![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 23, 2010, at 11:15:34
I am confused as to the allowance of sweeping statements that make untoward conclusions on certain meds, classes of meds, etc...
I understand the sharing of personal stories and opinions but isn't there a difference? I don't see that addressed as being uncivil in a number of cases and w/ certain posters.
Posted by ron1953 on June 23, 2010, at 11:49:58
In reply to Are generalizations still uncivil?, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 23, 2010, at 11:15:34
What IS civil anymore on this site? It would be a shorter list, for sure.
Posted by fayeroe on June 23, 2010, at 13:50:14
In reply to Are generalizations still uncivil?, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 23, 2010, at 11:15:34
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 24, 2010, at 21:10:06
In reply to Re: Great question. (nm) » Glydin 2010, posted by fayeroe on June 23, 2010, at 13:50:14
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:51:10
In reply to Are generalizations still uncivil?, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 23, 2010, at 11:15:34
> I am confused as to the allowance of sweeping statements that make untoward conclusions on certain meds, classes of meds, etc...
>
> I understand the sharing of personal stories and opinions but isn't there a difference? I don't see that addressed as being uncivil in a number of cases and w/ certain posters.Yes, I still consider overgeneralizations uncivil. Though how sweeping something is can be in the eye of the beholder. If you submitted some notifications recently, I may not have gotten to them yet, I'm behind, sorry.
Bob
Posted by glydin 2010 on June 26, 2010, at 18:27:38
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations are still uncivil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:51:10
I appreciate you responding. Since this is an area to ask questions, I would like to pose the following for clarification purposes as to what you would see as a sweeping statement...
IF a poster were to post:
"This _______ (insert med, med class, treatment) is____________!"
1) crap
2) sh*t
3) worthless
4) damaging
5) not for any human
6) never worksis that example sweeping?
I could name others but I think you get the picture..... I hope you keep in mind truth is not the issue I'm inquiring about. Also, please keep in mind the lack of wording for IMO or "feeling statements". This question is about civility and to some degree, sensitivity to other's opinions and experiences.
Not to be lost is I also do not consider the sweeping statements that certain treatments are great, always work and should be used by all to be allowable either.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:06:18
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations are still uncivil » Dr. Bob, posted by glydin 2010 on June 26, 2010, at 18:27:38
> IF a poster were to post:
>
> "_______ (insert med, med class, treatment) is____________!"
>
> 1) crap
> 2) sh*t
> 3) worthless
> 4) damaging
> 5) not for any human
> 6) never works
>
> is that example sweeping?Good question, what do others think?
Bob
Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 28, 2010, at 11:30:58
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:06:18
I think it's an example of personal observation or experience.
Partlycloudy
Posted by violette on June 28, 2010, at 11:55:42
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by PartlyCloudy on June 28, 2010, at 11:30:58
I agree with Partly Cloudy, but feel inclinded at the moment to expand on that view.
It seems the easiest way to deal with this (maybe easier said than done) is to accept what is true about human nature. People, though not all, just tend to talk that way regardless of any circumstances. Internet forum discussions are often more casual in writing. I am going to use a generalizing to express my point.
Everyone's opinions, including generalizations-unless otherwise stated-are a result of their individual experiences, opinions, values, beliefs, and knowledge accumulation.
When someone makes a generalization, another poster can simply say-in a civil way-this is my experience that contradicts the generalization. Such as when a poster said all psychiatrists are bad, or whatever term was used, I simply stated that this is not the case from my experience.
I do not understand how generalizations can possibly uncivil because that is simply a concept of linguistics. People sometimes just talk that way. It is very difficult to tip toe around here with words. It drives me crazy when I write to decide whether to use the words: some, many, vs. all, most, every time, for example, and takes away from what I want to say.
I understand people can be triggered from such statements; at the same time, the generalizations rarely-imo-come from ill intent-but rather from another person's experience, etc., or just modes of speech common to human nature.
Can't we draw the line by accepting the implied knowledge that a person's comments here, including generalizations, unless directed at the community/members here, are about the other person and not those who do not wish to hear them? Can't someone just respond with - 'that is not true for me'?
It seems that unless someone (erroneously) states the generalization(s) came from research, or states it as fact-and I have not seen that-that we can assume that it comes from a person's own beliefs? Whether or not someone states it as a "fact" could draw a clear line.
Honest to god it can become so difficult to use this forum feeling like walking on eggshells all the time. It seems Dinah has become an expert on this, but it is really distracting from fruitful discussion by constantly having to say, "this is only my opinion"....or "this is only my experience"...saying that over and over-when it is obvious its only my opionion if I do not cite facts--makes dialogue less productive.
