![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2008, at 15:26:02
In reply to Re: This Whole Forum is Nuts!, posted by Maria01 on August 11, 2008, at 15:18:12
> What I do have trouble with is the quickness in which dissenting opinions on this board are labled as "hurtful" or "causing someone to feel put down" when they are in fact just dissenting opinions.
> Sure, the OP could have chosen their words a bit more carefully, but there is some merit to the message.
That's the whole point of the civility guidelines. It's *not* uncivil to express a dissenting opinion. It's been done several times on this thread. What he asks us to do is to express it respectfully and civilly. He's developed the guidelines over the years as a response to evolving needs, and while they might not be perfect, as nothing is, I think they're a reasonable guideline to supportive and civil discourse.
Clearly I would, since I support them. Others may of course disagree.
Posted by ron1953 on August 12, 2008, at 17:32:47
In reply to The civility guidelines, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2008, at 15:26:02
How can a "deputy" even begin to think straight with all of this convoluted civility bullschitt clogging your brains?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 19:46:41
In reply to Re: The civility guidelines, posted by ron1953 on August 12, 2008, at 17:32:47
> How can a "deputy" even begin to think straight with all of this convoluted civility bullschitt clogging your brains?
ron1953,
You wrote,[...this...bullXXX...].
Could you list here some examples of {this...bullXXX}? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 12, 2008, at 20:08:17
In reply to The civility guidelines, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2008, at 15:26:02
> > What I do have trouble with is the quickness in which dissenting opinions on this board are labled as "hurtful" or "causing someone to feel put down" when they are in fact just dissenting opinions.
>
> > Sure, the OP could have chosen their words a bit more carefully, but there is some merit to the message.
>
> That's the whole point of the civility guidelines. It's *not* uncivil to express a dissenting opinion. It's been done several times on this thread. What he asks us to do is to express it respectfully and civilly. He's developed the guidelines over the years as a response to evolving needs, and while they might not be perfect, as nothing is, I think they're a reasonable guideline to supportive and civil discourse.
>
> Clearly I would, since I support them. Others may of course disagree.
>
>
Anybody who has taken second or third year college/university sociology knows about Zimbardo's psycho-social experiment (gone wrong!) Just Google Zimbardo and Stanford if you don't know of it. Even if PB is a good place to "hang out", I still question the ethics of the "do no harm" part of Bob's psycho-social experiment. Here is an example of institutional social research ethics guidelines. (These are from the University of Toronto, Dept. of Sociology.)Respect for Human Dignity
Respect for Free and Informed Consent
Respect for Vulnerable Persons
Respect for Privacy and Confidentiality
Respect for Justice and Inclusiveness
Balancing Potential Harms and BenefitsI think that the first, third, and last one are very much missing on PB. One could easily say a "block" is a form of humiliation. What if he "blocks" somebody with SI, and the person goes ahead and does it? What about the process of picking "Deputies"? Doesn't that form a dominant/submissive complex, or could make others feel "less worthy"? What about informed consent? Are people being told of ALL of the risks they take when joining the board? What about the fact that some people may cognitively not be able to understand the terms when signing up? Just because they can check a "yes" box doesn't mean the ACTUALLY understand. Maybe these are partly why Bob had to completely break his ties between here and the University of Chicago.
I am throwing these out for more of greater examination then expressing my personal views.
Jay
Posted by okydoky on August 12, 2008, at 20:16:28
In reply to PB reminds me of Zimbardo's Prison Experiment.ALL, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 12, 2008, at 20:08:17
Posted by ron1953 on August 13, 2008, at 12:03:52
In reply to Lou's request for this...bull XXX-phldawhul » ron1953, posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2008, at 19:46:41
The civility guidelines are VERY complex. Add to that the new policy of monitoring intent. The possibility to be genuine and sincere is almost nonexistent. And the Zimbardo "effect" is quite obvious, as far as the administrative actions go.
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 12:24:29
In reply to The civility guidelines, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2008, at 15:26:02
Might I point out that if the deputies behaved with as sadistic and cruel behavior as the guards in the experiment are portrayed as showing, the Administration Board wouldn't have nearly so many unsanctioned posts about deputies. Posts that I cried when I read, and that I ended up taking more Risperdal over than I have taken for my mother.
Moreover, Dr. Bob provides a fair amount of supervision and would cut us off pretty quickly if he thought we were out of line.
