![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 12:06:45
OK, first you have to get the right visual: me pounding my shoe on the table to emphasize my points. (Spock-ette or Nikita, your choice. Long hair, so it covers the pointy ears.)
If you watch poll results, you'll see so many contradictions, and very rarely see that it's because of the way the questions are asked. I heard recently about a question used in voir dire in some trial, where instead of asking the potential jurors what they thought about gun ownership, they asked a more probing question: if you used to own a gun and no longer do, why did you get rid of it? If political polls could do that, I think they'd get better answers. In the case of the woman I spoke with, had the question been along the lines of "What information would you need to know before you could use the following statement as a basis for your decision?" That question might have been helpful.
Oh, and it wasn't fun for either of us. She mumbled, and mumbled so quickly I could barely unstand her, and my aunt was visiting, with a cold, and kept following me around sniffling and coughing, as I tried to find a quiet place to listen. It was just frustrating.
On another occasion, though, I was stopped on the street for a survey about a "New Store" that was planning to open in the area. Survey took about 20 minutes instead of the five they asked for, because the surveyor and I spent so much time talking about social responsibility, Bill Moyers, and the drawbacks to mass marketers like Wal-Mart. She'd never heard about Bill Moyers, so she wanted to know more, which got me into my anti-mass media rant, and my "more funding for non-profits" rant. She thanked me, and wrote more notes on the back of a blank survey form about sources for more information than she did on the form she filled out with my responses. That was a good feeling -- especially since I got the idea that the store that wants to open is a WalMart Supercenter trying to find out what they have to aim their campaign at.
Anyway, back in my younger days, I used to hear the Radical Feminist crowd saying "The Personal *IS* Political" and scoffing. Politics was about logic and rational thought. I no longer believe that quite so strongly. Now I know that the things we experience every day, the lack of resources, the economic damage done to many otherwise valuable individuals by mental illness, the loss to society of so many perceptive and vital minds, and the shameful stigma that allows us all to be discounted, all of these things are a net loss to society, at a time when our society needs all its resources. The personal really is political.
By the way, I've done other sorts of surveys, surveys intended to try to figure out what sort of services a non-profit I was involved in running could offer the community. It's very, very hard to balance the need for some sort of standardization with the need to extract the most useful information. With limited resources, it's impossible to make the survey an in depth interview -- which would give the most complete information -- and compiling the data requires a lot of time even with standardized questions. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can put together a survey which finds the balance point.
And now, to bring this back to the issue of psychology, that balance point is something I think we're really talking about in some of the other threads on this board that I've joined into. Finding the balance between our fears of expressing emotions that feel as if they'll overwhelm and drown us, and repressing those emotions until they come out through self injury. In the same way, on the social front, there's a great deal of fear that we'll be drowned by the Big Corporations, but punished if we speak out.
(OK, so that was a big stretch. I find political activities liberating and satisfying and therapeutic. Your description of taking surveys just made me want to say something.)
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 12:40:36
In reply to To Dinah re: politics, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 12:06:45
I suspect my politics would appall you. :)
But my pet peeve (ok, one of many) is people calling to ask you to vote for someone or something that they really don't understand.
Or, as you say, poll questions that obviously slant the results.
And I have a mischievous streak that leads me to try to point these things out. I'm not sure it's political fervor on my part as much as a different way of looking at things. My therapist says my gift is to make people wonder about why they believe what they believe. I want to trade that gift for a facility for easy repartee. ;)
Posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 13:57:10
In reply to Re: To Dinah re: politics » Racer, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 12:40:36
Racer,
Good points - The political IS personal! It is a good analogy - trying to find the balance of emotional disclosure and self-sufficiency.
I spent some time, early on in therapy, explaining much of the politics of nonprofit funding to my therapist because he held many of the assumptions that most people do - nonprofits just have to "ask" big business to help, especially if it is cute little disable kids. WRONG!!! The California gov't is so screwed up, mental health services are virtually gone and my funding for serving these kids is always on the chopping block. But if we survey folks, they "think" kids deserve gov't funding services. Then they vote no on the taxes to fund this stuff.
Even our officials don't understand the ultimate impacts of their decisions at the individual level. We try to educate and explain but...
At least my Therapist *knows* now why I come in some days stressed out and frustrated. I came to one session directly from a meeting where we were helping the county design logic models for spending. LOL. I think I ranted at him for the first 10 minutes of the session, and he looked at me and said, "you seem upset about this?!"
YOU THINK?!!!
Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 14:29:39
In reply to I'm butting in, posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 13:57:10
OK, I managed to avoid wetting my pants laughing, but only just. Cliche or not, I feel your pain.