I mean-what next, are we going to require full citations with statements? I'm assuming, Dr. Bob, you'd require the APA format. lol
Here's a good site to learn how to compile the citations appropriately:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
I don't want to feel like I have to write as if I'm writing a thesis when I use this forum-I just don't have the mental energy to expend to carefully craft my words in a manner that doesn't necessarily express myself, but rather-to appease others. I don't mean that in the context of being civil-that doesn't seem too difficult-but it seems unhealthy to have to write to appease others; it's not insensitivity, it's realizing that people often do write casually for internet discussions and shouldn't have to worry about accidentally using the word "most" instead of "some"..etc. In other words, being linguistically correct (i just made up that term)....
My therapist has a gift of doing this-and I have said to him a few times, I do not know how he can do that day in and day out without becoming exhausted...
This has been bothering me for quite some time, that 'walking on eggshells' feeling I get here, and after reading Partly Cloudy's comment, I thought this was a good opportunity to chime in and let myself be distracted when I feel those urges...I must get back to work now.
:)
Posted by violette on June 28, 2010, at 12:05:12
In reply to Being Linguistically Correct » PartlyCloudy, posted by violette on June 28, 2010, at 11:55:42
I forgot-I wanted to include another's view by Dreamweaver, which was posted above..."walking through a minefield" was a creative expression about how it feels to me (thanks Dreameweaver2).
It seems that unless a person states something as fact from research, or wherever, it is just the persons opinion or beliefs-no matter how 'rediculous' it may seem to another. I can seriously generalize and say that generalizations refer to a person's beliefs/opions/manner of speech/experiences - unless stated otherwise...Oh gosh-my superego is taking over again and I need to stop talking here and get back to work. :(
Thanks
Posted by dreamweaver.2 on May 10, 2010, at 13:33:13
In reply to What kind of experiment are we?, posted by SLS on May 10, 2010, at 11:36:48
That would, I would think, be the ideal. However, with the current punitive approach to the administration of this site, it doesn't appear that that is either short- or long-term goals. If the site were even a bit more self-moderating, individuals would be given the opportunity to work out their differences and, where necessary, apologize for inappropriate or uncivil behaviour. There would be very few, if any, blocks of up to a year. Individuals would develop new skills, such as dealing with confrontation or owning their own behaviour. As it stands now, it's, at times, like walking through a mindfield - you never know what is going to be considered uncivil and result in a block. I don't post here much (although I did a number of years ago). The blocks, and the reasons for the blocks, got to the point where they were often ridiculous.
JMO
> As an experiment, perhaps the doctor is trying to produce an autonomous, self-sustaining, and self-moderating community that nurtures growth and enhances communication.
>
> I don't know.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2010, at 13:01:39
In reply to Being Linguistically Correct, posted by violette on June 28, 2010, at 12:05:12
The generalization rule was put into effect to address those situations that have come up again just recently.
For myself, I don't really think generalizations ought to be addressed.
But since people feel disrespected by vehement anti-medication posts, vehement anti-psychiatrist posts, vehement anti long therm therapy (or short term therapy, or therapy altogether) posts, Dr. Bob put the generalizations rule into play. Not that generalizations are per se uncivil, but that they can be insensitive to those who take medications (or a particular medication), see (or are) psychiatrists, or participate in a particular type of therapy.
I don't really like the rule. But I think it's only fair to Dr. Bob to recognize it as an attempt to address the concerns of posters.
Dr. Bob didn't start the site with a bunch of rules. Rules developed in response to real life situations that came up. What you can in all honesty say about Dr. Bob is that he prefers to create a general rule to address problems rather than just address a particular situation. This is a reflection of his style and values, and if a posters doesn't like it that's fair enough. A site does reflect the priorities and values of an administrator.
He's not a petty dictator so much as an administrator trying to balance the concerns of a diverse group of posters in the highly structured way he seems to prefer.
(Usually anyway. Sometimes I totally don't understand what's going on and get confused and angry myself. I've been known to be as angry with Dr. Bob as anyone.)
With the usual caveat that this is my observations only and if Dr. Bob wishes to correct any assumptions I have made, I invite him to do so.
Posted by SLS on June 28, 2010, at 14:57:16
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 2:06:18
> > IF a poster were to post:
> >
> > "_______ (insert med, med class, treatment) is____________!"
> >
> > 1) crap
> > 2) sh*t
> > 3) worthless
> > 4) damaging
> > 5) not for any human
> > 6) never works
> >
> > is that example sweeping?
>
> Good question, what do others think?
>
> Bob
4 and 6 can be followed up by requesting or submitting citations as evidence, as they are claiming fact. The others are judgment values that are difficult to respond to other than to state degrees of agreement or disagreement with. How does one judge a generalization to be uncivil when the author believes the generalization to be fact? I don't know.
- Scott
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 28, 2010, at 16:25:25
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by SLS on June 28, 2010, at 14:57:16
This issue is HUGELY about wording and presentation of opinions and experiences. Also, not a small dose of feeling personally insulted by a particular perception of overall judgment in a particular individual frequently which alters the way I see the flavor of the board.
