![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2013, at 3:14:52
In reply to Re: trial run » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2013, at 0:33:03
> > > I will say that if my therapist were to openly acknowledge his use of technique, and perhaps his discomfort with it - as you did here - I would feel far less maddened by it. It *would* feel not only more cooperative, but also less artificial. Because there would be a real human communication on a different level than the technique.
> >
> > Exactly. I feel we're on the same page. That we share the feeling that this technique has potential.
>
> Well, we might or might not. My feelings don't fit so neatly into a subgroup. And I don't really feel understood or on the same page when people come to conclusions about how I feel or think.Fair enough, I never confirmed that you felt I heard you. Like I said, I'm still new at this myself. What I heard you saying was that you felt there was the possibility of real human communication with this technique. Is that right?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2013, at 5:50:32
In reply to Re: real human communication, posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2013, at 3:14:52
> Fair enough, I never confirmed that you felt I heard you. Like I said, I'm still new at this myself. What I heard you saying was that you felt there was the possibility of real human communication with this technique. Is that right?
>
> BobNot precisely. I meant that while I feel like 10der does about being the subject of technique (which she described better than I did), that there were ways that technique can be supported and bolstered by genuine communication.
It's in the more natural communication that I feel more connected with others.
So that if you were to express some of your own feelings, hopes, and insecurities (which you did to some extent) I would feel more on the same page with you than if you just used the terminology of a new technique.
So that anything that has overtones of groupspeak is likely to arouse in me feelings of being alone, not on the same page. But that openness and genuine communication could allay that feeling of alienation.
Does that make sense to you? Or resonate in any way?
Actually, I think this technique might work reasonably well in communications with you, Dr. Bob. So it may be a question of different people responding differently to the same technique.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2013, at 0:36:35
In reply to Re: real human communication » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2013, at 5:50:32
> > What I heard you saying was that you felt there was the possibility of real human communication with this technique. Is that right?
>
> Not precisely. I meant that while I feel like 10der does about being the subject of technique (which she described better than I did), that there were ways that technique can be supported and bolstered by genuine communication.
>
> It's in the more natural communication that I feel more connected with others.
>
> So that if you were to express some of your own feelings, hopes, and insecurities (which you did to some extent) I would feel more on the same page with you than if you just used the terminology of a new technique.
>
> So that anything that has overtones of groupspeak is likely to arouse in me feelings of being alone, not on the same page. But that openness and genuine communication could allay that feeling of alienation.
>
> Does that make sense to you? Or resonate in any way?
>
> Actually, I think this technique might work reasonably well in communications with you, Dr. Bob. So it may be a question of different people responding differently to the same technique.OK, let me try again. What I hear you saying is that a combination of genuine communication (sharing one's own feelings, hopes, and insecurities) and this technique has the potential to help people feel connected. Is that right?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 19, 2013, at 13:13:54
In reply to Re: real human communication, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2013, at 0:36:35
Close. I'd add a "some" before "people" to make room for my firm belief in eclecticism. Is that a word? Different ideas work with different people.
Sooo... You *could* say that what I was trying to say was ... "a combination of genuine communication (sharing one's own feelings, hopes, and insecurities) and this technique has the potential to help some people feel connected."
Does that bring us anywhere near the same page? How would you summarize your view?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 20, 2013, at 14:29:49
In reply to Re: real human communication » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 19, 2013, at 13:13:54
> Sooo... You *could* say that what I was trying to say was ... "a combination of genuine communication (sharing one's own feelings, hopes, and insecurities) and this technique has the potential to help some people feel connected."
>
> Does that bring us anywhere near the same page? How would you summarize your view?I agree, some, but not all, people. Nothing works for everyone.
OK, the 1st step is hearing the other person accurately. I think we've accomplished that.
The 2nd step is for me to express my view/feeling:
My view is that communication being genuine is important, but isn't necessarily sufficient. For example, a communication could be genuine, but uncivil. My view is that this technique might help posters communicate in ways that are both genuine and supportive.
Now, having heard my view, you can assess whether you feel we're on the same page. Do you?
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.