![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 162 to 186 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2009, at 4:24:21
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2009, at 4:02:24
> OK, you're not satisfied with me, but what you can change about me (and the rules here) is limited.
Fine. But what you can change about us accepting or condoning your actions (that we don't believe is justified) is limited too.
> May I ask how you think your posting behaviors and how others handle their posting and conflict might be improved?
May we ask you how you think your posting behavior and how you handle your posting and conflict might be improved?
> The issue isn't whether I felt stung, but whether a post like that could lead another person to feel stung.
B*llsh*t. The issue is whether YOU judge that a post like that 'could' lead another person to feel stung. A person 'could' feel stung by about anything at all. You judge the 'reasonableness' of that and allocate blame / responsibility according to YOUR criterion. Other people have told you repeatedly that people feel stung by your blocking behavior. You have made the decision not to change your posting behavior despite that. But lets not pretend that you have some objective criterion or an independent grip on a truth that others are blinded to.
> I'd like people here to feel it's safe to post and not that they're in danger of getting a faceful of cat.
How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2009, at 2:08:16
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2009, at 4:24:21
> Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
> How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
Coming from me, it's consistent with the goal of this site, but coming from fellow posters, it isn't.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2009, at 2:14:41
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2009, at 2:08:16
> > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with. Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
> > How about people being in danger of getting a 'faceful of cat' in the form of being blocked by you for one year? Why is it that that isn't factored into an assessment of the justifyability / unjustifyability of your posting behaviour?
> Coming from me, it's consistent with the goal of this site, but coming from fellow posters, it isn't.
What is the goal of the site, again? I thought the goal of this site was for there to be a safe place for people to post in order to give and receive support and education. It isn't at all obvious that blocking people for up to one year is more likely to maximise that than other less harsh alternatives. But really, people have been saying this for years. You seem less interested in finding out what (empirically) best serves the goals of this site and much much more interested in persisting in behavior that others believe is an unjustifyable 'face full of cat'.
Posted by Kath on July 26, 2009, at 13:34:20
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2009, at 2:14:41
> > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
>
> > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.~ ~ ~ For me, I need to change two words of the question above. And I think the resulting question is really important...& I don't see an answer to it!!??
Here it is:
"HOW would we encourage people to apologize when we don't KNOW they have done anything wrong?"
How would we even KNOW to say anything to them about it, when we did't recognize any problem!!???It's sort of like, say I lived somewhere where there were NO poisonous snakes. So then I'm walking along a path in a country where there are rattlesnakes, but I didn't know that. So I see a snake in front of me but don't KNOW to stop & not keep walking towards it. How would I know? I wouldn't.
My second question...& I am not trying to be a smarty here. It's a sincere question. It's about wording & I notice myself lately putting a 'disclaimer' at the first of a lot of my posts, because I don't know if I'm walking into unknown danger with them.
OK - my second question has to do with the following:
>>In reply to Re: trust » rskontos, posted by twinleaf on July 8, 2009, at 16:30:39
>> Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
>Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If it had been "In my opinion, Bob... etc" would that be okay? I know I-statements are important. But I suspect that it still would not be okay. Just wondering.
Thanks, Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
In reply to Dr. Bob - questions I'd appreciate answers for...., posted by Kath on July 26, 2009, at 13:34:20
> > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
>
> > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
>
> Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.Not even in a social group like the above?
> Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
But I don't see it as either-or.
> I thought the goal of this site was for there to be a safe place for people to post in order to give and receive support and education. It isn't at all obvious that blocking people for up to one year is more likely to maximise that than other less harsh alternatives. But really, people have been saying this for years. You seem less interested in finding out what (empirically) best serves the goals of this site and much much more interested in persisting in behavior that others believe is an unjustifyable 'face full of cat'.
>
> alexandra_kI agree, research on what administrative approaches maximize support and education are needed. In the meantime, I do persist in believing that this approach is justifiable.
--
> "HOW would we encourage people to apologize when we don't KNOW they have done anything wrong?"
>
> How would we even KNOW to say anything to them about it, when we did't recognize any problem!!???That's a good point, if it's not clear to someone what I consider uncivil, then they can't be expected to step in.
I do however think a number of posters have a pretty good sense of what I consider uncivil. Even if they personally disagree.
> My second question...& I am not trying to be a smarty here. It's a sincere question. It's about wording
>
> > > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us
>
> If it had been "In my opinion, Bob... etc" would that be okay? I know I-statements are important. But I suspect that it still would not be okay. Just wondering.
