![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 190 to 214 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 9:03:34
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 4:56:41
Believe me Alex - your point is not lost on me. During the chat, Dinah steadily brought up another angle of that same point - along the lines of challenging him appearing to say he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms - and the incongruence of that (Dinah please correct me if I am not correctly characterizing what you were saying during that chat)
Even Bob got provocative with it - announcing that if no one's willing to run and be elected, then he 'gets to stay King' - and I think he even said he likes being King.
Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election? I thought that was point-on. He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen. What better way for him to ensure the Community is getting who they want, than to ask the Community to vote on HOW they get who they want? I didn't see Bob respond to Janed's point. I tried to point out that if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place. I don't think that speaks well of his purportedly having a genuine desire to turn more power over to the community. Inflexibility is not considered a particularly healthy trait, after all.
Solstice> Or maybe:
>
> > I haven't seen anyone indicate they are willing to serve as a result of having 'run' and being elected.
>
> And so precisely because of that:
>
> > Bob seems unwilling to consider an alternative method of putting a council in place
>
> So instead of:
>
> > by default potential candidates and the community are electing to keep the current system of unreasonably loooong blocks.
>
> It is more that Bob only supports things that are not supported by the community.
>
> Thereby maintaining the status quo. As usual.
>
> The wheels going round IS his process group methinks. With respect to PRACTICAL or CONCRETE changes or even with respect to people focusing on CONTENT in general he just keeps the process of the wheels rolling along. Progress... As usual.
>
>
>
Posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 11:05:54
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » alexandra_k, posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 9:03:34
>"I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place. I don't think that speaks well of his purportedly having a genuine desire to turn more power over to the community. Inflexibility is not considered a particularly healthy trait, after all."
*Sigh Solstice....now you starting to understand bout Bob? :(
And he is so inflexible, that when he suggests anything,babblers just resist him right back.
He will not give.
Its all very sad :(
I dunno what the ehck is up with that guy? I flip flop btwn that maybe he is just misguided to thinking he's pathological. Well, I`ll say, he is good at the techhie stuff.
But otherwise, sigh....
He is consistant in that he has not changed....same old, same old. And many have tried over the years.
Still not safe here IMHO, Admin is not ``*for* the community`, its *for* whatever agenda Bob has....which is rather mysterious to us all...(and sadly, in the past has proven to NOT be for the members of the community...)
I could never be on a council where Bob has control, because he doesn`t change, so what a waste of my time that would be.
Yeah, it`s sad.
:(`:( :(
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 11:05:54
> > I'd very much like to know where things stand and how people are thinking about any and all ideas on the floor
>
> My sense was that it's stuck on the issue of Bob insisting that Council member candidates run and and elections be held.I enjoyed our discussion and appreciated the input from those who attended. My sense is that:
I'm stuck on council members representing the community.
Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies. Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.
If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.
There was support for calling it a Community Council instead of an Elders Council.
Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.
--
> he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.
> Even Bob got provocative with it - announcing that if no one's willing to run and be elected, then he 'gets to stay King' - and I think he even said he likes being King.
What I said was that if posters didn't want more power, that would be OK with me, I'd just stay "king".
> Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.
> He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen.
Not *from* the community, *by* the community.
> if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.
> I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me king.
> I think it's a very complex issue. It is disappointing to me that Bob is currently so inflexible about the method of putting Council in place.
>
> Solstice> he is so inflexible, that when he suggests anything,babblers just resist him right back.
>
> muffledIf we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse. IMO that's OK, I agree that this is complex, change means anxiety, and better to take more time to think this through than to move too fast.
For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.
Regarding how to put a council in place:
> > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
Bob
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 13:06:48
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
Fascinating post, Bob..
> My sense is that:
>
> I'm stuck on council members representing the community.I'm glad you're stuck on that. It tells me that you really do want to transfer some meaningful power to the community.
> Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies.I agree.. but I think the deputy issue has been such a huge deal, that it is hard for some to genuinely see the marked differences between them.. or maybe to believe that the differences would make a difference. A difference to me that's even bigger than the ability to un-elect Council, is that Council will not be involved in issuing blocks.
