![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:16:40
I would request that a post go up on psychology board that if anyone wants to post even one sentence about the whole hubbub about my "bias" (which is a totally invalidating term) against psychodynamic approaches, that they do it here, and they do it in a manner when/where I can respond.
I have already responded to twinleaf at the psychology board. I would also like to note that in a message to garnet, Birdsong has buried in it this line: "I did not respond to come across as a "smarty-pants" ~ but I know you and others can understand and perhaps then wish to research further." How can I respond to that? To do so would be to intrude on garnet's thread which is about garnet and her needs. When Birdsong makes that quip, she is implying something that is untrue.
I had already taken great pains to explain to her that I WAS NOT ACCUSING HER OF BEING A SMARTY PANTS. In a post that she has either not read or has chosen to ignore I said this, "Do PLEASE reread my posts. I took great pains to point out that I momentarily felt you were being a smarty pants in your post to ME, not to DENEB."
MOMENTARILY FELT. Not accused, not pointed to it as a character flaw. I said "I felt"--that is exactly what the board's guidelines on civility says we should do: say "I felt."
Finally, I took the high road here. I told her that I was going to not respond to her post to me about this hubbub for a few days so as not to escalate the blame game.
I'm going to say this one more time: 1) I responded to Garnet's post because I care about her. She herself has wavered about what psychodynamic therapy can do for her. So what is the big deal if I suggest, with care, that she try a different therapy? I may have not been as gentle as I would have liked. But that isn't really the issue. The real issue, as evidenced by twinleaf's post, is that: 2). People DO NOT like a dissenting opinion (which is ironic, since everywhere else in the country, mine would be the majority opinion--as garnet herself as stated, there are only about 3,000 psychoanalysts in the US) 3.) Other people's defensiveness does not equal me being in the wrong. People can have lots of reactions to lots of things. How they react, or at least how they deal with it, is their choice--a great lesson of CBT.
Some people say that enabling is a problem. So they do things to stop the enabling. In DBT-speak, we talk about challenging, challenging with love and care. Challenges are a form of support. I may have done it imperfectly (though I have yet to be told in a non-attacking way how), but that doesn't mean that challenges ARE NOT supportive. But as I said, that doesn't seem to be the real issue at all. The real issue is that I don't like psychodynamic therapy at all; as an intellectual exercise, I love it. Didn't I study Lacan in literature classes? But in practice, I don't like it a whit. So what? Really: so what? What does that matter in the scheme of things?
Posted by Phillipa on June 19, 2009, at 13:29:19
In reply to This has gotten to the point where policing needed, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:16:40
Amelia you don't wish to do it via babblemail? If the person's is on might want to let them know you wish to discuss it here just a suggestion. Love Phillipa
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 15:52:33
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing needed » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by Phillipa on June 19, 2009, at 13:29:19
Good idea, I will try that.
> Amelia you don't wish to do it via babblemail? If the person's is on might want to let them know you wish to discuss it here just a suggestion. Love Phillipa
Posted by rskontos on June 19, 2009, at 22:42:48
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing needed » Phillipa, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 15:52:33
Amelia,
I think that perhaps the problem is no matter how someone tries not to come across strong the written word only goes so far to convey how a person does or doesn't feel. And I tried to gently state while I realized in your post you were not trying to offend your post did offend me. I don't often get offended. And I rarely respond. I am for the most a lurker. I am for the most part very disconnected. So for me to get involved it has to really get to me. I only tell you this because no matter your intentions remember perception is in the hands of the reader and it is hard sometimes here with the civility guidelines to truly try and discuss how someone feels.
Now I for one would welcome an intelluctual discussion on why you don't like psychoan therapy but I am afraid for the purposes of this site it would not fair well. Because we would have to word our post just so and then the intellectual discussion would suffer so why go through that.
Personally I don't care the method of therapy as long as I get my stinking parts more blended and life can be smooth. I don't care the method as long as I can feel more like fitting in with the world versus sitting on the sidelines. But that is me.
