![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 51 to 75 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 9:56:51
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
Where do you draw the line? Here's a good place to start perhaps. This is an earlier post from this board which aroused no outrage or rebuke.
This poster has connected his many bad experiences to the South and the Baptist faith. Pretty much every ugly stereotype covered. The first part is presented as personal experience much as fuzzy presented his personal experience with the Jewish guys. If the fact that these people were Jewish is irrelevant to fuzzy's story then the fact that Mitchell had bad experiences with a Baptist church should not be posted because the prejudice and hatred engendered towards these particular acts might spill over and prejudice people against the majority of good loving Southern and Baptist people.
He claims to suffer as a "child of the South" blaming a region or a culture for his problems.
Good quiet Germans is a hateful stereotype
He implies that schools founded on Baptist principles are not allowing accurate discourse in their public forums. This maligns an entire group of institutions as well as "Baptist priciples".
I think it is imperative if you choose to protect one racial/ethnic/religous group that you extend exactly the same consideration to others.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8592.html
As the child of a Baptist family in the American South, I am astounded that a psychologically oriented web site would bannish open discussion of harm caused by presumptive thinking patterns often referred to as faith. This defies scientific and academic standards of language.
Here is the short version of my formative years firmly grounded in a southern church: family violence that I was aware of, and whispered among adults, lynchings, church burnings and the Sunday morning shooting of a civil rights activist, in the presence of his family, just two blocks from the Baptist church where the activist had been denied entry.
What about the children who were allowed entry? Are we to call our religious experience positive and be good quiet Germans when somebody speaks of human rights violations? I can say with certainty that, in settings where I am otherwise invited to promote religious speech as a healthy behavior, prohibitions against honest discussion of my childhood experience comprise abuse of authority. Consider how the child of Nazi parents would feel reading a site where only positive aspects of the Nazi experience may be discusseed.
Much of the injury I suffer now as a child of the South focuses on the silence I must maintain regarding inappropriate authority. From my childhood experiences, I learned to recognize abusive authority. Now I see abusive power relationships more plainly than many who grew up without challenging innappropriate authority. Now, I live in a world where I routinely witness abusive use of power by public officials, merchants, scholars and employers, but am required to act as if their abuse is legitimate. To find an ostensible mental-health-related site were religious thought, speech and activity can only be treated as a healthy activity adds insult to my injury.
Maybe this is not your religous experience, but it is mine, Dr. Hsuing. I am sorry you want no part of my experience, and are unwilling to allow here public consideration of suffering such as I encountered before I was old enough to defend myself or my community. I wonder whose interests you are protecting. Perhaps other schools not founded on Baptist principals will allow acurate discourse in their public forums.
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 10:31:30
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 9:56:51
Or maybe draw it here?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8803.html
I agree with Jane. I don't know why no one else is offended. I am.
Posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:04
In reply to Re: posting in a non-racist manner » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 8:10:47
Rex, you asked "How would you help your son know what was acceptable language and what was not in situations like this?"
There's little need for me to remind him at his age now (he's 27) but when he was growing up, I had plenty of opportunities to show him both by word & example what was acceptable & what wasn't. He had two younger brothers & he was included in all our outside the home & within the home social functions plus school.
I know he found it difficult many times as he was growing up, but Asperger children learn more by rote than by being able to judge each example as it comes up by its individual context. I taught him that it was polite to stand when older people entered the room & to politely greet them. He would shake hands & greet people with those entering a building at an outside function. He was diligent with 'thank you' & 'you're welcome' & other common courtesies. All these things can be taught them with no stress involved.
With Asperger people, when new situations arise outside their scope of experience, they need to learn what to do. It doesn't come automatically to them as most people.
I use this analogy:
No one has to be taught how to laugh at a funny story - it's natural to do so. But if you wish to learn how to ride a bike, you need to learn how. Once learned though, you don't forget. Children (& adults) with Asperger need to be taught how to deal with social situations either one-on-one or in groups of people. One of the problems with Asperger's is they can't read facial & body language unless they learned what the obvious ones are. Even now at 27, my son will often ask when watching a news show how I think a certain person comes across or what they're projecting. He's still trying to learn more & compare what he thinks a person is to my opinions.In any particular situation like you mentioned (dealing with racial language), my son would answer in a strictly traditional polite manner. He's NOT afraid to state his views regarding matters & would adamantly view ALL racial slurs or derogatory language as wrong. He sees ethical & moral matters almost black or white. It's either wrong or right. For matters like that, he uses principles not strict rules. That may be a matter more of my principles & how I raised my sons as they all tend too, just not as strictly as my son with Asperger.
Posted by Mitchell on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:10
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
> What if it had been a country in the Middle East? You can also pick any country and find people who are greedy... I don't mean to be dense, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this rule. Thanks for your input -- and patience,
>
> BobA line drawn to protect generalized groups will always be arbitrary. Injury to an insulted group is a symptom. The pathology underlying the symptom must be addressed for guidelines to consistently relieve the symptom.