There is a predictable concern by some that anger would be directed at Council if they vote to *Not* shorten a block. I understand the anticipatory fear there - because the deputies were exposed to an awful lot of anger. However, I think I genuinely understand this place better than folks here may realize, and I do not believe that Council members would find themselves in a glass house with rocks being thrown at them. For a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is because they will not be issuing blocks. I also think that the only blocks unlikely to be shortened would be blocks that are already very short. The exceedingly long blocks are the ones most likely to be shortened. I think the only type of poster who they might refuse to shorten the blocks for would be the poster who is abusive and threatening - rather than apologetic. So while I understand the anticipatory fear of lash-back from posters (or their friends) who Council does not vote to shorten their blocks - I think the risk of that is so minute, that the risk of not having a Council at all is the bigger thing they should fear.
> Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.hmm... in an ideal world, sure - anyone in a Council type position would be durable and rejection would slide off of them like eggs on teflon. But - I don't think the value of 'durability' is essential enough to merit insisting on it in this particular community - where an election process could be very disruptive and the most qualified candidates would recuse themselves from an election process based on very understandable awareness of self reasons. Percentage-wise, I think this particular community will likely have a very high percentage of people who will not be interested in elections - for the same reason that the proposal for rating posts or posters was so handily rejected.
I think it's important for you, Bob, to take a closer look at whether it really is necessary to have Council members put in place by election.
> If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.I really don't understand this reasoning. If five people stand up and say "hey! Elect me and I'll be a Council Member!" - - and no one else stands up to compete - then are the five who are 'elected' by default really elected? Do they represent the community? Or.. are they representing that there are five people here who were willing to go through an election process. If there are only five who volunteer for the 'race' - and they by default are put in place - then it is my opinion that they in no way are representative of the desires of the community. Now THOSE people might be more at risk for lash-back, because they are only there because they are thick-skinned, not necessarily because the community wants them there.
However - my proposal that the community privately send you their nominations - and then you see which five gets the most nominations, and then you approach those folks and ask if they are willing to serve... and then you go down the list of those with the most nominations until you get five willing to serve.. now THAT is a way to have a group of five who represent the wishes of the community. Those folks would genuinely be the ones who represent the majority of the people who responded to the request for nominations. Community members who don't participate in that process are electing to have others 'elect' on their behalf.
> Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.I don't know why campaigning at all is even necessary.. or wise.
> > he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
>
> The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.I think the only way you're going to get a group (Council) acceptable to the community, is to listen and respond to the community's majority voice that opposes the kind of election process you are proposing. I don't think your proposal will even get you what YOU want, much less what the community wants. I think you need to be willing to open your mind to an alternative method of putting a Council in place.
> > Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
>
> I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.No. The community asking you to consider something different than an election campaign for filling Council seats does not equal voting to keep you King. The community is asking you to listen to their heartbeat - and you have been unwilling to do that. Same thing happend with facebook/twitter... which I think I remember you wish had been done differently.
> > He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen.
>
> Not *from* the community, *by* the community.ok.. I used the wrong 'word' - but my meaning was the same. I think you know that. I don't understand your refusal to give genuine consideration of the alternate method I have proposed. You will NOT get council members elected by the community through a campaign - especially if only five are willing to 'campaign.' The only way you're going to get a Council elected by the community is to do it in a way that eliminates 'campaigning' and public popularity voting. (which, btw, you cannot avoid by just not posting votes. When you post who 'won' - everyone knows who 'lost'.)
> > if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
>
> You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.That doesn't even make sense to me. My statement is clear and specific. Your response is non-responsive. You don't seem at all willing to consider the legitimacy of my suggestion that it be done by private nomination. I would respectfully request that you respond specifically to the points I make about that, and tell us what your legitimate objections are and the reasoning behind them.
> > I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
>
> My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me king.And your unwillingness to hear what the community says about the issue of campaigning and elections is a way to keep yourself king. The community wants relief from unreasonably long blocks. The community seems to want to have a Council. A lot of hurt people have come back to see if it really is possible for you to transfer some power to the community. There are people who have said they would be willing to serve on a Council. I don't think you can honestly believe that the majority of this community wants you to, as King, keep issuing unreasonably long blocks. The community's unwillingness to campaign is not a statement about your kinginess. That's like comparing apples and planet Pluto.