Even though Dr. Bob only very recently said that incivility toward deputies would be considered incivility just as if it were toward any other poster, in truth we allow a lot of things that leave us feeling accused and put down and hurt. Things that we would PBC if directed at the posters who posted it.
We're not Dr. Bob. We do feel hurt. We don't feel a distance between posters and us that would lead us to be unmoved. We *are* posters. You are our fellow posters.
I don't know why I bother to say these things. I suspect it's to, in my own way, keep my feet firmly planted among my fellow posters. Whether they like it or not. Whether Dr. Bob likes it or not. I am a poster. I refuse to be *Administration*. I just help Administration.
Posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 15:48:55
In reply to Prison guards, posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 12:24:29
>We don't feel a distance between posters and us that would lead us to be unmoved. We *are* posters. You are our fellow posters.
All the deputies are that to me, Dinah, of course.One of the American astronauts who went behind the moon mentioned how much the experience of being off the planet made him miss our talkative, argumentative and funny species.
It has to be said that things on Admin have been funniest when they have been most hurtful, which is something to think about.
Posted by Dinah on August 13, 2008, at 18:02:42
In reply to Re: Prison guards » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on August 13, 2008, at 15:48:55
I can't recall the last time I found Admin humorous. If ever. :(
Hmmm... Maybe some Dr. Bob moments. He used to have a great sense of humor.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2008, at 8:27:15
In reply to PB reminds me of Zimbardo's Prison Experiment.ALL, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 12, 2008, at 20:08:17
> Here is an example of institutional social research ethics guidelines. (These are from the University of Toronto, Dept. of Sociology.)
>
> Respect for Human Dignity
> Respect for Free and Informed Consent
> Respect for Vulnerable Persons
> Respect for Privacy and Confidentiality
> Respect for Justice and Inclusiveness
> Balancing Potential Harms and Benefits
>
> I think that the first, third, and last one are very much missing on PB. One could easily say a "block" is a form of humiliation. What if he "blocks" somebody with SI, and the person goes ahead and does it? What about the process of picking "Deputies"? Doesn't that form a dominant/submissive complex, or could make others feel "less worthy"? What about informed consent? Are people being told of ALL of the risks they take when joining the board? What about the fact that some people may cognitively not be able to understand the terms when signing up? Just because they can check a "yes" box doesn't mean the ACTUALLY understand.This isn't research, but those are good questions. Do you feel humiliated or less worthy when you're blocked or asked to be civil? Is there a way we could do that more respectfully?
And are there other risks I should tell people? I don't see just checking a "yes" box as enough, either, that's why I give everyone a quiz here.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2008, at 8:27:20
In reply to Re: Lou's request for this...bull XXX-phldawhul, posted by ron1953 on August 13, 2008, at 12:03:52
> the Zimbardo "effect" is quite obvious, as far as the administrative actions go.
Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as the deputy administrators) to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 15, 2008, at 9:55:17
In reply to Re: ethics guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2008, at 8:27:15
> > Here is an example of institutional social research ethics guidelines. (These are from the University of Toronto, Dept. of Sociology.)
> >
> > Respect for Human Dignity
> > Respect for Free and Informed Consent
> > Respect for Vulnerable Persons
> > Respect for Privacy and Confidentiality
> > Respect for Justice and Inclusiveness
> > Balancing Potential Harms and Benefits
> >
> > I think that the first, third, and last one are very much missing on PB. One could easily say a "block" is a form of humiliation. What if he "blocks" somebody with SI, and the person goes ahead and does it? What about the process of picking "Deputies"? Doesn't that form a dominant/submissive complex, or could make others feel "less worthy"? What about informed consent? Are people being told of ALL of the risks they take when joining the board? What about the fact that some people may cognitively not be able to understand the terms when signing up? Just because they can check a "yes" box doesn't mean the ACTUALLY understand.
>
> This isn't research, but those are good questions. Do you feel humiliated or less worthy when you're blocked or asked to be civil? Is there a way we could do that more respectfully?
>
> And are there other risks I should tell people? I don't see just checking a "yes" box as enough, either, that's why I give everyone a quiz here.
>
> BobDr. Bob:
I was really just throwing out ideas, but I am glad to see your response. I had forgotten about the quiz when signing up, as it also clears up some of the informed consent questions.
I wonder about the possible harm of "blocks", and I honestly have more questions then answers. Maybe
that is balancing potential harms and benefits? There have been a few alternative methods mentioned about "blocks", like having a single board for blocked posters. But I am not really sure of the right answer myself. How about some form of redemption?Thanks..
Jay
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.