>
> KathIt still wouldn't be OK. Have you seen Dinah's post about the wording of I-statements?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:08:10
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
> It still wouldn't be OK. Have you seen Dinah's post about the wording of I-statements?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> Bob~ ~ Thanks. I read the post. So maybe,
instead of (> > > > Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us)would this be okay:
"I've felt frustrated many times, because to me, there seems to have been so little understanding of how important privacy is for us."
?
Kath
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:09:54
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 18:27:01
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 11:08:10
> "I've felt frustrated many times
That part's fine. As an I-statement, I'm not saying it's fine for you to feel frustrated... :-)
> so little understanding
But that part's still about me, right?
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 19:09:46
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 18:27:01
> > "I've felt frustrated many times
>
> That part's fine. As an I-statement, I'm not saying it's fine for you to feel frustrated... :-)
>
> > so little understanding
>
> But that part's still about me, right?
>
> BobYeah. It is. Sorry to belabour it. I'm just using this as an example about practicing I-statments - I'm not saying I feel this way. I hope you don't mind me using this as an example. I'm trying to see if there would have been an okay way to say it.
(I've felt frustrated many times, because to me, there seems to have been so little understanding of how important privacy is for us.)
So how about this:
"I've felt frustrated many times. Privacy is really important to me & I feel like that hasn't been understood."
See. I think it still wouldn't be okay. What do you think?
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 6, 2009, at 19:09:46
> So how about this:
>
> "I've felt frustrated many times. Privacy is really important to me & I feel like that hasn't been understood."
>
> See. I think it still wouldn't be okay. What do you think?I agree. Thanks for working on this. Would anybody else like to suggest a way to rephrase that?
Bob
Posted by Deneb on August 6, 2009, at 21:30:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
How about:
Privacy is important to me and sometimes I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 6, 2009, at 23:00:52
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 0:47:49
> > > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> > > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.> > Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.
> Not even in a social group like the above?
The point is that psychiatrists were UNJUSTIFIED in regarding political dissenters to need to alter their behavior. The psychiatrists should have been the ones to alter their behavior - by ceasing to regard political dissent as a mental illness.
I suppose one strategy could be to get people to stop expressing political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way). That wasn't the idea, though, the idea was for psychiatrists to stop institutionalizing and medicating those who expressed political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way).
Similarly - you want us to tow your line on what you consider acceptable and unacceptable turns of phrase. You block people for up to one year. Other people want you to ease up and stop with making normative judgements that the MAJORITY OF CLINICIAN'S - INCLUDING ONES WHO YOU HAVE INVITED TO THIS SITE - DON'T SEE THE SENSE OR BELIEVE IN. Or at least to ease up on your fr*gg*ng punishment for that which is so very idiosyncratic to YOUR VALUES.
> > Many would say that a better show of support to those individuals would consist in campaigning to change the laws rather than campaigning for the individuals to alter behavior that one personally doesn't find problematic.
> But I don't see it as either-or.
Really? ? I thought your whole idea is for US to change and not YOU.
> I agree, research on what administrative approaches maximize support and education are needed. In the meantime, I do persist in believing that this approach is justifiable.
One doesn't need to do a randomized double blind control trial to see the harm, really. You have numerous posters posting numerous posts to you over the years about the harshness of your blocking system and how harmful it has been to them. You have people posting that their therapists reccommend that they stop posting here - for their own mental health - because of the harshness of your blocking system here. Just look at what is in front of your face...
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 6, 2009, at 23:00:52
> I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
>
> DenebThanks for working on this, too, but to me the above doesn't seem significantly different from:
> I feel like that hasn't been understood.
--
> > > > > Why would we encourage people to apologize when we don't believe they have done anything wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Because you wouldn't want them to be blocked.
> > >
> > > Yeah. I guess one might similarly encourage people not to express political dissent when they are in a social group where political dissent is punished by involuntary committment and treatment (e.g., as it used to be considered 'sluggish schizophrenia' in Russia). You can see, though, that people aren't likely to encourage people to stop doing that which they personally have no problem with.
> >
> > Not even in a social group like the above?
>
> I suppose one strategy could be to get people to stop expressing political dissent (eradicate the 'problematic' behavior in that way). That wasn't the idea, though
>
> alexandra_kWhy wasn't that the idea? They didn't want their friends to be involuntarily committed, did they?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 7, 2009, at 13:27:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
The police might have a policy that involves incarcerating those of (insert racial profile of your choosing here).
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals need to bleach their skin as a 'strrategy' for dealing with the situation.
The psychiatrists might have a policy that involves incarcerating those of (insert political belief of your choosing here).
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals need to persuade them not to voice a political opinion as a way of dealing with this issue.
Similary Bob might have a policy for dealing with an apparent 'issue' that contravenes what the majority of society (including the clinican population) has to say about 'healthy interpersonal relationships'.