> If we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse.Is my suggestion of an alternative way to put council in place that really does serve your purposes of having council members be chosen by the community better than your own way of doing it - is that 'inflexible'? If not - then the impasse is more a result of your inflexibility - not imflexibility on the community's part.
> IMO that's OK,Of course it's okay with you. You are King.
> For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.I agree. I don't think anyone serving on Council should be required to bear harm. Perhaps anyone who is incivil toward Council Members as a result of performance of their duties would have an automatic unreasonably long Bob-block. :-)
> Regarding how to put a council in place:
>
> > > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
>
> BobHaving a Council does not equate to a democracy. You'll still be King... you'd just be allowing the community to release blocked posters from their stocks before the sentence is due to end. A democracy would mean that your position would be subject to having to campaign and be elected. So let's not confuse the issues by mixing fruit with the solar system.
Solstice
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 13:45:00
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRIED FROM TIME TO TIME"
Winston Churchill, 1947
such as monarchies.
Kings do not inspire confidence in their subjects when they alter the content of famous quotations to suit their own purposes
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:28:26
In reply to a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 13:45:00
Quite illuminating, Twinleaf :-) I wondered where Bob got it from. I'm so glad you corrected that error. I can't help but smile at the wry irony that only a King would think he could erroneously quote the great Winston Churchill to justify what might not be justifiable at all..
Solstice
> "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRIED FROM TIME TO TIME"
>
> Winston Churchill, 1947
>
> such as monarchies.
>
> Kings do not inspire confidence in their subjects when they alter the content of famous quotations to suit their own purposes
Posted by Willful on December 12, 2010, at 17:34:28
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 15:28:26
Unfortunately, on the merits here, and admittedly not having read the ins and outs of every post-- I have to stand with Bob on the issue of elections.
If he appoints the council it will be no different from the deputies.
I also notice that we haven't at all articulated the rules that govern actions by the council, Bob's involvement in referring cases to or passing on cases adjudged by the council and many other areas of potential disagreement, cynicism and what I perceive as animadversions on Bob's character, motives, etc
Whatever my personal frustrations with the system here, and I have many, I do see over and over again that the community is inflexible, afraid of change, quick to get angry at one another and be cutting, whether overtly or more subtle, entirely willing to stymie change, etc, which lead me to question our motives, goals,and so on.
I see a bit of a power struggle going on here where various people for their own reasons, want to control how this power is allocated. And to be honest, Bob has every reason to be very careful about how this is done-- so that it doesn't create a ton of headaches, more work, a lot of unhappiness, criticisms and downright insults to him, etc
I don't mean to be uncivil. But we really need to look at our behavior too.
Willful
Posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 18:26:37
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by Willful on December 12, 2010, at 17:34:28
> Unfortunately, on the merits here, and admittedly not having read the ins and outs of every post-- I have to stand with Bob on the issue of elections.
>
> If he appoints the council it will be no different from the deputies.
>
> I also notice that we haven't at all articulated the rules that govern actions by the council, Bob's involvement in referring cases to or passing on cases adjudged by the council and many other areas of potential disagreement, cynicism and what I perceive as animadversions on Bob's character, motives, etc
>
> Whatever my personal frustrations with the system here, and I have many, I do see over and over again that the community is inflexible, afraid of change, quick to get angry at one another and be cutting, whether overtly or more subtle, entirely willing to stymie change, etc, which lead me to question our motives, goals,and so on.
>
> I see a bit of a power struggle going on here where various people for their own reasons, want to control how this power is allocated. And to be honest, Bob has every reason to be very careful about how this is done-- so that it doesn't create a ton of headaches, more work, a lot of unhappiness, criticisms and downright insults to him, etc
>
> I don't mean to be uncivil. But we really need to look at our behavior too.
>
> Willful
>
Hmmm what came first the chicken or the egg....oh yeah, it was Bob! the rooster. He came first. He rules the roost.
Behaviours here are of course complex, but behaviours as a result of interaction w/Bob are as a result of no action to amount to anything.
