![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 139 to 163 of 163. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:17:44
In reply to I'm supposed to ignore you :) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 20:58:12
I haven't quite managed to pull myself away.
Friday.
Or probably Saturday to tell you the truth.
I think that means Friday for you.
Going now...
;-)
Posted by gabbii on July 24, 2005, at 15:19:04
In reply to Re: gender differences » gabbii, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 20:55:36
> > Except that as a group, I tend to like dogs better.
>
> (blush)Me too but I'm not blushing. And Now I really really wish my screen name was Alpha B*tch,
though in truth I'm probably more like that funny dog that compulsively puts objects in circles on the floor.
I mean to ask you more about that actually (the dog)
But I know Admin is not the place, and for some reason I'm being polite about it.
Posted by henrietta on July 24, 2005, at 15:58:06
In reply to Re: gender differences » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 24, 2005, at 15:19:04
This whole conversation is wildly amusing to me. Take a look at this week's cover. This week's Dr. Bob Magazine. And you wonder if there's an alpha dog thing going on? You wonder why there are so few men here? You wonder why one casual word, once every two or three months, will melt the heart of most "independent, strong-minded" girlies? The most obstreperous girlies? ? G%%d it's funny.
Or would be if it weren't so f^^^ng sad.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:23:30
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by henrietta on July 24, 2005, at 15:58:06
> You wonder why one casual word, once every two or three months, will melt the heart of most "independent, strong-minded" girlies? The most obstreperous girlies? ? G%%d it's funny.
> Or would be if it weren't so f^^^ng sad.Please don't be sarcastic or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Whether this reflects gender effects I guess could be a question...
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:31:13
In reply to Re: gender differences » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 17:09:34
> Thats why I wondered if any female clinicians had boards.
Kali Munro does, should I ask her to visit again? Would there be other questions for her?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 17:51:31
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:31:13
> > Thats why I wondered if any female clinicians had boards.
> Kali Munro does, should I ask her to visit again? Would there be other questions for her?Do you have a link to her board?
That could be interesting...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 18:02:30
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by henrietta on July 24, 2005, at 15:58:06
Hello Hen. Hmm. Hmmmmmmmm. I'll admit that I had similar thoughts shortly after I joined up to Babble. I think it was because I started spending a bit of time on the admin board. Actually... I'll admit that I left Babble and went back to a consumer run board and that fairly much was my initial assessment of Babble. Then that board folded and I came crawling back... I decided to avoid admin and just try and post and try and see whether I could get to know the posters here.
Because I felt like there were clicky little groups on Babble too. That you had to be part of one of those before you could really get a thread up off the ground. After some time... Jai reached out to me and I made my first Babble friend :-) Then others... Then conflict arises... And one finds ones way back to admin.
I don't know what to say really... Except that once one does start to feel accepted by the posters. To care about them. Then once conflict arises it can be hard. I really appreciate that here we can talk about it. I'd rather talk about it in the open than have to talk about it 'behind the scenes'. I don't know what to say. Maybe your assessment of posters would be different if you Babbled more to your friends :-)
Or maybe thats my sneaky way of encouraging you to come Babble with me over on social...
;-)
I'm not sure how many more females than males there are here... Maybe males tend to hang out on the main Babble board. Maybe males tend to post more to give / receive info. Maybe females tend to be more visible with lots of social chat. It has come up before about why there aren't more guys posting to the psychology board. A couple of guys jumped on the thread and I think they said it was because they have different issues in therapy. We talk a lot about transference etc etc. The guys seemed to be more in CBT and not have such strong transference responses. maybe females (typically) need a bit more of an emotional connection than males. Maybe that is why there are more females here. I don't know. Interesting...
Posted by Deneb on July 24, 2005, at 21:22:16
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:23:30
you automatically assume that "So" is a man.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/532920.html
Just something I noticed. :-)
Deneb
Posted by Tamar on July 25, 2005, at 18:05:21
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 18:09:14
About gender differences…
I’ve read a bit of evolutionary psychology, and it can be quite fun. But I’d like to suggest another possibility: I’m quite interested in the work of Judith Butler… (e.g. "Gender Trouble" which might be hard reading, but IMHO ultimately worthwhile).
It seems to me that evolutionary psychology seems to assume that gender is essential, whereas Butler argues that gender is performative. I think the distinction is crucial, especially in an online forum, because here we are all performing our identities to some extent.
So I tend to think that none of us actually ARE male or female, but we might behave in ways that are intended to suggest masculinity of femininity. (I’m oversimplifying wildly, I admit.)
But as to how the theory applies to admin here… I suspect that a performative account of gender (rather than an essentialist account) might be more useful in exploring how gender norms are policed and indeed transgressed at Babble.
Just my two cents...
