![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by Penny on January 30, 2004, at 13:39:53
In reply to Startling!!!, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 12:50:26
>Maybe like they deserve to be hurt, but they aren't angry enough to off themselves, perhaps?. Hmmm...
This assumes, of course, that you see suicide as an act of anger at oneself - a means of punishment, so to speak. But I don't see it that way at all. I see it as an escape of sorts. When I've felt suicidal, it wasn't because I felt I should be punished or because I was necessarily angry at myself (though I guess that is always part of the problem for me anyway) - the primary issue was that I didn't want to hurt anymore. I wanted the pain to end.P
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 30, 2004, at 15:32:30
In reply to Re: Startling!!! » 64Bowtie, posted by Penny on January 30, 2004, at 13:39:53
maybe one does it to try to "feel" something..
walking around day after day feeling "numb"..
sometimes pain is a way to bring one back into a physical self...
j
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 16:37:29
In reply to Re: Startling!!! » 64Bowtie, posted by Penny on January 30, 2004, at 13:39:53
Actually, I see unsuccessful suicide most often portrayed or reported as an attempt at getting someone's attention, and/or striking out at someone in anger. Very seldom is it characterized as self-punishment in my experience. With successful suicides, these points are moot.
I do make an assumption. That being that the troubles most often linked to the act suicide are the result of conflict, tiny or big, but unresolved. The suicide is always a permanent solution to a temporary condition when linked to conflict.
A solution is to take the time to study conflict and better ways to resolve it. For too-many folks, conflict resloution is a one-step process. They progress from the conflict directly to violence.
This has happened to me when I answer the call of my innards to never suffer dissatisfaction. Conflict can dissatisfy me. I am aware of my failing today, so I will walk away dissatisfied, knowing that I no longer invoke violence or coercion to resolve my dissatisfactions.
Perhaps this discussion seems too far away from that of suicide. I also assume that suicidal thoughts somehow start with dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction is not an intellectual abstract phenomenon. It is an impulse, a reflex, and nearly involuntary in adulthood (completely involuntary in an infant). A person contemplating suicide, may then migrate all the way to violence as I stated above, to stike out in anger, permanently.
The etiology of the dissatisfaction reflex starts at birth, and can serve us well, or plague us all our lives, our choice.
The dissatisfaction reflex is worth studying, along with healthy conflict resolution strategies. This is how I found my way out from my foibles and troubles.
See, that's just the way I am, though........
Rod
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 30, 2004, at 17:14:18
In reply to Re: Startling!!! - thanx for responses, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 16:37:29
strong points rod...are you dr rod? oh my...
if i may add..
sometimes people just want to go away to escape from the pain,the emptiness, or they may just simply want to stop the choas of ones inner thoughts..(racing mind that never pauses)..
are not most "deaths" accidents..not meaning to die,rather to stop...
?j
Posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2004, at 20:56:17
In reply to Re: Startling!!! - thanx for responses, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 16:37:29
Rod,
I'm glad that you found a model to overcome your troubles. But I think that resolving not to be dissatisfied is too simple for seriously depressed or serious mental illness. Severe mental illness can often go along with cognitive impairment. How would you teach someone to walk away from dissatisfaction if they cannot understand the concept?Also, I tend to agree with the others about suicide. The survivors I have known have all wanted to escape incredible psychic pain. Yes, some may have also considered the impact on loved ones that suicide may have. But serious suicide attempts are more failed escapes than they are manipulatiive or cries for attention. The only cry I hear from significant suicidal ideation or attempts is "I am in tremendous pain which I can no longer handle."
I am, of course, speaking of legitimate suicide versus acting out behavior, when the individual clearly is acting instrumentally with no intent to die and a real intent to manipulate others. But this is a very different behavior from actual suicide attempts.
By the way, I'm curious about your closing line that I often see in your posts reiterating that that's just the way you are. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2004, at 21:22:14
In reply to Startling!!!, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 12:50:26
Self harm is sometimes referred to as parasuicidal behavior, but honestly there really isn't a link between self injury and suicide attempts. Self injury is a coping mechanism, and has nothing to do with intending to end your life.