In the not so distant past, AND in the more distant past, there have been, on the part of babblers, very civil and logical commentary.
However, frustration comes when nothing changes....
I think Babbblers tend to have an interest in *their* community. It makes sense to try and make it a reasonable place.
However....the dialogue seems to fall on rather deaf ears...
Frustrating indeed.
Once burned...twice shy...
and , no doubt, for some...anger at a system that is perceived to be unjust to most, yet Bob just cannot seem to see that.
So ya, people are being careful, and are on edge, for GOOD reason I'd say....
Its a long history...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 18:38:00
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by muffled on December 12, 2010, at 18:26:37
All he seems to require is some level of engagement. Raising things... Then the inevitable:
'perhaps this reminds you of something from your past?'
'what does that mean for you?'
'perhaps people here have an issue with x'etc.
All he seems to do is thrive on the process whereby he does what he pleases and anyone who doesn't roll with the process (anyone who gets attached to content - where the content could issues with the actual process) is basically accused of being pathological / of responding from pathology.
Or perhaps 'accused' is a little harsh (I actually think it is fair) perhaps 'invited' is better. He 'invites' us to consider how we respond from past / present pathology.
Two can play at that game (Does your attachment to being king stem from unresolved issues from your past Dr Bob? How about your being so quick to jump to the conclusion that others post to you from pathology rather than from valid points about the things you choose to do here?'
But of course he refuses to play.
And as for his inviting us to play... Well, now, we are invited to engage in such a process with our therapists. But he is NOT acting as a therapist here. There are ethical constraints on the conduct of therapists that are binding precisely because of the power differential that is created by encouraging clients to engage in such a process. Dr Bob is not bound by those because he is not acting as a therapist on these boards.
He seems to want the perks... He seems to want to shirk the responsibilities...
Best of both worlds (for him), indeed.
Whereas from our point of view: Things seem to get All F*ck*d Up.
I"m not the only one to think / have said this.
Mental Health Professionals have also agreed.No wonder people get a clue and move on...
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 19:36:37
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by Willful on December 12, 2010, at 17:34:28
> Unfortunately, on the merits here, and admittedly not having read the ins and outs of every post-- I have to stand with Bob on the issue of elections.
>
> If he appoints the council it will be no different from the deputies.The only way council would be the same as deputies is if:
1. He is the one who chooses who to appoint; and
2. If Council has the power to issue blocksElections that include campaigning and there being winners and losers is devisive here. I've suggested that if the community memebers each send him by private mail their choices for Council - and he starts with the first five who have the most nominations - asks each of them if they are willimng to serve, and then goes down the list until he finds the five with the most nominations who are willing to serve - then he has gotten who the community wants - without subjecting the community to campaigns and elections. Appointment probably isn't the best word for it - - but it's decidedly different than the campaign and election process Bob is focusing on.
> I also notice that we haven't at all articulated the rules that govern actions by the council, Bob's involvement in referring cases to or passing on cases adjudged by the council and many other areas of potential disagreement, cynicism and what I perceive as animadversions on Bob's character, motives, etcMy understanding is that Council would be independent of Bob. Their only power would be to shorten blocks - and they would not be beholden to him to do it. He has outlined it in his post with the proposal. He has added that it would be the responsibility of the blocked poster to contact council and negotiate the terms of a shortened block. It won't be their job to hunt down blocked posters and offer them reprieve.
> Whatever my personal frustrations with the system here, and I have many, I do see over and over again that the community is inflexible, afraid of change, quick to get angry at one another and be cutting, whether overtly or more subtle, entirely willing to stymie change, etc, which lead me to question our motives, goals,and so on.Maybe I'm a little idealistic - but I just don't see the community in those terms - not in an overall way anyway. I just don't see that much of the the negative things you describe. I think that at the times it does happen, though, that may be what sticks with some folks as far as their memory. But I think if we look through the archives - there is much more support than those other things. I do, though, think that change is hard. Many people are afraid of it. Also, a lot of people are busy, and they develop misunderstandings about changes under consideration. I don't think it speaks to their motivations though.