I've spent so much time in the non-profit world, and talked to my friends in CorporationVille about what I faced every day, and they never got it. One eventually spent four months working at a corporate style non-profit, only to call me one day and tell me she'd quit outright because she just couldn't handle it at all. She admitted she'd never believed most of what I told her about it, but said she knew I was telling the truth after experiencing it. (Of course, she's an ex-friend, because her conclusion was that, since non-profits were impossibly crazy, I should move into the corporate world. Sorry, I'm a True Believer, and can't handle the CorporationVille.)
The hardest part of it for me, is that my background *is* corporate. (Well, OK, really law firms, which are usually partnerships, but a corporate atmosphere.) I give great outline, and excellent flow chart, and I have a really low tolerance for inefficiency. I walk through the door of most NPOs, and start grinding my teeth at all the chaos and waste. {{sigh}}
And the reason The People vote against taxes is that they don't explore the issues -- they vote as a reaction to propaganda that they don't recognise as such. Local example: there was a proposition on the local ballot a year or so ago, something about restricting the laws regarding certain types of traps being used to catch members of an endangered species in an area near San Jose. Sounds so good, right? Stop the mean old hunters from catching the cute little foxes in nasty traps? Gotta vote FOR the fuzzy foxes, right? Um, actually, if you read a little more, you'd find that some well intentioned but uninformed people decided this was a good idea, without realizing that the bill they were pushing would have REDUCED the protection for these foxes, by excluding them from the existing Endangered Species laws already on the books. Those existing laws were created by experts in wildlife conservation, and really and truly did protect this particular fox. Because I'm familiar with the area involved, and see the construction going on there, I would bet almost anything that some Big Player wanted those foxes off the land in order to build either more condos or more business space, and managed to find a group of people who wouldn't ask too many questions before hopping up to support the idea of "saving" the foxes.
Alabama's governor recently proposed changes to the state's tax system. He said that Family Values and God Above required that those who have the good fortune to be secure are morally responsible to help their neighbors who are struggling. In an effort to make himself right with God, he proposed lowering the taxes for the poor, eliminating taxes for the poorest [x] percent, keeping middle class taxes the same, and raising taxes for the richest individuals and corporations. You know that the opponents attacked that by saying, "He wants to raise YOUR taxes!" The poor people, the very people he wanted to help, defeated that proposition.
I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Education, enlightenment, social cooperation, and ethics. Maybe we can buy some from Japan? I understand the manufacture of those commodities was shifted there in the last recession...
Posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 15:18:49
In reply to Dear me... » DaisyM, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 14:29:39
So many points, so well put.
I'm out of the corporate world myself and unusual as a female who has no (NO) tolerance for "process". I want solutions, options and moving on! (Hmmm...and I wonder why therapy is so hard for me...)
I run things around here like a corp. with very enlightened personnel policies because I figure we don't pay people what they could make in the corp world, we have to be extra nice to them. Like tons of time off, flexible schedules, staff retreats to Lake Tahoe, etc. (I write millions of grants so that we don't have to touch the program money for staff retreats, BTW.)
You are right about people who think you are nuts to work in this world. My whole family thinks my agency is "cute" -- doing important good work, but still. I could make so much more money in their world. And, they think my MA is wasted...*sigh*. Families!
We have a problem up here with the salamandors. They are spending so much money trying to decide what to do with them -- I could run my agency for 2 years on the money spent on propaganda. I don't care what they do with it -- it is a lizard for God's sake!!
Of course, my poor Therapist has heard all about this one too!
*smile* Nice to know I'm not alone in the fight!
Posted by noa on January 31, 2004, at 15:53:48
In reply to To Dinah re: politics, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 12:06:45
This has been an interesting thread to read. I have several rather random things to add:
1. I love the image of Racer educating the poller in the direction of the views supported by the opponents of the survey's sponsors! Stop her for a 'woman on the street survey'? They asked for it!
2. I imagine Racer would be every lawyer's nightmare in jury selection! She knows too much and has too many well-articulated opinions!
3. The issue of California funding---I just heard an interesting piece on Marketplace radio about how the inadequacy of funding to public schools in California is now leading to a new kind of class war---whether local PTAs can control the funds they raise to pay for things that should have been provided by public funding, or whether there should be some evening out of the playing field so that the schools in poorer areas and richer areas don't end up being so incredibly stratified as to look like the whole education affair is completely dependent on how much parents can pay. The deal is that the superintendent is asking that 15% of parent raised funds be redistributed. Just 15%! And the rich communities are complaining that this is robbing them of their hard-earned fundraising efforts. The crazy part of all of this is that these programs, like arts programs, or funding for materials or teacher aides, should be funded by the state--what the heck happened to universal free education anyway!!! (Racer, did you see how I was starting to get whipped up into a rant there?)