And while it may sometimes have something to do with thinking you deserve to be hurt, I don't think that's even usually the case. Self injurious behavior comes naturally to the human (and perhaps primates in general). A young child might hit himself or bite himself when frustrated. People with developmental delays often engage in stereotypical self injury. Head banging, etc. They theorize that there is a release of chemicals that is soothing. I read something just the other day.... Hmmm...
Wait! I found it! It's from "The Search for the Secure Base" by Jeremy Holmes, page 23.
"We can also speculate that the quasi-addictive quality of perverse self-soothing behaviors, such as cutting in borderline patients, might be medicated in a similar way - if endogenous opiates or peptides are released, then such pathological behaviors will also be self-reinforcing. The argument here is that when faced with stress an individual seeks out a secure base; the bonding process releases endogenous opiates which makes the individual relax and feel safe. Such apparently perverse acts as self-cutting may shortcut this process and produce the physiological secure base state, using the body rather than another as the means to do this."
I would tend to put it the other way. If a child tries but is unable to find a secure base because of the limitations of his caretakers, he might then seek other means to achieve the same physiological state.
Now there is something that might help your clients, Gardenergirl. If secure attachment provides the same chemicals as self injury, a secure attachment to a therapist might be an adequate substitute. Perhaps that is why I've been able to (mostly) keep my promise to my therapist. Because my secure attachment to him is an adequate self injury substitute (and a lot more pleasant, I might add).
As for suicide. If you can manage a bit of paradox, sometimes believing that suicide *is* an option is the only way to tolerate living.
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 22:40:16
In reply to Re: Startling!!! - thanx for responses, posted by justyourlaugh on January 30, 2004, at 17:14:18
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 23:24:20
In reply to Re: Startling!!! - thanx for responses, posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2004, at 20:56:17
>>> I'm glad that you found a model to overcome your troubles. But I think that resolving not to be dissatisfied is too simple for seriously depressed or serious mental illness. Severe mental illness can often go along with cognitive impairment. How would you teach someone to walk away from dissatisfaction if they cannot understand the concept?
<<< In another post at another board I addressed your very well said point. I see multi-generational dysfunction in multiple layers all around me. This doesn't confound me anymore. I connected the dots between "poor impulse control", "dysfunction", and "poor conflict resolution strategies", to make a model I copyrighted as "Coached Recovery Protocol ©".
Your point is exquisite that many are not ready for my level of recovery regimen. I am feverishly exploring a marketing strategy which will enlist therapists to help clients peal back those many layers, get on there feet, and allow my program to provide the last nudge into functionality, along with powerful tools that ensure there will be no relapse. It requires clarity, decisiveness, a "unified concept of self", along with four cornerstones of Love, Acceptance, Respect, and Responsibility.
My encouragement for all is simple. If I did it, anyone can do it. I hope it won't be as treacherous for them as it was for me. I hope they can do it sooner than I did, also.
>>> ...suicide...
<<< Teen suicide is the most troubling problem to me. Such a waste. Scott Peck in "People of the Lie" chpt 1, has related a very sad example for all to study.
I admit my statistics are ancient (from the mid 70's). My intentions were to discuss and study, never to hurt, show-up, deny, or otherwise minimize the other sharing about this very visceral topic.
>>> By the way, I'm curious about your closing line that I often see in your posts reiterating that that's just the way you are. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
<<< I have been sited for being heavy handed. I initially fell into my (male) trap of being "Mr Fixit". That "closing ditty" is my experiment at softening. If it irritates, let me know.
Lugubriously, Rod
(a real snazzy picture, Ehh?)PS: (Re:the subject line) Humans store information in a fifth dimensional array strategy, but we share it one word at a time, one right after the other. Sharing information sure takes toooo long!!! At the fifth dimension, there are shortcuts from thought to thought.
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 23:53:13
In reply to Re: Startling!!! Gardenergirl and » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on January 30, 2004, at 21:22:14
Thanks for the insightful goodies. I love this place....(Babble)
You continue to remind me how rarified my chemical abuser/person abuser (court assigned) world has been for me. I think with your help, Babble has been my break-out process. I wasn't feeling in any way "stuck". However, your pointing out how you are "journalling" alot here I took to heart. Perhaps when I journal some don't like my presentation. Back to my quest for better effectiveness via better "timing". I'm working on it.
I still find journalling in general very freeing. Doing it here is so convenient. Thanx for making me feel welcome in your community.