> I see a bit of a power struggle going on here where various people for their own reasons, want to control how this power is allocated.Perhaps.. but I not sure it's really possible for anyone here to control how the power is allocated. King Bob has all the power - and it's not being allocated anywhere except where he is willing to allocate it.
> And to be honest, Bob has every reason to be very careful about how this is done-- so that it doesn't create a ton of headaches, more work, a lot of unhappiness, criticisms and downright insults to him, etcI wholly agree with you on that. Which is why I have trouble understanding why he wouldn't see that campaigns and elections could easily be quite disruptive.
> I don't mean to be uncivil. But we really need to look at our behavior too.
>
> WillfulI sure didn't see anything uncivil in what you shared.. and I agree that it's important that we all look at ourselves in how we respond to the transfer of power that's under consideration.
Solstice
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:02:18
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 18:38:00
Alex has identified a really important thing which keeps recurring in our interactions with Bob. We repeatedly identify real problems in how Babble is run, and in how our relationships with Bob play out. We hope for real change. Bob almost invariably responds by either stating directly, or by inferring, that our responses are transference-based. He seems convinced, every time, that we could not possibly be discussing, and offering solutions for, a REAL: problem. Once our ideas have been devalued in this manner, it follows that Bob has no need to do anything. It is obviously very convenient for Bob to consider every critical comment, and every offered solution, to be based, not on the posters' intelligence and creativity, but on some hypothetical transference distortion left over from childhood.
The posters here are highly intelligent and aware. If anything, having an emotional illness requires one to be much more aware and sophisticated about feelings and motives than is average in society. By and large, people here don't miss a thing!. When Bob tries to attribute very sound, intelligent, accurate assessments and suggestion about Babble to childhood distortions or transferences, he risks sounding rather naive. I feel certain that he would not want to appear this way, and we certainly don't want him to.
Ideas about transference have changed a lot since Merton Gill, a psychoanalyst who helped make a major change in modern psychotherapy, suggested that, when things went wrong in the therapeutic relationship, it was usually because of blind spots or mistakes by the therapist. The concept of transference was reserved more for basic unmet needs arising in therapy, such as impaired attachment. When a psychiatrist attributes much that he doesn't like, or that he considers problematic, to others' transference, he runs the risk of being considered rather unsophisticated,
Wouldn't it be great if we could create, or perhaps recreate, a truly happy, mutually respectful community here? I don't think it would be so hard to do - people's ideas and suggestions could be received accurately and respectfully, even when they are not agreed with. Blocks can be reasonably short- perhaps never more than a few weeks. Civility actions could be kept below the level which begins to interfere with natural spontaneity and communicativeness. There would always be problems from time to time, just as there are everywhere else. But there is the strongest possible reason for believing that we can once again have a vital. healthy Babble community: we had one a few years ago.
It's the memory of how important it was to me then that keeps me struggling to get it back!
Posted by Phillipa on December 12, 2010, at 21:12:26
In reply to real relationships vs. transference...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:02:18
Twinleaf that is exactly how I also envision babble as it used to be. And can be again. Phillipa
Posted by sigismund on December 12, 2010, at 21:15:45
In reply to Re: a quote which deserves to be quoted correctly....., posted by Willful on December 12, 2010, at 17:34:28
>which lead me to question our motives, goals,
Do we have any?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:19:59
In reply to real relationships vs. transference...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:02:18
I lost you on the last two paragraphs. Just kept thinking 'the wheels on the bus'...
I do think he is naive about this, actually. But unless he gets some help (which he will not do) there isn't much to be done about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:21:12
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference.... » twinleaf, posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:19:59
Anybody wonder why the clinicians (psychologists and psychiatrists) who used to post to these boards up and left?
Do you think they would put up with the way he treats us?
Why do you think he likes it here (instead of playing with his peers)?
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:22:41
In reply to real relationships vs. transference...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:02:18
> We repeatedly identify real problems in how Babble is run, and in how our relationships with Bob play out. We hope for real change. Bob almost invariably responds by either stating directly, or by inferring, that our responses are transference-based.
Twinleaf - - it would be helpful to me to have a better picture of incidents you're referring to. I'm not suggesting they haven't happened.. I just may not have been attuned to them when they did. Do you have any links or anything where I could see Bob doing this?