Not so much the process but the outcome. In any case, don't sweat it. Because these kinds of situations at Babble can become deal breakers.
and babblemail might be a better option like Phillipa suggested.
Well later gator and I hope things get better for you.
Even though my p-doc is a shrink (a term of endearment) he says he uses multiple methods.
rsk
Posted by twinleaf on June 21, 2009, at 14:50:18
In reply to This has gotten to the point where policing needed, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 19, 2009, at 13:16:40
Hey! I never said a single word putting down CBT. I in fact called it :great" that you found it so helpful. I do in fact know that it can be extremely helpful, and I am all for it.
I was trying to point out that there are people here who need a longer term relationship with a therapist, and that analytically trained therapists can be ideal in providing us what is most helpful. When I say this, I don't mean. at all. that they are the only therapists who can do so , but they are extremely good at it.
When I Iook l back at our exchanges I do not see even a hint of my 'putting down" CBT therapy. I was attempting to put analytic therapy along side of it as another valuable modality. But, twice, you have put down psychoanalysis, all the while feeling, apparently, that you need to defend yourself from supposed attacks by me on CBT.
On this board, I would like to think that I am exchanging ideas and thoughts with someone who is thinking in a fair and accurate manner.
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:49:43
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing ne » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by twinleaf on June 21, 2009, at 14:50:18
Huh? No. What I DIDN'T like was your very uncivil post to me that said "Why can't you just be appreciative..." etc. about psychodynamic therapy?
First, it's accusatory. It is not in line with the rules of civility put down by this board--and I fail to see why you haven't been reminded of that by anyone, like deputies, but me. Second, it is invalidating. And by saying that I am not being fair and accurate in this post, you continue to invalidate my education, my research, my intellect, my ability to evaluate what I read and come to a conclusion. Fourth, you had no right to attack me about my post to Garnet. My post was extremely supporting. I offered her hugs. I offered my sympathy. And fifth, where do you get the idea that I care what you specifically think about CBT? That I feel attacked, by you, about CBT? I didn't say that in my response to you on the psychology board, or in the post you are responding to on this board. That is coming out of nowhere. I have asked for a separate board so that I can talk about CBT, DBT, and other skills-based therapies with others who are interested in them, but that has nothing to do with you.
And finally, what I want to say is this. A thinking person can come to the conclusion that a therapy is not effective. Many, many psychologists have come to that conclusion about psychodynamic therapy. (Um, that's why there's research--so that persons can evaluate therapies and whether they are effective. Some research has concluded that psychodynamic therapy is ineffective.) What I'm wondering is why does my opinioin bother you so much? Are you happy with your therapy? Then great. You don't have to read my posts. You don't have to respond to my post to someone else. And you especially don't have to respond by attacking me, which is basically what you did.
By the way, if you want to read one of my posts on psychodynamic therapy, then you should read all of them. Then you would see that there are aspects about the THEORY that I appreciate, even as I do not appreciate its practice. Also, scroll up and read my posts about having another psychology board for skills-based therapies. Read Jane's post too. It might help you understand the nuances in what I think about psychodynamic therapy--because it is nuanced. Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that when you talk to me for the very first time, you respect me. Otherwise, we don't have a need to talk at all.
> Hey! I never said a single word putting down CBT. I in fact called it :great" that you found it so helpful. I do in fact know that it can be extremely helpful, and I am all for it.
>
> I was trying to point out that there are people here who need a longer term relationship with a therapist, and that analytically trained therapists can be ideal in providing us what is most helpful. When I say this, I don't mean. at all. that they are the only therapists who can do so , but they are extremely good at it.
>
> When I Iook l back at our exchanges I do not see even a hint of my 'putting down" CBT therapy. I was attempting to put analytic therapy along side of it as another valuable modality. But, twice, you have put down psychoanalysis, all the while feeling, apparently, that you need to defend yourself from supposed attacks by me on CBT.
>
> On this board, I would like to think that I am exchanging ideas and thoughts with someone who is thinking in a fair and accurate manner.