Rod
Posted by gardenergirl on January 31, 2004, at 8:13:51
In reply to Re: Re: Adapting to this media » gardenergirl, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 23:24:20
Good luck with your business enterprise. It certainly sounds ambitious.
Thanks for the discourse,
gg
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 9:18:38
In reply to Re: Re: Adapting to this media » gardenergirl, posted by 64Bowtie on January 30, 2004, at 23:24:20
> Your point is exquisite that many are not ready for my level of recovery regimen. I am feverishly exploring a marketing strategy which will enlist therapists to help clients peal back those many layers, get on there feet, and allow my program to provide the last nudge into functionality, along with powerful tools that ensure there will be no relapse. It requires clarity, decisiveness, a "unified concept of self", along with four cornerstones of Love, Acceptance, Respect, and Responsibility.
>
> My encouragement for all is simple. If I did it, anyone can do it. I hope it won't be as treacherous for them as it was for me. I hope they can do it sooner than I did, also.
>
I'm not sure that I would say that some aren't "ready" for your treatment plan. The fact is that *no* treatment plan is appropriate for everyone. A certain level of acceptance on your part that what worked for you might not work for everyone might allow you to be more effective in giving help to those who *would* benefit from it. I realize that that would require radical acceptance on your part (in DBT language).When you say "If I did it, anyone can do it" are you attempting to say "If I did it (the way I did it - using my program), anyone can do it (in the way I did - using my program)? Or are you attempting to say "If I found my way out of the mire (in the way that works best for me), anyone can do it (when they find the way that works best for them)? If you mean the latter, I think you're absolutely right. If you mean the former, have you considered that you have personality characteristics that not everyone shares, and therefore what works for you would work best for others sharing your personality characteristics?
It happens with all treatments. My biofeedback therapist was "direct" and CBT in orientation. He's been a therapist for many years and has undoubtedly helped many people. He didn't help me. It wasn't because I wasn't ready. It was because his approach wasn't right for me.
The CBT people have done outcome studies that link successful outcomes with personality characteristics. Perhaps you could do the same sort of research with your own treatment. Not judgmentally of course, but analytically.
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 11:56:54
In reply to Re: Re: Adapting to this media » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 9:18:38
[Dinah]
>>> I'm not sure that I would say that some aren't "ready" for your treatment plan. The fact is that *no* treatment plan is appropriate for everyone. A certain level of acceptance on your part that what worked for you might allow you to be more effective in giving help to those who *would* benefit from it. I realize that that would require radical acceptance on your part (in DBT language).
>
>>>When you say "If I did it, anyone can do it" are you attempting to say "If I did it (the way I did it - using my program), anyone can do it (in the way I did - using my program)? Or are you attempting to say "If I found my way out of the mire (in the way that works best for me), anyone can do it (when they find the way that works best for them)? If you mean the latter, I think you're absolutely right. If you mean the former, have you considered that you have personality characteristics that not everyone shares, and therefore what works for you would work best for others sharing your personality characteristics?
>
[Rod]
<<<I've found that responding to you can be a worthwhile challenge. I am not irritated by anything you say, ever. Sometimes your debate technique employs an "absolute" and sometimes you respond in "oblique" angles. None of that is bad or good. Actually, you will succeed more than you will fail with those strategies. They are not corrupt. I hear them employed freely from Congress on C-span, all the way down to Judge Judy. Again, I am not irritated by anything you say, ever. (pant, pant, pant. Gotta do more jogging. This thinking stuff leaves me winded!)
<
<<<To my point: (Ahem)
I see my comment as a mixed message of hope. Since I assume we all have the tools needed to overcome these "fiendish thingys" in our characters and personalities, I readily encourage everyone to do something. And, here is my stuff and what I saw and learned. If they don't fit, I'm OK with that.
<
<<<OBTW, my evaluation formula can eliminate clients that I see won't be helped. The client might also see a lack of matching. Even the Cosmos might conspire to eliminate my modality. I'm still OK with all of it. Arrogance and vanity were dealt with in 1991 by my own discoveries.
<
<<<(pertaining to my "absolute" comment)
>>>...might not work for *everyone*
>>>...characteristics that not *everyone* shares
<
<<<(you appear to be implying that everyone indeed means everyone; an "absolute") Like I said, I am not judging, just codifying for your future study. This debate strategy shakes down the opponent forcing them to make a stand included in their response. If you play checkers or chess or poker, its like putting the cheese out for the mouse (aligorically and metaphorically).