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:23:28
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:21:12
thats your cue to invite me to consider how much i (pathologically) mistrust because of my past issues, Bob.
I mean seeing the wheels turn here doesn't make me perceptive or insightful or (reasonably and appropriately) cautious.
No. Course not. You are used to having the final say on whether someone is pathological or not, eh? And you get to be healthy for the simple reason that you are a p-doc.
Well done you.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:33:37
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 21:22:41
> Twinleaf - - it would be helpful to me to have a better picture of incidents you're referring to. I'm not suggesting they haven't happened.. I just may not have been attuned to them when they did. Do you have any links or anything where I could see Bob doing this?
fun fun, oh what fun, where do we begin?here's one:
> A lot of the activity here does get focused on my use of power. Maybe it makes some of you feel the way you did when you were a child.
from: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971715.html
Posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:45:55
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:33:37
I was looking for one in particular but decided NOT to get bogged down in an archive search.
Am I the only one who came to view the whole 'small board' discussion as a process group (content irrelevant - changes ain't gonna happen) to process peoples feelings of exclusion in the past?
What gives him the right to do this?
Why do posters give him permission?
Why engage with him at all?
What the f*ck ethics board allows him?
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:52:25
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:33:37
Hi Solstice,
I can remember about half a dozen clear examples, similar to the one Alex just gave. To actually find them, though, I would have to search the archives for the last several years. I don't have time to do that right now, but, if it would be helpful, I could do it in January.
While we are on this general topic, there seemed to me to be two responses which occurred with some regularity. The first was the one we have been discussing - having one's thoughts and feelings labelled as transference-based. The second was a pattern of distortion; the response would be to a problem or question which had not being discussed by the poster, or would be to the original problem, but after it had been re-interpreted to mean something entirely different from the poster's original intention. These two ways of responding had the effect of steadily increasing tensions, when they could have been readily defused by genuinely attuned responses.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:01:16
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by alexandra_k on December 12, 2010, at 21:33:37
>
> > Twinleaf - - it would be helpful to me to have a better picture of incidents you're referring to. I'm not suggesting they haven't happened.. I just may not have been attuned to them when they did. Do you have any links or anything where I could see Bob doing this?
>
>
> fun fun, oh what fun, where do we begin?
>
> here's one:
>
> > A lot of the activity here does get focused on my use of power. Maybe it makes some of you feel the way you did when you were a child.
>
> from: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971715.html
eegads.. yeah I have seen that stuff. and it Does feel condescending.but.. maybe it's also a reflection of his training and work becoming embedded in his thinking. I know that my traning and work is embedded in how I relate to people. So maybe he doesn't intended it to feel like it feels? I don't know a whole lot about what he does at the University of Chicago. Is Bob a professor only - or does he also treat patients? That could play a role in how he relates to the community here.
Anyway.. thanks for showing me what Twinleaf was referring to. I do 'get it.'
Solstice.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:37:04
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:52:25
> While we are on this general topic, there seemed to me to be two responses which occurred with some regularity. The first was the one we have been discussing - having one's thoughts and feelings labelled as transference-based. The second was a pattern of distortion; the response would be to a problem or question which had not being discussed by the poster, or would be to the original problem, but after it had been re-interpreted to mean something entirely different from the poster's original intention. These two ways of responding had the effect of steadily increasing tensions, when they could have been readily defused by genuinely attuned responses.I do understand what you're saying. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and wonder aloud. I do think it's possible that Bob's tendency to refer to things here as being transference-based, as annoying as they might be at times, could have underpinnings that make it a little less offensive. First of all - he Is a psychiatrist, with all the eduxcation, training and experience that goes into that. Anybody spending that many years immersed in the world of psychiatry is going to automatically think in certain ways. My professional background is (among other things) in zoning and governmental compliance of commercial properties, along with condemnations and Departments of Transportation. I know so much about how roadways come to be - all the details - traffic signals, left hand turn lanes, dedicated right-hand turns, continuous left turn lanes.. everything. know all kinds of stuff about parking requirements at commercial properties - signage - setbacks - drainage - utilities - landscaping. I know the 'rules' for distances between commercial property ingress & egress and traffic signals - all kinds of inane stuff that most people don't spend one second of their time considering. I can't drive anywhere without noticing that stuff though. It's ingrained in my thinking. A while back I had gone on a business trip with a marketing genius. He sat in the window, and started his evaluation of the market from the plane! When we got to the town we were evaluating - we went through stores. He could walk thru a grocery store and tell me precisely how much money that store generated and where that store ranked in sales. This guy noticed EVERYthing. I would have never been able to figure out what came second nature to him to just know. Likewise, when we sat down with the town's Council and local business men, they thought we knew everything. Compared to them, we did know a lot about our areas of expertise - and they relied on us to guide them through some difficult decision making that had to be done. But we lived, breathed and ate the expertise we had. It was our frame of mind. My cohort noticed everything about marketing and demographics. I noticed everything about jurisdictional zoning & governmental compliance integrity.