That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals who are blocked according to Babble rules need to persuade those who they genuinely care about to tow Bob's line.
I mean really... THink about it.
Posted by Kath on August 7, 2009, at 18:00:34
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 9:33:47
> > I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
> >
> > Deneb
>
> Thanks for working on this, too, but to me the above doesn't seem significantly different from:
>
> > I feel like that hasn't been understood.~ ~ Ya know - on thinking about it, I don't really understand why these 2 statements aren't okay Dr. Bob.
If I felt that way, isn't it okay to tell that I feel that way?
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 21:32:17
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 7, 2009, at 18:00:34
> The police might have a policy that involves incarcerating those of (insert racial profile of your choosing here).
>
> That doesn't mean that those who are concerned for the individuals need to bleach their skin as a 'strrategy' for dealing with the situation.
>
> alexandra_kNo, but I don't see apologizing after being uncivil as analogous to bleaching one's skin. Unless being uncivil is as central to their identity as race...
--
> > > I feel like my thoughts on this are unheard.
> > > I feel like that hasn't been understood.
>
> Ya know - on thinking about it, I don't really understand why these 2 statements aren't okay Dr. Bob.
>
> If I felt that way, isn't it okay to tell that I feel that way?
>
> KathYou might feel that way, but I might feel accused of not hearing or understanding. Those statements are more about me (whether I hear and understand) than you (how you feel). Again, see Dinah's post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Bob
Posted by Deneb on August 7, 2009, at 22:41:32
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 21:32:17
> You might feel that way, but I might feel accused of not hearing or understanding. Those statements are more about me (whether I hear and understand) than you (how you feel). Again, see Dinah's post:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>
> Bob
How about:Privacy is important to me and I feel frustrated.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 8, 2009, at 1:36:00
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 21:32:17
> I don't see apologizing after being uncivil as analogous to bleaching one's skin. Unless being uncivil is as central to their identity as race...
The point of the analogy is that in each of those cases what the person was doing was something that we typically think is allowable or acceptable and well within their rights as a human being. Other people attempt to get them to change - and the idea here is that sometimes the best way to support a person in this kind of position is NOT to try and get them to tow some line that you don't really believe in. Rather, it is an attempt to get the stupid rules changed. Similarly... Many people feel that you block people here for unjustifyable reasons. They think that you attempt to get posters to alter the way they express themselves when you really aren't justified in doing so. They think that your penalties are too harsh for people who don't or won't tow your line.
For example:
> You might feel that way, but I might feel accused of not hearing or understanding. Those statements are more about me (whether I hear and understand) than you (how you feel). Again, seeAnd really, what is so bad about that? You are very idiosyncratic in what you determine might lead someone to feel accused etc. Very idiosyncratic indeed. If there were an accepted standard on norms of self expression (ie one that other clinicians could grasp too) then things would be better... But a block of up to one year for something that nobody else has a problem with except you??? Give me a break...
Posted by SLS on August 8, 2009, at 7:02:15
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on July 16, 2009, at 15:56:35
This post sucks, but I tried.
> >> "Bob ... has demonstrated so little understanding of how important privacy is for us."
Taken out of context, this doesn't sound too bad to me.
"I feel as though Dr. Bob doesn't understand how important privacy is for us."
The subtle change sounds better to me because it is an "I" statement. Interesting what happens were I to substitute "me" for "us".
Almost any statement can be viewed as an accusation if it refers to an action or trait of someone other than the speaker.
What would you do with this one?
"I don't think you understand me."
Or this one.
"You never take a good picture of me."
This is an accusation, right?
It might hurt the photographer's feelings, but does it rise to the level of being uncivil? If so, why? If not, perhaps the two people can work out any conflict, if indeed there is one.
Same sentence, add a smile emoticon.
"You never take a good picture of me. :-)"
Is tone important in assessing the civility of word combinations? If so, then you might need to exerpt more than one sentence of a post in a notification of incivility.
If I were to say, "Dr. Bob understands us", is this accusatory of everyone who thinks otherwise?
This semantic dance could go on for quite awhile, but how does it enhance the communication between individuals to not be able to post any sentence that mentions another individual? There aren't too many things left to post.
At some point, the microscope loses perspective when it examines objects too closely for too long.
I am not against the moderation of the Psycho-Babble website. I think it needs some enforceable guidelines to prevent flame wars and the ridicule of one member by another. There are other posting behaviors that should be examined as well, including overgeneralizing. However, at this point, I can't help but to feel shackled by what seems like an ever expanding judgment of posting incivility.
- Scott
Posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 18:37:43
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2009, at 21:32:17
I think this is my last try....
Once again, this isn't about how I (Kath) feel.