<
<<<I'm not so desparately attached by my ego to anything I dream up, or I wouldn't be here risking that ego so freely. I hope you gain from what I share. I am not in a pursuit that ends neatly, but is more of an ever-changing beginning, a sort of re-re-beginning...lol...
>
>>>As to the "oblique or vector" tactic, I'll have to remind myself later where I saw you do that successfully, so as to provide a clear example. Keep in your vision that I mean no harm nor judgement. I thought you might want to study these techniques for future strategic deployment.
>
>>>Three cheers for the "self"!!!Rod
PS: When I became comfortable in my own skin, I stopped being repulsive and started being attractive. I’ve always been able to be comfortable, I just didn’t know how, or where to start.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 12:32:03
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » Dinah, posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 11:56:54
I'm afraid I really didn't understand your response. I'm sorry.
As best I can understand, you saw my use of the word "everyone" as an "absolute"? While in truth I was using the phrase "not everyone" as the very opposite of absolute.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "oblique".
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 13:30:17
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » Dinah, posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 11:56:54
FWIW, Rod. I wasn't trying to debate, and it seemed you were commenting on my debating techniques. I was attempting (in the spirit of my Admin post) to be helpful in light of *your* post on Admin:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296794.html
In it, I read that you didn't think Psychological Babble posters were interested in growth. And perhaps I misread your post, in which case I apologize. Your post above used similar language about people having to be ready, etc. And I just don't think that it's true that Psychological Babble posters aren't interested in growth (or we wouldn't be going to therapy) , just that we all respond to different approaches.
My attempt was to help you understand me, and perhaps some of the other Psychological Board Babblers (I certainly am not speaking for all), better and to see my "fiendish thingys" in a different light.
Posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 13:35:17
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » Dinah, posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 11:56:54
Rod, you should write grants. Your arguments/theories are couched in terminology that makes it hard to disagree, because it is hard to understand and argue with the main points. This is NOT a criticism, it is just your writing style. I always shake my head when I read your long stuff, it is so easy to admire your word usage and forget to pay attention to the point being made.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 0:52:52
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2004, at 12:32:03
[Dinah]
> As best I can understand, you saw my use of the word "everyone" as an "absolute"? While in truth I was using the phrase "not everyone" as the very opposite of absolute.[Rod]
<<<You are doing fine, Dinah. I have always been your cheerleader/flag waiver. I hope, more than you can imagine, that I don't mess-up again and lose contact with you.
<
<<<Our communication got a terrific rebirth when you lifted my posting ban. I will be forever grateful. You have much to say. You have much I want to hear.
<
<<<As I tried to explain in my post, I wasn't saying that you were (immediately) debating me. I was trying to say that at times I've read you posting here and there and noticed what amounts to good debating techniques. I tried to describe them, but must have used examples that only meant something to me. I'm still OK not being right. I can be wrong and survive to tell about it.....
<
<<<Please consider the book, "Getting to Yes". It came out in the early 80's. He doesn't exactly use the same terminology as me, which I learned in the early 60's for High School Debating. What he does encourage us all to consider, is to use his exmaples for getting along with people, ergo "Getting to Yes".
<
<<< If I have irritated you, let me know. I was responding to what I read as implying "everyone" as a place holder in your idea. If I say "not everyone" has to believe as I do, I'm still invoking the absolute, only in the negative. Implicate to the words "all people" and "not all people" is the notion of 100% contained in the word "all". The same applies to "every" in "everyone". Does that make sense?
<
<<<None of this has to matter. I am OK with you if you disagree with me. I agree with you. I agree to disagree, for the sake of communication.
<
<<<We only get to banter back and forth at this WEB site. Communication is severely crunched because we can only post stories and abstract information. Perhaps its backed up with referenced information, but none-the-less, its abstract. Is what I'm saying a clear picture?
<
<<<If I could send you a video lecture complete with client participations to illustrate my points, that communication would no longer only be abstract or testimony. See where I'm going with this? We can only limp along as best we can because of the limitations placed on communication by the rules of this medium.
<
<<<Alot of what is discussed herein by all of us, ain't fun stuff. I'll be true to our tacit agreement to be always civil. Can you see my progress?
