Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:44:52
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
> Perhaps it would be more productive to think of outcomes, and brainstorm ways to get there.
The outcome I would like to see is a better-rested administration. There is this notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients. But you wouldn't trust your life to a pilot flying under those conditions. This isn't a surgical ward, but people come here with problems just as critical. I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept as sound psychiatric advice that anyone can work a job -- an after-midnight-shift -- 365 days a year, without ever a break, and always provide the best service for the customer.
My perspective is when a person makes a mistake in judgement under those conditions, they often write rules to codify their mistaken judgement because they have the authority to do so, and they dare not admit that they made a specific mistake. Then they go about justifying their mistaken rules, and start to engage others in supporting their mistake as if it were the best possible outcome.
And the fact that it is free isn't justification. If people need this sort of service, they need quality service. That it is a volunteer effort is not a reason to comprimise service. Quality service involves administrative planning and that is probably not what happens when someone occasionally presents a talk to peers about their web project, or seeks feedback from peers in a casual setting. Planning occurs when peers with the power to veto each other intentionally sit around the table and think through difficult scenarios before confronting it in a clinical situation.
> For example, is it the continued existence of the board that worries you?Sorry, your question returns a divide by zero error. I would be slightly disappointed if the Internet ceased to exist, because there are not such good libraries by my house but this site? I'm sure you folks would find other things to do, and I wish I would already.
> The harm caused to individual posters by blocks?More by the inconsistent application of ambiguous arbitrary rules, backed by a chorus of explanations by Bob's supporters, which some people just don't comprehend.
>
> Is it the interpretation of the rules?>I notice that you have a great interest in language. But isn't it possible that multiple administrators would actually increase the amount of variability in interpretation?
Could. Unless they started taking time to plan, and articulated their interpretations in writing, that we could read. And I'm not talking about essays that say "I don't know it till I see it." I wonder how many hours he has spent explaining to peers, in some way other than justifying, what are his rules, compared to the time he spends imposing them. This is what I'm saying -- once people get to the top tier of the medical trade, they have a broad license to do as they please, and often submit to no other authority than their own judgement.
> Do you think it would be worthwhile for someone like you, with a greater interest and facility in the nuances of language than I have, try to better explain the civility rules in words that would be easily understood by all?Probably a web cam would do me more good, so I could see what side of bed he gets up on after his five hours of sleep. Unless he doesn't work mornings, that is.
> (Have you been to PsychCentral? I don't think Dr. Grohol has a lot of professional input does he? I know he has "mods" on the boards, but I don't think they're professionals. Perhaps that's the way these boards work...)I don't remember these boards by name as much as by appearance and feel of the posts. This one doesn't have boxes around the messages -- it's powered by Matt's BB and the atmosphere is unique -- the harder he pushes for civility, it seems the less reasonable people become, and I believe it is because he overemphasizes feelings -- and his speculations about hypothetical feelings -- rather than leading toward an exchange of information. I think I recall reading that he and Grohol were both influenced by some late-90's Internet fad that involved some psuedo-virtual reality rooms, icons, avatars, pins and blocks. It was all the rage until whatever came the next summer. And without directly saying so, I think that fad might be much of the basis for their individually different styles.
I seem to recall a Harvard or Mass General board that was very reasonable. I didn't closely examine the administration, because the role of administraton didn't seem that evident. Hsiungs philosophy seems to be that people learn from seeing other's publicly chastized. Well, that's only regular members of the group, but members come and go, and they stumble into things he hasn't regulated, so they get the idea that's okay. Or they read old posts from before he made up the latest rule.
I don't know exactly where professional involvement would lead him, but if it wasnt' about presenting his accomplishments as "research" in a publish-or-perish academic enviornment, but instead about providing an actual service, they might go beyond the "whatever we can afford is good enough for you" budget. If people really need this service, he should be able to articulate the need to a funding agency. I'm not talking research funding, either. I think we probably all agree on one thing - that there is wealth available to provide health care that is not beign spent on health care, and whatever means we recognize, we agree people are suffering and dying as a result. This board can be seen as a service people use becuase other services simply arent' available -- not from local spiritual centers, not from local medical centers, not from local or federal budgets -- nowhere.
poster:so
thread:491889
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501519.html