Maybe this isn't a board issue at all but a me issue. Perhaps, I just need to get over that.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2010, at 16:45:47
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 28, 2010, at 16:25:25
You aren't alone.
It may be that this isn't the right way to solve the problem.
But you aren't alone in considering that there is a problem to be solved.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 28, 2010, at 17:22:25
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 28, 2010, at 16:25:25
> This issue is HUGELY about wording and presentation of opinions and experiences. Also, not a small dose of feeling personally insulted by a particular perception of overall judgment in a particular individual frequently which alters the way I see the flavor of the board.
>
> Maybe this isn't a board issue at all but a me issue. Perhaps, I just need to get over that.Maybe it's an Us issue, because I've never really gotten over it, lol.
But I'm pretty tame these days. Downright declawed. I hear there are veterinarians that will still perform this type operation, but I got it for free.
Sorry, OT.
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 28, 2010, at 17:54:12
In reply to Re: are these examples sweeping?, posted by PartlyCloudy on June 28, 2010, at 17:22:25
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 29, 2010, at 8:55:30
In reply to LOL : ) (nm) » PartlyCloudy, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 28, 2010, at 17:54:12
After thinking it over.
I consider -my perception- of arrogance, condescension and an attitude of one being more & always right as uncivil and unsupportive. Again, presentation is key. I believe one can make their points known respectfully w/out the bravado. That may be a skill not possessed especially when ill, frustrated and p±ssed off. AND, maybe others, to include Dr. Bob, are NOT picking up -my- perception in the same way.
I can NOT like something AND adapt to it. Adaption can come in many forms.... to include avoiding.
I appreciate the opportunity to be heard.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2010, at 12:25:47
In reply to I think it IS a me issue, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 29, 2010, at 8:55:30
> After thinking it over.
>
> I consider -my perception- of arrogance, condescension and an attitude of one being more & always right as uncivil and unsupportive. Again, presentation is key. I believe one can make their points known respectfully w/out the bravado. That may be a skill not possessed especially when ill, frustrated and p±ssed off. AND, maybe others, to include Dr. Bob, are NOT picking up -my- perception in the same way.
>
> I can NOT like something AND adapt to it. Adaption can come in many forms.... to include avoiding.
>
> I appreciate the opportunity to be heard.I could say the exact same things of myself. So it is an Us issue.
Whaddaya know.
Posted by Glydin 2010 on June 29, 2010, at 13:07:30
In reply to Re: I think it IS a me issue » Glydin 2010, posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2010, at 12:25:47
This wouldn't be the first time you and I have paddled the same canoe in the same direction, PC. Maybe a great minds think... or remembering how PB was @ one time. Let's go w/ the first one shall we? (Smile)
Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2010, at 15:22:21
In reply to Re: I think it IS a me issue » PartlyCloudy, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 29, 2010, at 13:07:30
Yes, indeed. Smile from me too.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 23:21:21
In reply to I think it IS a me issue, posted by Glydin 2010 on June 29, 2010, at 8:55:30
> When someone makes a generalization, another poster can simply say-in a civil way-this is my experience that contradicts the generalization. Such as when a poster said all psychiatrists are bad, or whatever term was used, I simply stated that this is not the case from my experience.
That was an excellent way to address an overgeneralization without accusing or putting down the other poster, thank you.
> It is very difficult to tip toe around here with words.
>
> Honest to god it can become so difficult to use this forum feeling like walking on eggshells all the time. ... it is really distracting from fruitful discussion by constantly having to say, "this is only my opinion"....or "this is only my experience"
>
> I don't want to feel like I have to write as if I'm writing a thesis when I use this forum-I just don't have the mental energy to expend to carefully craft my words in a manner that doesn't necessarily express myself, but rather-to appease others. I don't mean that in the context of being civil-that doesn't seem too difficult-but it seems unhealthy to have to write to appease others; it's not insensitivity, it's realizing that people often do write casually for internet discussions and shouldn't have to worry about accidentally using the word "most" instead of "some"..etc.
>
> This has been bothering me for quite some time, that 'walking on eggshells' feeling I get here
>
> violetteWell, people can be like eggshells. And someone could be blocked for saying "poison" instead of "medication", but probably not for "most" instead of "some".
I know it can seem like a lot of rules. Like how I imagine golf. Use your arms. Don't use your wrists. Align your shoulders and your hips. Transfer your weight. Don't grip the club too tight. Don't grip the club too loose. It must take a lot of mental energy!
But if your goal is fruitful discussion, you want others to hear you. And if you "appease" them (don't turn them off), they're more likely to hear you.
--
> I can NOT like something AND adapt to it. Adaption can come in many forms.... to include avoiding.
>
> Glydin 2010Maybe you've developed a new skill? Good work! :-)
Bob
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.