>
>
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 21, 2009, at 21:42:36
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing ne » twinleaf, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 21, 2009, at 19:49:43
> Huh? No. What I DIDN'T like was your very uncivil post to me that said "Why can't you just be appreciative..." etc. about psychodynamic therapy?
>
> First, it's accusatory. It is not in line with the rules of civility put down by this board--and I fail to see why you haven't been reminded of that by anyone, like deputies, but me.Amelia, you've already been asked to please not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you think a post is in violation of civility guidelines, please use the Notify Administrators function. If you post in addition to this, please post in accordance with civility guidelines.
I would hate to see you blocked from posting, and strongly advise that you read the civility guidelines at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilIf you aren't certain whether posting something is ok under site guidelines you can ask Admin or you might find a civility buddy helpful. I do.
Sometimes it takes a while to get a response. Deputies might need to consult with Dr. Bob, or they may be unavailable. As I have posted elsewhere, my computer's motherboard fried itself, and I'm trying to shift info to an older computer until mine comes back. This will mean response from me will be a bit slower than usual. I apologize for this, but patience might be necessary.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:46:17
In reply to Please be civil » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 21, 2009, at 21:42:36
Dinah,
I feel really frustrated right now. I am having trouble understanding why I am reminded about civility but others aren't (am I not "being put down" when twinleaf says that I am not "thinking in a fair and accurate manner")? I am also unclear as to what was a put down or accusatory in my post just now. I was responding to things twinleaf was saying, not to twinleaf the person. I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules (I was offering hugs, support, care).
Honestly, I don't know how to defend myself.
Is it because I am not putting all of my statements in the form of "I feel..."? --because at least I have done it once or twice...which is more than the number of times it was done in the posts I have responded to (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies. I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.
I do, however, really appreciate that you wouldn't want to block me. It is coming to the point where I will make the decision to walk away. I feel I am a valuable member, but I am also feeling like I have to walk on small, very fragile eggshells. I had to do that for a significant portion of my life. I am not interested in doing that any more.
Thank you,
Amelia
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 7:59:36
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:46:17
Do you think that this is at all applicable to what you are experiencing right now?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/902574.html
- Scott
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:48:49
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:46:17
> I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules.
Dr. Bob is clear that not all types of support are compatible with Babble civility guidelines. The civility guidelines state:
"Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
If you think about it in wider terms it may make more sense. Tough love type support generally involves attempting to bring someone to acknowledge something you think they ought to acknowledge because it would be good for them. But it all revolves around the poster's notion of what would be good for another poster. For a couple of examples that may clarify,
I am fat. It would be healthier for me to not be fat. It would be civil under site guidelines to say something like "Dinah, I'm concerned that you have been having health problems lately related to your weight. It really worried me because I really would hate to lose you or have you suffer because of it. If there's any way I can help you improve your wellbeing in this matter, I would really like to try." It would not be civil to say "You're always grousing about your health. The fact is that you are fat. Look at you. Under your skin is pounds and pounds of gelatinous fat. You will continue to be sick until you get off your fat rear and start exercising and watching your weight." The poster may well see that as objectively true, but it is not civil under site guidelines.
Another example would be "You are suffering pain because you have not allowed the Lord into your life. You will continue to be in a hell of your own making until you accept him as your savior." The poster may well see that as being objectively true. But it is not civil under site guidelines.
Site guidelines are widely applied. It would be impossible, and wrong IMO, of Admin to decide that a statement of tough love was or was not civil based on whether we thought the poster was correct.
> Is it because I am not putting all of my statements in the form of "I feel..."? --because at least I have done it once or twice...which is more than the number of times it was done in the posts I have responded to (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
The civility guidelines give guidance on "I statements".
"It's fine to give others feedback as long as it's constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did "wrong". And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like "I feel put down by what you said" instead of a you-statement like "you're so arrogant". But don't just word the latter as the former, as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard". :-)"
Dr. Bob also links a post that explains it further, in that paragraph. However, the link did not work for me. I think this is the post linked.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Be aware that procedures for reporting an uncivil post have changed since that post, but the parts about I statements are still accurate.