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 25, 2005, at 18:11:20
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Tamar on July 25, 2005, at 18:05:21
Does she have a couple boards or just the one?
The board I found is female only so that won't help particularly with respect to whether guys behave differently with a female moderator.
I think So has said something before about being a guy...
Posted by Tamar on July 25, 2005, at 19:39:35
In reply to Re: the link I found..., posted by alexandra_k on July 25, 2005, at 18:11:20
Hi Alex,
> Does she have a couple boards or just the one?
I'm not sure about boards. I only know about her books.
> The board I found is female only so that won't help particularly with respect to whether guys behave differently with a female moderator.
Indeed. And what about people in drag, lesbians etc... (to extrapolate from the theoretical perspective)?
> I think So has said something before about being a guy...
I had the impression So was male, but then I vaguely recall you said that people sometimes think you're male because of your writing style. Also, I seem to recall that So thought you were male at one point. Maybe that's connected to the (possible) performative nature of gender?
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 25, 2005, at 22:12:48
In reply to Re: the link I found... » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 25, 2005, at 19:39:35
> I vaguely recall you said that people sometimes think you're male because of your writing style. Also, I seem to recall that So thought you were male at one point.
Yes. I think that is partly why I chose what I thought was a female sounding posting name. But I think people still get a bit confused between 'alexander' and 'alexandra'.
>I’ve read a bit of evolutionary psychology, and it can be quite fun.
Yes :-)
>It seems to me that evolutionary psychology seems to assume that gender is essential, whereas Butler argues that gender is performative.
Some people distinguish between gender (which is basically what sex you are) and gender identity which can go either way... Gender is supposed to be determined by what sex you are (so it is 'essential' if you like) whereas gender identity is what you see yourself as being (so more to do with the way you behave).
The term 'performative' is interesting to me. There are a class of speech acts that are known as 'performatives'. Promises are considered to be performatives because to succesfully make a promise just is to perform the speech act of promising to do something.
So I guess the notion of 'performative gender' is that our gender identity is in part (or maybe even fully??) determined by the gender roles / characteristics that we exemplify in our behaviours.
>But as to how the theory applies to admin here… I suspect that a performative account of gender (rather than an essentialist account) might be more useful in exploring how gender norms are policed and indeed transgressed at Babble.
Do you mean with respect to people displaying typically masculine or feminine behaviours?
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 12:43:06
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Tamar on July 25, 2005, at 18:05:21
I hope I didn't offend.
I'm torn.
I genuinely do believe the differences within each sex (or species) far outweigh the similarities shown by the group as a whole.
But I also have a different conclusion than Alexandra regarding species. I *don't* believe the difference in degree is so great as to constitute a difference in kind.
I think the biggest difference that distinguishes humans is a greater capacity for self reflection, a somewhat greater intelligence, and the knowledge of right and wrong. That combined together can lead to the *will* to behave differently than our first instincts would have us behave.
Which is probably what, along with intellectual curiousity, caused me to bring up the question to begin with. My faith in Dr. Bob as a human with the capacity for self reflection and the desire to do the right thing. I figured if I brought it up, and it was indeed an issue, Dr. Bob would be more aware of it.
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 12:44:27
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:31:13
I'm always delighted to see Dr. Munro on board.
I selfishly hope that if you do arrange something, though, that it isn't in the next couple of weeks.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:28:16
In reply to Re: gender differences » Tamar, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 12:43:06
> I genuinely do believe the differences within each sex (or species) far outweigh the similarities shown by the group as a whole.
I think that depends on what similarities you care to list. We often focus on the differences because the similarities are so 'obvious' that we find it hard to see them in front of our faces.
For example, the physical characteristics of males and females are different...
But there is more similarity between females than between males and females.For example, almost all people learn to communicate by using language. Something has to go seriously wrong for people to not do this. Whereas no other animal is able to make use of utterance structure (syntax).
Language is a HUGE difference. One of those differences in degree (because animals do communicate to some extent) resulting in a difference in kind kind of things.
Human beings also alter their environment in radical ways. We build huge buildings (artificial environments). No other animal has been able to do that to the remarkable extent that we have. In a very real sense we are a species living in an environment that our species has created.
We travel all around the world in planes, trains, and cars. We have travelled to the moon.
Even Babble... No other species that we know of could make use of Babble. This is an artificial environment that members of other species couldn't even begin to comprehend.
Wittgenstein once said that 'if a lion could talk we could not understand what it was saying'. By this he means that animals are of such a radically different form of life that we could not grasp the categories in the world that they do. I'm not sure that this is quite right... Maybe he was a little too focused on the differences...
