavior on the board informs me, rightly or wrongly, that it is I who is cognitively impaired and it feels terrible. I have used this site on and off as a resource to inform and educate me about medications. At this juncture I am feeling a great loss as I do not want to loose what I consider to be an important, irreplaceable resource for me
I apologize to gg as I addressed it as if it were all about her. I do not know much about group dynamics but tacit acceptance to me suggests the issue is all about the group on admin.I have spent almost two hours trying to write this one post. The more I attempt to clarify what I am trying to say the longer it gets and I think perhaps off topic and diluted.
I would appreciate some type of response and if you read this very long post I thank you.
oky
Posted by Dinah on July 30, 2008, at 12:05:42
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by okydoky on July 30, 2008, at 11:46:16
Oky, I think the problem is that there is no one answer. Requests for clarifications can mean different things in different contexts.
I often use them when I read things that surprise me, or that I don't understand in context. Instead of getting defensive or angry, I check first to find out if there's a reason to feel defensive or angry.
It might be an example of reflective listening. I hear that you are saying this, am I correct? Which is a way of making sure there are no misunderstandings.
It may also be a way of expressing the conviction that there must have been a misunderstanding because I apparently offended someone when no offense was meant.
It can also have other meanings. Some people feel the need to have things explained in a detailed or particular way. It can of course be an expression of anger. "What do you mean by *that*?"
Like so many other things, the words can mean more than is apparent on the surface. If in doubt, it can be helpful to ask for clarification.
I certainly never meant to ignore you. Your statements appeared to be addressed to gg, and I did not wish to be rude by answering for her.
Posted by fayeroe on July 30, 2008, at 13:08:49
In reply to Re: Ah, there's the pragmatic I lack, posted by okydoky on July 30, 2008, at 11:46:16
I am very sorry that you didn't get any responses to your posts.I've said this before and I'll say it again, I was on here for ages and ages before anyone responded to any of my posts. I do understand your feeling hurt. I would worry for days about not getting answers to questions. I finally made a few friends and felt welcome.
I sent you a babblemail yesterday responding to one of your posts. Perhaps the babblemail gremlin ate it> :-)
I'll send you one right now. Pat
Posted by okydoky on August 6, 2008, at 21:07:55
In reply to Re: Note regarding Admin policies, posted by toph on July 27, 2008, at 13:05:08
From Policies see:
http://www.kalimunro.com/article_conflict_online.htmlChoose whether or not you want to respond
You do have a choice, and you dont have to respond. You may be too upset to respond in the way that you would like, or it may not be worthy of a response. If the post is accusatory or inflammatory and the persons style tends to be aggressive or bullying, the best strategy is to ignore them.Assume that people mean well, unless they have a history or pattern of aggression
Everyone has their bad days, gets triggered, reacts insensitively, and writes an email without thinking it through completely. It doesnt mean that they dont have good intentions.On the other hand, some people pick fights no matter how kind and patient you are with them. They distort what you say, quote you out of context, and make all sorts of accusations all to vilify and antagonize you. Don't take the "bait" by engaging in a struggle with them - they'll never stop. Sometimes, the best strategy is to have nothing more to do with someone.
I think we are doing ourselves, this board and perhaps the person posting a disservice each and every time one of us responds to a post that we read as intending an uncivil or provocative tone, even if our buttons have been pushed. Most times the only purpose the interaction serves is that of the provocateur.
The only instance where I see this could be problematic is if the poster is a deputy.
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.