> I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies.It is against board guidelines to call posts "unreasonable and attacking". If you wish to discuss this matter, please use true hypotheticals or discuss it only in generalities, so that you will not be violating site guidelines.
>I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
It would be better under site guidelines to say that you do not wish to continue this as it does not seem to be productive, for example, rather than calling other posts accusations or referring to an exchange as a blame game. It's great to stand up for others, but doing so in positive terms "I have found xxx's posts to be very informative and helpful." and then notifying administration (which admittedly sometimes involves a bit of patience) about posts you find uncivil is the procedure Dr. Bob asks us to follow. This makes sense if you think about it in global terms, since if everyone characterized others posts in negative terms in an attempt to be supportive or to defend themselves, the sort of situation that you are objecting to tends to happen, and that makes it difficult for Babble to be a place for support and education. I hope that makes sense.
> I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.
You do indeed. If you believe you are getting feedback not in accordance with site guidelines, please let us know.
> I do, however, really appreciate that you wouldn't want to block me. It is coming to the point where I will make the decision to walk away. I feel I am a valuable member, but I am also feeling like I have to walk on small, very fragile eggshells. I had to do that for a significant portion of my life. I am not interested in doing that any more.
You are a valuable member, and I do appreciate your point of view. I think it adds to Babble. I hope you make the decision to stay at Babble and abide by the civility rules. But if they are not to your taste and you think it would be healthier to go elsewhere, I totally support what's best for you even if I am sad that Babble will lose your voice.
I'm guessing that if you ask, someone will offer to be your civility buddy and help you learn the ins and outs of the rules. The deputies would also rather help you in babblemails than see you blocked, so please feel free to ask us before you post. And if you don't understand the purpose of this or that rule, we'll be happy to explain that on board, as long as you ask in neutral, general, or *truly* hypothetical terms.
I hope this helps. And I strongly suggest you read the civility guidelines, since repeated violations of the civility guidelines will result in a block of one week, with escalating blocks thereafter.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:50:24
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 7:59:36
Scott, we try to do that. If a poster is new, or I believe they do not understand site guidelines, we attempt to explain. Sometimes this is helpful, sometimes not.
Posted by jane d on June 22, 2009, at 8:55:40
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy Dinah, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 0:46:17
> I feel really frustrated right now. I am having trouble understanding why I am reminded about civility but others aren't
Amelia,
It's important to remember that this is a site with part time volunteer moderators. Not every post gets read. Just because nothing is said about a post does not mean it's OK. Therefore it is not safe to assume that since you've seen someone else "get away" with saying something that sounds objectionable to you that you can do the same. It's not all that different from the rest of life that way.
>>(am I not "being put down" when twinleaf says that I am not "thinking in a fair and accurate
Well, given how that phrase "fair and accurate" is being used these days I'd say you're not. ;-) Seriously, those words made me smile when I first read them.
>>I am also unclear as to what was a put down or accusatory in my post just now. I was responding to things twinleaf was saying, not to twinleaf the person.
I don't think there's a problem with asking for clarification. I expect you'll get one from the deputies.
>>I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules (I was offering hugs, support, care).
Did anyone official (dr bob or a deputy) tell you your original post to garnet was uncivil? I don't remember seeing that and I don't remember the post as being uncivil. Controversial, maybe but that's entirely different.
> Honestly, I don't know how to defend myself.
It may be better not to in that case. I think the tendency for people to get themselves in trouble when they are defending themselves or someone else is the reason for the notify button at the bottom of each post. I also didn't really see anything you needed to defend yourself from. I think your posts spoke for themselves.
> (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
Yeah. I have problems with I feel statements too. I feel that "I feel" statements are ... oh never mind.