There has been a swinging tendancy with respect to our view on animals. We grant they have minds (fairly much like us) then we take that away. Then we grant they have minds, then we take that away. I'm not sure that I can remember but... Maybe it was Plato, Aristotle, the Middle ages... and then Descartes took it away again and said animals were complex biological machines whereas people are radically different because we have an immaterial soul which is the seat of our free will.
But to focus tooooooo much on the similarities leads into behaviourism. They focus mostly on animals because they believe that animals are so very similar to us that they can learn a lot about human behaviour by studying animals. So they study chickens and rats and pigeons and cats and horses and primates believing that they will be able to learn things that apply to human beings.
That works to a certain extent. To the extent that we share similar basic structures in our brains responsible for sleep and waking digestion reproductive behaviour fight and flight response etc etc.
But then... We are different because our brains are different. We have a (comparatively) highly developed cerebral cortex that is responsible for our 'higher functions' and the degree to which we have them is radically different from animals. Our ability to think abstractly: to do logic, mathematics, to think about concepts such as tomorrow and yesterday and 9.45am. About money and language and god and clothes and television and computers.
Memory, learning, thinking, language, higher processes...
My understanding is very crude (so you will have to bear with me)... But I think there are two pathways in the brain. Very very roughly when the stimuli goes in it gets sent to some of the relatively primitive structures responsible for the production of a physiological / emotional response. From there... It can get sent fairly much straight to the motor production area so we 'react'. Or it can get sent to do a couple loops of the cerebral cortex first. We can think about it. Think about different things we COULD do etc etc. BEFORE we act. We can do that.
Sterelney talks about 'decoupled representations' which are supposed to be... beliefs, basically. Animals are more set up like this: stimulus -> response. We do that a lot of the time. But we also have the capacity to do this: stimulus -> round and round the cortex (have a think about it) -> response.
But then some people have trouble with impulse control...
sigh.
hence my babbling to you...
now I better get back to work.sorry.
i know this is only partly relevant.
but i felt something a little like a duty to try and prevent your becoming toooooooo much of a behaviourist.
sometimes i need a little help there myself.
;-)
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 17:35:50
In reply to Re: gender differences » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:28:16
I don't think I have any tendencies toward behavioralism. Anthomorphism some would say. I just prefer to say I'm not speciesist. :)
I didn't say you were wrong, you know. I just said I drew different conclusions.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:49:54
In reply to Re: gender differences » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 17:35:50
> I don't think I have any tendencies toward behavioralism.
No. I thought that was a little strange...
>Anthomorphism some would say.
Yup. I remember Bill the behaviourist.... He was telling us about how cows lick gates. Cows have been known to lick gates to dislodge the kiddie lock catch to let themselves into a greener pasture. So the question becomes: why do cows lick gates? Answer A (the mentalist / anthropomorphic answer) cows have an innate understanding of locking mechanisms. They believe that if they open the gate they will get something they want. They know how to open the gate and thus they lick the lock. Answer B (the behaviourist answer) they are mucking around doing cow stuff and start licking the lock. The lock opens and because licking the lock has been reinforced they are thus more likely to lick locks on subsequent occasions.
They say the second answer is better because 'one should not attribute a higher mental capacity than is needed to explain the phenomenon'. Thats why we no longer talk of rocks falling to earth because they desire to be reunited with mother earth. We no longer talk of thor being angry and banging his hammer to make lightening.
There is a proper name for this principle. It is a more particular form of Occhams razor.
In learning about what animals can and can't do you start to get a clearer idea on similarities differences. I'd quite like to learn more about this. Thats why I'll do biology if philosophy doesn't work out for me.
>I just prefer to say I'm not speciesist. :)
:-)
That term comes up with respect to disregarding the suffering of animals in favour of the whims of our own species...
> I didn't say you were wrong, you know. I just said I drew different conclusions.Yeah. Its hard because everything is like everything else in some respect. But then (arguably) if you have x and you have y and x and y share all the same properties then x is identical to y.
(Ignoring 'bare particularity' as one probably should...)
So everything is the same in some respects and different in some respects to everything else. Its working out the precise points of contact that is hard.
I just think that people will have more luck studying people with respect to learning about people.
Especially if it is those higher capacities (language, self representation, etc etc) that is what interests us...
Because with respect to those higher capacities I think it is that a difference in degree has led to a difference in kind.
But I'm just talking really...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:56:09
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by Dr. Bob on July 24, 2005, at 17:31:13
I think it would be interesting to know...
How many female posters there are...
How many male posters there are...How many female posters have been blocked...
How many male posters have been blocked...(Whether males are more likely to be blocked than females)
Also...
Whether they are more likely to go on the 2X or 3X blocking system...
(Infractions against other posters vs problems with Bob / the rules...)
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 18:23:14
In reply to Re: gender differences » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:49:54
I dunno. I think studying other species might be actually more informative. Because they don't cover up their actions with words and rationalizations.