<
<<<Rod
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 0:55:31
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » 64Bowtie, posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 13:35:17
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 1:13:53
In reply to Re:I like these questions - good for the juices » 64Bowtie, posted by DaisyM on January 31, 2004, at 13:35:17
Hi Daisy,
Thanks for that feedback. I like hearing from you.
1. I was raised in a "text-book" dysfunctional household, inside a family that never knew that it didn't even know what "dysfunctional" meant.
2. Over a period of 30 years, like Ceasar and the Romans, Veni! Vidi! Vici! my dysfunction.
***I came upon my dysfunction...
***I saw my dysfunction for what it was...
***I conquered my dysfunction...3. Are you at all curious how I did that?
Rod
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 10:22:16
In reply to Re:Re: I think I'm showing my bad timing, posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 0:52:52
Ok, I'm going to try again. Because my intention really is rapprochement. Making myself vulnerable to my Sunday School teacher really made a huge difference in our relationship, so I'm going to try it here. Also, while my intention is to be civil, and I will try to be as civil as I can be, I will be more direct than is my wont. So I want you to realize that I am risking my PBC virginity for you, and I hope you realize what that means to me.
I didn't take debate in high school and am unfamiliar with debating terms. Also, I chose Ethics over Logic as my sole Philosophy elective, so using terminology from formal Logic probably won't mean much to me either. :( But I remember from my SAT prep that the opposite to the "absolute" everybody is nobody, and that not everybody is implying the opposite of "absolute" and is therefore a better multiple choice answer. My knowledge goes no farther, but I was attempting to be the very opposite of "absolute".
As I said before, your post on Admin struck a chord with me.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/296794.html
In it you sounded as if you felt like an outsider on the Psychological Board, and I very much empathise with the outsider feeling. And you also seem to attribute your feelings to a particular reason, that Psychological Board posters are interested only in therapist stories, while you are interested in Growth. That is an inference from what you wrote, and could of course be incorrect, in which case I apologize.
On Social ( http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040109/msgs/303073.html ), you wrote:
"If people important to us avoid us because we complain all the time, when they recognize the change, they will be more available and less avoidant when we don't complain anymore. It's no secret that we have a better concept of self when we relate well with people."
It is very true that relating well enhances self esteem, and that we would all prefer for others to be more available and less avoidant to us. And I'm sure you would agree that complaining is not the only source of avoidance and poor relations with others. Misunderstanding is another source.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031221/msgs/293417.html
In this post, I inferred, and again I could be wrong and please tell me if I am, that you were curious that people didn't respond to what you considered to be a post that would evoke impassioned response. Your post to me, which didn't get a PBC, your post to JYL, which didn't get a PBC, and your post to Lar, which also didn't get a PBC, could also be seen as posts that had the intention of getting others to think in a different way through evoking a strong response. None of those posts broke the civility guidelines of this site, according to Dr. Bob. None merited a PBC. But all three of them resulted in a Please Do Not Post to Me, a request that could certainly be seen as others making themselves less available and more avoidant. Since you agree that having others be less available and more avoidant is undesirable (per your previous post), I was attempting to extend a hand to you in the form of greater understanding of where I, and possibly others are coming from.
Psychobabble is not a place that really responds well to passion inducing posts. Because of the civility guidelines in place, people aren't sure how they can respond. So the most logical civil response under the guidelines is to request that the passion inducing poster no longer post to them, or to simply skip over the posts of that poster. I'm quite certain that that is not your desired outcome.
And I am also trying to make myself understood to you. I, and many people with borderline traits or borderline personality disorder, come from what Marsha Linehan calls a chronically invalidating environment. This makes me particularly sensitive to what might be seen as invalidation as an adult, and particularly receptive to those approaches that contain a fair amount of validation.
When I see posts that seem to say that I'm not ready for change, or that I'm not interested in Growth, or that I should quit grumbling or complaining, or that the solution to my problems is to take responsibility to pull myself up by my bootstraps, or anything like that, I tend to feel that where I'm at now is not being validated. Marsha Linehan developed DBT because she realized that CBT caused chronically invalidated individuals to feel invalidated. So her DBT attempted to combine CBT principles with validation (and Eastern philosophy).