4. Have you noticed how confusing issue advertisements have become? I can't tell which side of an issue a sponsor is on? If I call my legislator and urge them to vote "yes" on a particular issue, what am I supporting? It is really hard to tell, because I think the marketing pros have done a great deal of clever work, and because the way the actual bills are developed is very complicated. Then the ads seem to be saying things like, "you don't want to hurt the poor innocent [fill in the blank victim here], now, do you? well, then, call your congressman and let him know how you feel!" Or the ads that make you feel like you are going to get creamed as a consumer if a certain bill is passed, while the ad for the opposing side says you are going to get creamed if it doesn't pass. It's kind of akin to the beauty pageant contestant being asked if she is "for world peace"! Well, if you're for world peace, vote yes on this bill. Yeah, right. I have this fear that one of these days, I'm going to vote on a referendum that looks like it supports something I support and wake up the next morning to discover I've voted to make the neo-Nazis in charge of the country or something.
I wish there were easy to read web sites with charts deconstructing the policy issues and the approaches taken by the politicians and the various proposed bills, so I could just read these to get the straight truth about the pros and cons of each, rather than have to be inundated with misleading advertising, etc. The ads make me feel turned off about it all. Hmm... maybe that is the real desired effect? Maybe it's a conspiracy between all the sides to just confuse us all into oblivion.....
Posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 16:11:44
In reply to Re: To Dinah re: politics, posted by noa on January 31, 2004, at 15:53:48
How about this:
My kids grammer school can raise $30,000 in a 2hour walk-a-thon...the school across town raised $3,000. 6-mile radius.And, my nonprofit is considering registering a PTA so we can do this kind of fundraiser. Right now there are tons of restrictions on CBOs that PTAs don't have to follow.
It is a sick system.
Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 16:17:27
In reply to Re: To Dinah re: politics, posted by noa on January 31, 2004, at 15:53:48
OK, three responses to what you said:
1. Can't offer an easy website, but can offer three places that might help. Bill Moyers NOW, which has a site on pbs.org, Public Citizen -- yes, Ralph Nader -- at citizen.org, and MoveOn.org, which is probably the most slanted and least helpful of the three.
2. Racer's Challenge: If anyone comes up with something worth supporting, I'll make a website with it. If you want to work together to deconstruct the issues, I'll do my best to contribute. Right now, while it might be therapeutic for me, it might also be way too ambitious for me. Whether I sound it or not, I'm very fragile right now, and I'm afraid if I commit myself to something and can't live up to it, I'll collapse again. On the other hand, I do want to do something, and websites is something I can do without breaking much of a sweat. If you write it, I will code...
3. How many times do I have to tell you this: You May Not Rant!!! Noa's Notions? How's that?
Thanks, my dear. I can't tell you how much it helps me to know that you've got my back.
Posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 19:12:38
In reply to Re: To Dinah re: politics » noa, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 16:17:27
Careful, I sit on the State Children's roundtable advocacy group...I have lots of issues. Want to talk preschool for all?
Seriously, we can talk but I don't want you feeling over-committed or burdened. I totally know that feeling. I spark up, volunteer for everything, usually my hubby goes downhill and I fall apart. And my Therapist gets ready to kill me again! I tell him I can't help it, superwomanRUS. Besides, politically, I'm still sure of myself these days. It is one of the few arena's I'm confident in. It doesn't take much to out think "our" legislators.
This will make you laugh: recently I received an award from the Republican national committee for business serving kids, blah, blah...I tried to explain that I was 1) the Director of a nonprofit 2) in California 3) a woman and 4) a Demo. They didn't care, said they need people like me to "roundout" things. I bet they wished I was a person of color, that would have made their day! LOL! (I did take their money...)
Posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2004, at 20:46:43
In reply to Issues » Racer, posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 19:12:38
Daisy,
And they don't even know about your therapy. How's that for rounding things out. That's hysterical! Congrats for impressing the other side!gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 1:07:33
In reply to To Dinah re: politics, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 12:06:45
> And now, to bring this back to the issue of psychology, that balance point is something I think we're really talking about in some of the other threads on this board that I've joined into. Finding the balance between our fears of expressing emotions that feel as if they'll overwhelm and drown us, and repressing those emotions until they come out through self injury. In the same way, on the social front, there's a great deal of fear that we'll be drowned by the Big Corporations, but punished if we speak out.
>
> (OK, so that was a big stretch. I find political activities liberating and satisfying and therapeutic. Your description of taking surveys just made me want to say something.)Big stretch is right! :-) Could follow-ups about politics be redirected to Psycho-Social-Babble? Thanks.
Bob
Posted by DaisyM on February 1, 2004, at 10:57:11
In reply to Redirect: politics, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 1:07:33
We need a politics Board!
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 11:17:57
In reply to Re: Redirect: politics » Dr. Bob, posted by DaisyM on February 1, 2004, at 10:57:11
That would probably have the same high block to post ratio as the Faith board.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.