And I'm not talking about things where language matters. Or intellect. I'm talking about the important stuff, where we're more alike than different IMHO. But scientists differ on even that. Of course, scientists once said that "lower" life forms couldn't feel pain.
I'm not sure statistics would help. Because it isn't purely male male I'm talking about. Or male female.
I'm talking about particular situations that arise from unique moderator/poster dynamics. I fear that statistics aren't going to help. Because you'd have to break down the male posters into dominant and nondominant, and style of dominance. And you'd have to break down the females into nondominant, dominant traditionally feminine, nondominant nontraditionally feminine.
It would require a person familiar with such things to do a detailed study of Admin history, and come up with a not terribly scientific conclusion. Which, truth to tell is my favorite sort of study.
I still say that as long as Dr. Bob is aware of the possibility, I've done my work.
I've actually done some very non-scientific study of the subject myself. And I just think there's sufficient reason for Dr. Bob to consider it. But not sufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion.
That's all.
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 18:24:04
In reply to Re: gender differences » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 18:23:14
Or I'll have a miserable anxiety filled "vacation".
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 18:47:53
In reply to Re: gender differences » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 18:23:14
> I dunno. I think studying other species might be actually more informative. Because they don't cover up their actions with words and rationalizations.
So long as the words and rationalisations isn't what interests us...
> And I'm not talking about things where language matters. Or intellect.Ok. Fair enough then.
Though... Language is intimately connected with out ability to conceptualise. To think. But our emotional responses... Well... It can go thoughts -> emotional responses. But it can also go emotional responses -> action. In the latter kind of case the similarities between human and animal behaviour might be remarkable because we are acting from the similar regions from the brain... So... Our 'reactions' are probably very similar to the 'reactions' of animals.(I'm not disagreeing with you - thats the point)
>I'm talking about the important stuff, where we're more alike than different IMHO. But scientists differ on even that. Of course, scientists once said that "lower" life forms couldn't feel pain.
Yes. With respect to the giving and taking back of minds that is right. Thats one of the things... Only things with minds get to feel pain. When you take a mind away from animals that means that you believe that animals don't have feelings. Descartes (and others before him who did not grant animals minds) thought that while animals clearly has a noxious stimulus -> withdrawal response they did not have a noxious stimulus -> PAIN -> withdrawal response mechanism. Animals don't feel pain. So it is ok to treat them as a mere means to our ends...
Of course we give a lot to animals in recent times... Who knows whether it is because we are more enlightened or whether the pendulum will swing back in future years. I like to think we are more enlightened...
> I'm talking about particular situations that arise from unique moderator/poster dynamics. I fear that statistics aren't going to help. Because you'd have to break down the male posters into dominant and nondominant, and style of dominance. And you'd have to break down the females into nondominant, dominant traditionally feminine, nondominant nontraditionally feminine.You need to define typically masculine and feminine behaviours in such a way that we can categorise peoples posts as exemplifying those characteristics. A mammoth task, yup.
> It would require a person familiar with such things to do a detailed study of Admin history, and come up with a not terribly scientific conclusion. Which, truth to tell is my favorite sort of study.
:-)
I have sympathy...> I still say that as long as Dr. Bob is aware of the possibility, I've done my work.
Um... The possibility of what? Sorry... Little lost again...
With respect to the stats idea...
The thought was that you could figure out whether males or females were more likely to be blocked. Maybe there aren't gender differences there. Or maybe there are. If there were gender differences there then you would need to think about WHY there are gender differences...The 2X 3X blocking system might help a little if you consider 3X to be lashing out at other posters and 2X to be more of an issue with Bob / the rules.
I would predict...
Females: 3X
Males: 2XBut I might be wrong...
Even if that was the case working out the significance of that finding might be tricky... But... IMO that is the fun bit...
Now.
I'm going back to work :-)
Posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 19:07:17
In reply to Re: gender differences, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 18:47:53
I think Descartes should have kept a few pets. :)
But I'm back to work.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 19:21:46
In reply to Re: gender differences » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 26, 2005, at 19:07:17
> I think Descartes should have kept a few pets. :)
He was known to kick his dog.
So... He probably shouldn't have kept pets...
> But I'm back to work.And so am I...
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 10:28:15
In reply to Re: dare i say the stats might be interesting??? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on July 26, 2005, at 17:56:09
> Do you have a link to her board?
Her board isn't public, but her site is at:
As far as visiting again, she said this wasn't a good time, maybe in the fall.
> How many female posters there are...
> How many male posters there are...That's at:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/stats
> How many female posters have been blocked...
> How many male posters have been blocked...But that someone would need to go through and tabulate...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 21:51:10
In reply to Re: stats, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 10:28:15
>someone would need to go through and tabulate...
okay, i thought you might have kept a record.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.