Your approach appears to be very direct and based on rationality. There are personality types that that approach may work very well with, but there are personality types who might feel invalidated by it. I am hoping that an understanding of this might help you feel more accepted here, because in your own words "when they recognize the change, they will be more available and less avoidant".
Now, I have put my head on the PBC block for you, and I hope you appreciate that my motivations are good and that I mean no disrespect to you or your approach. I am truly just trying to help, for whatever it's worth.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2004, at 11:34:45
In reply to Re:Re: I think I'm showing my bad timing » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 10:22:16
Perhaps to reinforce the PB model...Props to Dinah for a clear and measured response.
Rod, I have been following the discussion and don't really wish to engage in the content. I was just struck by how well I understood Dinah's post here. Sometimes I have a hard time following your posts, perhaps for similar reasons to Dinah. I never took debate or logic. I also tend to rely on my gut, which I know is not rational, but is a strength for me.
Regards,
gg
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 15:03:47
In reply to Re:Re: I think I'm showing my bad timing » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 10:22:16
((((Dinah)))),
You were acting so cautiously, I am woried I hurt you somehow.
I'm going offline and drafting a response worthy of your "a w e s o m e" post. Next to your lifting my ban, this was the most delightful item written to me in a long time. ....and just a couple of days apart.
Part of my delight was how humbling for me your post was. That may sound bad. But I assure you that humility, if accepted, can be centering and balancing and therefore a delight. It may not seem gratifying to the amigdulla, but appeals nicely to the frontal lobes. I didn't get tears in my eyes, but I did get an adrenalin rush over your response, and on Superbowl Sunday even.....lol.
OBTW, what's a PBC? Sad I've seen this and never asked before.
I won't devalue your hard work by going on "tit -for-tat". I do want my response to have meaning, hoping my response can measure up to you loosing your v****n****y over me....lol!
I'll be back shortly...
Rod
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 15:47:52
In reply to Not picking sides, mind you, posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2004, at 11:34:45
gg,
I have been flailing around, experimenting with technique. My agendae are for communication. Its hard for me to read the audience and find my "voice", when I am also assembling the model. For almost 6 years, David Peck was always just a phone call away. We could meet for lunch, meet for coffee, etc. He passed away and I lost my guide. He was the one urging me along this path to coaching as an alternative to being a therapist.
We started this whole thing many years ago, exploring an educational model over a therapy model. That's partly why I pursued a PhD in Education instead of "shrinkdom". Am I starting to whine?
Czek out www.decisionhome.com. Browse the categories and see a picture of David and a small “snapshot” of what he was up to when he died last May. I am the caretaker of his legacy of writings and magazine articles (some remained unpublished). He was 78 when he passed away, and I had been a friend for the last 29 years.
I'm not sure that any of this matters now. I have taken the initiative to reorganize the info and have come up with my own model. I have not done well at voicing my model here. However, this is not my market either. Very confusing, probably. I just plan to keep using Babble as a journalling outlet, (Dinah's idea for herself, sounded good to me). Babble is a terrific source of objective feedback, if I may say so. I feel my continuing encouragement for all to look for that day of wellness can be my "trading stock" for whatever I get from the many posting folks. ...and in your parlance, as it may fit their style and need.
I call these rambling thoughts my preambl-ings... Other thoughts will follow.......
Thanx for listening...Rod
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 18:39:41
In reply to Are you and I still OK??? » Dinah, posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 15:03:47
I'm not really sure I'd mind "tit-for-tat" since my post was an honest attempt to connect.
PBC = Please Be Civil
Posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2004, at 18:45:44
In reply to Re:Re: I got your message too late... » gardenergirl, posted by 64Bowtie on February 1, 2004, at 15:47:52
Rod,
I'm sorry about your loss. About the only folks I've known as long as you did David Peck are family. Any loss there would hurt indeed.I admire your dedication with your project. You seem to be passionate about it. That's good. I'm still trying to get my dissertation together. Grad school is such a long haul; it's difficult to sustain momemtum unless you are very passionate about something. I would say I am only quite curious about my dissertation topic.
I'll check out the website soon. I'm really trying to limit my time online, but it's hard now that I've found PB.
gg
Posted by 64Bowtie on February 2, 2004, at 14:21:21
In reply to Re:Re: I think I'm showing my bad timing » 64Bowtie, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 10:22:16
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040131/msgs/308560.html
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.