How about "I've often felt frustrated about privacy issues. Privacy is really important to me."
Kath
Posted by SLS on August 8, 2009, at 19:38:15
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 18:37:43
> I think this is my last try....
>
> Once again, this isn't about how I (Kath) feel.
>
> How about "I've often felt frustrated about privacy issues. Privacy is really important to me."Well-crafted.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 21:12:34
In reply to Re: make change » Kath, posted by SLS on August 8, 2009, at 19:38:15
> > I think this is my last try....
> >
> > Once again, this isn't about how I (Kath) feel.
> >
> > How about "I've often felt frustrated about privacy issues. Privacy is really important to me."
>
> Well-crafted.
>
> :-)
>
>
> - Scott~ ~ Thanks Scott. It seems to me that if a person wanted to get the fact that they felt privacy didn't seem to be given as much priority as they wished it would here at PB - It seems to me that it might not be possible to say that in any way that would be acceptable.
And I sort of don't understand why. The way that makes me feel reminds me of the earlier days in my marriage, when I'd try to talk with my husband about something & it just would NOT work out - I remember feeling really like a big metal door clanged down between us & I would think, "OK. Fine. I guess I just can't be heard about this. Oh well. I feel less close & I feel a sense of aloneness in this relationship, when I'd hoped to be able to share honestly about how I felt. Oh well. Whatever."
Things don't feel like that now in my marriage, thank God. But I DO remember how it felt. And it didn't feel nice. I don't find it a nice feeling to not be able to be honest & open about how I feel.
Kath
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:09:42
In reply to Re: make change » SLS, posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 21:12:34
I wonder how Dr Bob feels when he talks to other psychiatrists. Whether the civility dinger that goes off in his head goes into overtime or quite what. Must be frustrating that he can't really haul them over the coals to rephrase to his satisfaction the way he can do with us, here. I wonder if he thinks he is raising a generation of inter-personally more effective people or... If this is something of an experiment to him. Anyone wonder what other clinicians make of his 'yay' or 'nay' on rephrasings?
Easy enough to read between the lines in the archives...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:19:04
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:09:42
I think that is partly why Bob's efforts to get other clinicians involved in the site were largely unsuccessful. Partly why the clinicians who were involved here reduced their involvement over time. He has this idiosyncratic thing going on with respect to the technical details of what it is okay to say and what leaves you open to being blocked for up to one year. I think most clinicians really wouldn't be so very bothered to learn the idiosyncrasies of what Bob does and does not find acceptable. I mean really - what would the point be?
Bob might think that he has some special insight into inter-personal communication but really the whole area is fraught with controversy and what he requires goes well beyond 'suggestions' for improving inter-personal communications with minimizing misunderstanding and arguing and interpersonal offense.
People often do try and communicate something of their rationale for leaving when they have invested in the site over time. Bob doesn't really seem to take what people have to say about that terribly seriously. The experiment continues.
Sometimes I wonder if he is on some kind of 'self-destruct' mission for the site. To see how far he can push the idiosyncracies of what is and what is not acceptable... To see how far he can push the blocking limits... To see how far he can go... And what core group of people remains.
We surely know one thing: Those who tend to idealize tend to get blocked less. The 'good' people who invest much effort in trying to be 'good' in trying to tow a line because acceptance is dependent on that. Recapitulating something, no doubt. A selected group... Kinda interesting, really.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:26:30
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:19:04
> We surely know one thing: Those who tend to idealize tend to get blocked less. The 'good' people who invest much effort in trying to be 'good' in trying to tow a line because acceptance is dependent on that.Except sometimes he seems to think it is kinda fun to block them too. 'Just to see what will happen'? Perhaps... Will it break or will it be stronger? Curiosity... Perhaps...
I don't think it is fair that he is allowed to play with us in such a way...
'I'm not a clinician I have no responsibility for your mental health' on the one hand...
'How does that make you feel' on the other...I'm not terribly surprised that some have thought that he is indeed getting the 'best of both worlds' (or attempting to) in a way that is at least ethically questionable. I'm not terribly surprised that the 'informed' consent that we provide here is dubious with respect to how 'informed' it is and with respect to how much people really are in the position to offer 'informed' consent for what it is that he does offer us.
And then there are country boundaries, too. I suppose the management of the politics board makes most sense with respect to norms on expression in the USA. Which people from the USA 'might plausibly' feel hurt and accused, in particular. Never mind those whose ancestors were Nazi's and how those people 'might plausibly' feel. Never mind norms on political expression for people outside the USA.
It really is surprising that there hasn't been more of an inquiry as to what Bob is actually doing... But I guess the University spoke with their feet when they decided they didn't want a bar of it...
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.