> I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies. I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
>
> I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.I "feel" :-) that you shouldn't take the warning as negative feedback at all. I look at it as a warning to a fairly new poster who has suddenly found herself in the middle of a storm about some things that could trip her up. (That you need to use the notify button about "uncivil" posts, the rest of the FAQ that you were pointed to, that there really is a speed limit here despite all the folks you see going 90mph).
jane
PS. Have you ever been passed, perhaps cut off, by someone going 90, fumed about it for the next 20 minutes or so, then passed them pulled over by the side of the road with a police car flashing it's lights behind them. That always brightens my day a bit.
Posted by jane d on June 22, 2009, at 9:05:05
In reply to Completely unofficial explanation attempt » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by jane d on June 22, 2009, at 8:55:40
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 9:22:57
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing ne » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by twinleaf on June 21, 2009, at 14:50:18
> But, twice, you have put down psychoanalysis, all the while feeling, apparently, that you need to defend yourself from supposed attacks by me on CBT.
>
> On this board, I would like to think that I am exchanging ideas and thoughts with someone who is thinking in a fair and accurate manner.If you believe a post to be in violation of site guidelines, please notify administrators. Please be sensitive to the feelings of others even if yours are hurt.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Nadezda on June 22, 2009, at 11:17:49
In reply to Please be civil » twinleaf, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 9:22:57
Oh, no.
Can someone explain to amelia in babblemail more about how the rules work here.
I mean they seem transparent to us-- but to new people it really is a maze-- and not intuitive necessarily, by any means.
To Amelia-- it does take time to absorb what is meant by being civil, and how to phrase things carefully within the spirit of that.
I hope you stick with this-- and don't leave. I feel very hopeful that your contributions will get some really interesting and worthwhile discussions going.
You'll figure out the system here-- even if it takes a bit.
And don't forget that even if you're blocked, you can use the chat room.
best, Nadezda
Posted by SLS on June 22, 2009, at 11:52:20
In reply to Education » SLS, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:50:24
> Scott, we try to do that. If a poster is new, or I believe they do not understand site guidelines, we attempt to explain.
Thanks for doing that. You are very generous with your time.
- Scott
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:03:12
In reply to Completely unofficial explanation attempt » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by jane d on June 22, 2009, at 8:55:40
Hi Jane,
Thanks for the reality check!!! Really, it helps to have this third party view of things. It also helps to suggest that I not regard the warning as negative. It's true--it is helpful to know what is acceptable here and not. I have felt suddenly overwhelmed in the last couple of days with the rules and understanding what is what.The uncivil warning re: reply to Garnet. It was in a new thread down below that (and subsequently moved here). It was about how challenges can be supportive but not within civility guidelines. I guess I am assuming that the warning was in regards to that post because that was a supportive challenge to Garnet--to get away from psychodynamic therapy and try something else. So I don't know. Maybe in the end it doesn't matter.
Hey, Jane, I also wanted to say thank you for your support re: my posts and their content. I meant to say that to you in your post above, but felt exhausted by this whole thing, so didn't. Anyway: thank you.
Yeah, those "I feel" statements.
Ha! I have seen that--the motorist with his (or her) just deserts.
This reminds me of a totally unrelated thing that happened the other day. (Warning: trigger: potential but not actual death.)
We were driving down this street, when we saw this lady leaning over a guy, sort of poking him a little, evidently concerned he was dead. He was lying under a bench and, well, he looked dead. It was awful. We were trying to go this restaurant that, turns out, is only open during the day So we had to go back the way we came. As we were turning around, we heard ambulance, police, etc., and new they were headed over to the man. As we drove by, we saw that he was still lying there. He really looked dead. He wasn't moving. I was prepared to see them lift him into the ambulance on a stretcher, when all the sudden he popped up, like a flower after rain, and as though he just had a light sleep and felt a new spring in his step. Sirens didn't rouse him. Random people poking him didn't rouse him. But the sound of a police officer's voice suddenly did. It was kind of hilarious. Not the situation, but how he just popped up like that. Everyone walking by concerned about him and he just pops up like that, like a new flower. Hilarious.