I think it probably works similarly with Bob. He notices things that we, as a rule, may just not notice. It can feel real personal, though - because we haven't asked him to notice whether our reaction to something he's done is marking a sensitivity based on our early relationships with authority figures. It's such common thinking to him, though - that he just talks about it like I might go on and on about how poorly designed the roadways are at a commercial intersection. To me it's obvious! Others don't notice it - and have little or no interest. So maybe we really do need to cut Bob some slack. He's a psychiatrist - and he thinks like one. He notices things we don't. It makes us uncomfortable when he puts icky names to it that feel so dang personal.. but he may not be doing it to provoke reactions - or even to make us uncomfortable. he may just be stating what is obvious to him. Also - he does know he's talking to a community of mental health-savvy people. It's not like he's speaking Greek here, ya know? He's talking a language we're familiar with.
Anyway.. I just tho't I'd throw that out there. We may be more sensitive to some of his comments than is helpful. We may attribute meaning to it that isn't there.
And I really do think that the healthiest thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt... to assume they mean no harm - unless they really show us that they mean harm. And I mean *real* harm.
As far as Bob responding in ways that are odd - I've officially encountered it. :-) I've called him on it. But I don't think he's the only one who does that. I think we all do it from time to time. I think it's just because we all come from so many different life experiences. For cryin' out loud - we come from continents half way around the world from each other! It would be impossible for all the differences between us culturally and life-experience-wise to not affect our communications. So I think we need to be generous with each other - including with Bob.
I hope all that makes sense.
Solstice
Posted by Deneb on December 12, 2010, at 22:39:22
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:01:16
I don't really know what Dr. Bob does exactly, but he worked in the Student Counselling Center at the U of C. I think he saw students.
Now he has a private practice. I am assuming he sees patients.
I think Dr. Bob treats Babblers more like patients than regular people. I don't mind.
Posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 23:27:43
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:37:04
Well, yes, I do agree that it always helps to understand where the other person is coming from, and to remember that we ourselves have as many blind spots as anyone else. It can be hard to strike the right balance, and I know that I don't always get it right. When I mentioned what appeared to me to be a problematic communication style, I did so because attributing another's thoughts and feelings to transference, or answering a question which has not been asked have the effect of stopping a dialogue altogether. This is obviously far from desirable in someone in an administrative position.
I have been reading your posts and wondering what your profession was- how very interesting!!
Maybe I should say that, like Bob, I am a physician. I am not a psychiatrist, but as part of my training for my own specialty (rehabilitation medicine), I took two years of psychiatric residency training at the New England Medical Center. One of the first things you learn is the importance of clear communication, and of doing your best to clear up even tiny misunderstandings. I'd have to say that the communication style we are discussing, with its deflections and distortions, seems pretty unusual.
Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 23:28:41
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference.... » Solstice, posted by Deneb on December 12, 2010, at 22:39:22
> I don't really know what Dr. Bob does exactly, but he worked in the Student Counselling Center at the U of C. I think he saw students.
>
> Now he has a private practice. I am assuming he sees patients.No longer at U of C?
> I think Dr. Bob treats Babblers more like patients than regular people. I don't mind.I don't think he treats people here like patients at all. Thank goodness. That would be weird.. and probably unethical :-)
Sol.
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.