Thanks, Jane
> > I feel really frustrated right now. I am having trouble understanding why I am reminded about civility but others aren't
>
> Amelia,
>
> It's important to remember that this is a site with part time volunteer moderators. Not every post gets read. Just because nothing is said about a post does not mean it's OK. Therefore it is not safe to assume that since you've seen someone else "get away" with saying something that sounds objectionable to you that you can do the same. It's not all that different from the rest of life that way.
>
> >>(am I not "being put down" when twinleaf says that I am not "thinking in a fair and accurate
>
> Well, given how that phrase "fair and accurate" is being used these days I'd say you're not. ;-) Seriously, those words made me smile when I first read them.
>
> >>I am also unclear as to what was a put down or accusatory in my post just now. I was responding to things twinleaf was saying, not to twinleaf the person.
>
> I don't think there's a problem with asking for clarification. I expect you'll get one from the deputies.
>
> >>I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules (I was offering hugs, support, care).
>
> Did anyone official (dr bob or a deputy) tell you your original post to garnet was uncivil? I don't remember seeing that and I don't remember the post as being uncivil. Controversial, maybe but that's entirely different.
>
> > Honestly, I don't know how to defend myself.
>
> It may be better not to in that case. I think the tendency for people to get themselves in trouble when they are defending themselves or someone else is the reason for the notify button at the bottom of each post. I also didn't really see anything you needed to defend yourself from. I think your posts spoke for themselves.
>
> > (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
>
> Yeah. I have problems with I feel statements too. I feel that "I feel" statements are ... oh never mind.
>
> > I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies. I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
> >
> > I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.
>
> I "feel" :-) that you shouldn't take the warning as negative feedback at all. I look at it as a warning to a fairly new poster who has suddenly found herself in the middle of a storm about some things that could trip her up. (That you need to use the notify button about "uncivil" posts, the rest of the FAQ that you were pointed to, that there really is a speed limit here despite all the folks you see going 90mph).
>
> jane
>
> PS. Have you ever been passed, perhaps cut off, by someone going 90, fumed about it for the next 20 minutes or so, then passed them pulled over by the side of the road with a police car flashing it's lights behind them. That always brightens my day a bit.
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:09:47
In reply to Clarifications and explanation » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 8:48:49
Hi Dinah,
Thank you for the long and detailed explanation. And for the support. I mean that.
Perhaps I am confused as to which post of mine was being flagged. Because what I said to garnet was more in line with the "correct" forms of support that you wrote as examples. Perhaps it was in my post to Birdsong that I had deviated from the guidelines? That is likely true.
I do not believe in tough love at all (what I said, in fact to Birdsong). At its worst, it is an awful, and awfully transparent, attempt at pushing someone to do something (I am not referring to anything anyone here has done in espousing that view).
However, in the end, it doesn't matter what post you were referring to. These are always teachable moments. I can see that after cooling off, and reading other responses.
I'm sort of exhausted on the subject, so will leave off here.
Thanks again,
Amelia> > I am still baffled by what about my original post to garnet was challenging in a supportive way, yet not really in accordance w/civility rules.
>
> Dr. Bob is clear that not all types of support are compatible with Babble civility guidelines. The civility guidelines state:
>
> "Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
>
> If you think about it in wider terms it may make more sense. Tough love type support generally involves attempting to bring someone to acknowledge something you think they ought to acknowledge because it would be good for them. But it all revolves around the poster's notion of what would be good for another poster. For a couple of examples that may clarify,
>
> I am fat. It would be healthier for me to not be fat. It would be civil under site guidelines to say something like "Dinah, I'm concerned that you have been having health problems lately related to your weight. It really worried me because I really would hate to lose you or have you suffer because of it. If there's any way I can help you improve your wellbeing in this matter, I would really like to try." It would not be civil to say "You're always grousing about your health. The fact is that you are fat. Look at you. Under your skin is pounds and pounds of gelatinous fat. You will continue to be sick until you get off your fat rear and start exercising and watching your weight." The poster may well see that as objectively true, but it is not civil under site guidelines.
>
> Another example would be "You are suffering pain because you have not allowed the Lord into your life. You will continue to be in a hell of your own making until you accept him as your savior." The poster may well see that as being objectively true. But it is not civil under site guidelines.
>
> Site guidelines are widely applied. It would be impossible, and wrong IMO, of Admin to decide that a statement of tough love was or was not civil based on whether we thought the poster was correct.
>
> > Is it because I am not putting all of my statements in the form of "I feel..."? --because at least I have done it once or twice...which is more than the number of times it was done in the posts I have responded to (and I have to say that I am really against using "I feel" statements, so it's a big deal for me to accept the guidelines in that regard to the degree I have).
>
> The civility guidelines give guidance on "I statements".
>
> "It's fine to give others feedback as long as it's constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did "wrong". And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like "I feel put down by what you said" instead of a you-statement like "you're so arrogant". But don't just word the latter as the former, as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard". :-)"
>
> Dr. Bob also links a post that explains it further, in that paragraph. However, the link did not work for me. I think this is the post linked.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> Be aware that procedures for reporting an uncivil post have changed since that post, but the parts about I statements are still accurate.
>
> > I am very proud of how I have handled myself, despite what I feel to be some unreasonable and defensive, if not attacking, replies.
>
> It is against board guidelines to call posts "unreasonable and attacking". If you wish to discuss this matter, please use true hypotheticals or discuss it only in generalities, so that you will not be violating site guidelines.
>
> >I have given support to others, set boundaries for myself, stood up for myself and, I might add, stood up for others, and have said that I wouldn't reply to accusations so as not to further escalate the blame game.
>
> It would be better under site guidelines to say that you do not wish to continue this as it does not seem to be productive, for example, rather than calling other posts accusations or referring to an exchange as a blame game. It's great to stand up for others, but doing so in positive terms "I have found xxx's posts to be very informative and helpful." and then notifying administration (which admittedly sometimes involves a bit of patience) about posts you find uncivil is the procedure Dr. Bob asks us to follow. This makes sense if you think about it in global terms, since if everyone characterized others posts in negative terms in an attempt to be supportive or to defend themselves, the sort of situation that you are objecting to tends to happen, and that makes it difficult for Babble to be a place for support and education. I hope that makes sense.
>
> > I feel that the feedback I am getting is not quite fair. I also feel that I deserve positive feedback.
>
> You do indeed. If you believe you are getting feedback not in accordance with site guidelines, please let us know.
>
> > I do, however, really appreciate that you wouldn't want to block me. It is coming to the point where I will make the decision to walk away. I feel I am a valuable member, but I am also feeling like I have to walk on small, very fragile eggshells. I had to do that for a significant portion of my life. I am not interested in doing that any more.
>
> You are a valuable member, and I do appreciate your point of view. I think it adds to Babble. I hope you make the decision to stay at Babble and abide by the civility rules. But if they are not to your taste and you think it would be healthier to go elsewhere, I totally support what's best for you even if I am sad that Babble will lose your voice.
>
> I'm guessing that if you ask, someone will offer to be your civility buddy and help you learn the ins and outs of the rules. The deputies would also rather help you in babblemails than see you blocked, so please feel free to ask us before you post. And if you don't understand the purpose of this or that rule, we'll be happy to explain that on board, as long as you ask in neutral, general, or *truly* hypothetical terms.
>
> I hope this helps. And I strongly suggest you read the civility guidelines, since repeated violations of the civility guidelines will result in a block of one week, with escalating blocks thereafter.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:12:00
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Nadezda on June 22, 2009, at 11:17:49
Thanks Nadezda. What kind things you have said here. What wonderful encouragement.
I feel very heartened by your kind response. :-)
> Oh, no.
>
> Can someone explain to amelia in babblemail more about how the rules work here.
>
> I mean they seem transparent to us-- but to new people it really is a maze-- and not intuitive necessarily, by any means.
>
> To Amelia-- it does take time to absorb what is meant by being civil, and how to phrase things carefully within the spirit of that.
>
> I hope you stick with this-- and don't leave. I feel very hopeful that your contributions will get some really interesting and worthwhile discussions going.
>
> You'll figure out the system here-- even if it takes a bit.
>
> And don't forget that even if you're blocked, you can use the chat room.
>
> best, Nadezda
>
>
Posted by twinleaf on June 22, 2009, at 14:48:08
In reply to Re: This has gotten to the point where policing ne » Amelia_in_StPaul, posted by twinleaf on June 21, 2009, at 14:50:18
In these posts between Amelia and me , I have twice stood up for psychoanalysis in a low-key, friendly manner, because I have had an amazingly positive personal experience with it. At the same time, I have supported CBT and related approaches, because I know, first-hand, that they, too can be amazingly effective. I never said a negative word about CBT, or about anything.
Therefore, I feel it is inappropriate for another poster to so blatantly misinterpret what I have said, and, also, for a deputy to give me a warning for indicating that I expect to be understood in a reasonable manner when I post here. I feel certain my words were clear, but if Amelia did not think so, she could ask me to clarify them. If she asked for that, I feel sure that she would feel very supported and validated by the extremely high regard I have for all the CBT approaches. She might not agree with the high regard I have for psychoanalysis, but that's OK- I'm not asking her to agree with me. We can just have a friendly disagreement.
Dinah, your warning to me epitomizes what I find troubling about Psychobabble. The meaning and essence of a poster's message is ignored in favor of some tiny point. You all seem to constantly lose sight of the forest and get bogged down in the smallest trees.
Amelia- one point: people here do not usually let everyone know what their educational attainments are, but since you have used your own as ammunition to put down my point of view about psychoanalysis, I will just tell you: I have more education than you do.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 16:45:40
In reply to making sense of things..., posted by twinleaf on June 22, 2009, at 14:48:08
> Therefore, I feel it is inappropriate for another poster to so blatantly misinterpret what I have said, and, also, for a deputy to give me a warning for indicating that I expect to be understood in a reasonable manner when I post here.
To clarify again, it is against Babble civility guidelines to post anything that could lead another poster to feel accused or put down, for example of blatantly misrepresenting what you said.
> Dinah, your warning to me epitomizes what I find troubling about Psychobabble. The meaning and essence of a poster's message is ignored in favor of some tiny point. You all seem to constantly lose sight of the forest and get bogged down in the smallest trees.
What is a small tree to you might not be a small tree to Amelia.
I suggest the same thing to you as I suggest to Amelia. Perhaps someone would volunteer to be your civility buddy, or perhaps you could ask the deputies or Dr. Bob if you have any questions about the guidelines. You can also use the notify administrators function. It's fine to try to work things out with the other poster, but please try to keep the civility guidelines in mind.
I think you are a valuable asset to Babble. I have long enjoyed your posts on Psychology, and I really wish to do what I can to help you stay as an active poster.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 20:14:38
In reply to Re: Clarifications and explanation » Deputy Dinah, posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 22, 2009, at 12:09:47
> Perhaps I am confused as to which post of mine was being flagged. Because what I said to garnet was more in line with the "correct" forms of support that you wrote as examples. Perhaps it was in my post to Birdsong that I had deviated from the guidelines? That is likely true.
That explanation of the potential conflict between support and civility was not intended as a response to any of your posts. You had indicated that you were having trouble figuring out the civility rules, so I was trying to help explain. But perhaps I got a bit confused as to what you wished explained.
If you do have more questions, I'll try again.
(But again, please ask in the most general terms or if you wish to reference incidents or posts, it might be better to ask the deputies in babblemail.)
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 20:18:27
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Nadezda on June 22, 2009, at 11:17:49
If you think you see someone new having trouble with the civility guidelines, perhaps you could babblemail them and offer to help explain?
If people did this, it would not only help the new people get accustomed to babble guidelines, but it might also lead to some strong friendships.
Maybe an informal mentoring system on babble guidelines?
Posted by 10derHeart on June 22, 2009, at 20:44:50
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 20:18:27
Posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 22:21:56
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2009, at 20:18:27
That wasn't a PBC to Nadezda.
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.