Whatever guidelines govern this site, the opus in question is symptomatic of a more general social problem resulting from defective language skills. Westerm society heavily relies on expressive rhetoric, and often employs representational language expressively rather than as pure representation. Ready availability of publishing tools has further degraded recognition of expressive rhetoric, allowing personal expression to comingle with literary expression, which more usually is governed by collective standards.
In this climate of pathological expression, we can only further complicate matters by designing rules to prohibit statements about groups. Practices or guidelines that require accurate representation, however, might restore capacity to communities' wounded expressive skills.
If we prohibit accurate representation, or flawed good-faith representation, we damage our ability to learn from our expressive efforts.
I believe the writer was trying to say he thought some person's life had become centered around desire for money, and that the flawed desire grew from the person's historic cultural enviornment. Whether the writer was accurate or not, we benefit from understanding and exploring the expressed opinion. We need the opinion expressed in terms we can use. In practical dialogue, "asshole" is about useless as a descriptive term. Vulgar metaphor better illustrates the speaker's thought style than the subject so described.
With useful terms, we can begin to explore the basis of the expressed feeling. Perhaps, in a similar case where a person points out flaws in another, concern over others' flaws might arise from projective identification. If we can't find a safe way to express perceptions, we can scarecely understand the circumstances causing the perceptions.
To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 17:00:55
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 8:38:18
>>> I don't mean to be dense, I'm just trying to figure out how to apply this rule. Thanks for your input -- and patience,
But I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 18:45:14
In reply to Re: Asperger's and acceptable language » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on January 16, 2003, at 12:46:04
Thanks for answering. I feel a lot like Temple Granton described in Oliver sack's book "Anthropologist on Mars" . I don't understand why people do the things they do. Some times it seems like I landed on a different planet. And I keep trying to pick up on the local customs. One reason I keep coming to Babble and reading the admin board is for the discussion of why decisions are made. I still don't always understand but maybe it's Bob with Asperger's not me! JUST KIDDING!! I don't really think I have Asperger's but I do have trouble understanding unstated social conventions and the kind of reading between the lines that other people seem to be doing. I've always wondered how social skills were taught. Your son sounds like a nice guy.Thanks for answering my question.
> In any particular situation like you mentioned (dealing with racial language), my son would answer in a strictly traditional polite manner. He's NOT afraid to state his views regarding matters & would adamantly view ALL racial slurs or derogatory language as wrong. He sees ethical & moral matters almost black or white. It's either wrong or right. For matters like that, he uses principles not strict rules. That may be a matter more of my principles & how I raised my sons as they all tend too, just not as strictly as my son with Asperger.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 17:00:55
> I believe the writer was trying to say he thought some person's life had become centered around desire for money, and that the flawed desire grew from the person's historic cultural enviornment. Whether the writer was accurate or not, we benefit from understanding and exploring the expressed opinion. We need the opinion expressed in terms we can use. In practical dialogue, "asshole" is about useless as a descriptive term.
>
> To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
>
> Mitchell[13.75 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level]
So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
> I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
>
> NoaI already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
>
Bob I don't understand what you are saying could you please rephrase? Or could someone else try and explain it to me? I'm not trying to be difficult I honestly don't understand what you are saying.What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? (Not that I don't enjoy them). But what if someone percieves "smut" and you don't or you percieve "smut" but no one else does ? Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> > I think that to expect to find the exact line is not realistic and ends up trivializing the whole matter.
> > I think it is like what the Supreme Court Justice said about smut--and I paraphrase--"I can't define it but I know it when I see it".
> >
> > Noa
>
> I already have that quote in the FAQ -- and it's already been the topic of some discussion itself. Somehow I got off course with this, but I think you all have righted me. It's been interesting to have said to me what I myself have said to others! Sorry again about all the disruption.
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2003, at 20:27:11
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
>>So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...<<
No and yes, I guess would be my opinion.
I think that the first line of action would be one of education--point out that a remark is seen as offensive, ask the poster to leave those kinds of comments out.
Rephrasing? It depends what you are referring to here. Perhaps to rephrase, but not in the way you proposed earlier in this thread, to which I had objected--which seemed more like a political correctness paint job.
But I never saw blocking as the first line of action by any means. Only in the case of someone who, once having it pointed out, refuses to respect the issue and continues to use offensive language.
This really is an opportunity for education, but the education has to have limits to go with it.
I'm glad you are now understanding what I was trying to say (and what others were trying to say). Thanks.
Posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Dr. Bob on January 16, 2003, at 18:57:22
> > To ban criticism of others because others might hurt from the criticism impairs our ability to criticize ourselves. Requirements that criticism, whether flawed or accurate, be expressed in reasonably accurate laguage improves our ability to correct our own flaws.
> >
> > Mitchell>
> So that's an argument for more rephrasing and less blocking...
>
> Bob
It is at least a suggestion that we need better language skills in groups such as this.My impression is that people come here seeking support and education, and some are able to offer support and education in the process. But in a society whose language skills are badly damaged, the best supportive and educational practices might not spontaneously emerge among group members. The process might benefit from some more specific training.
Professional therapists learn conversational techniques that help clients rephrase descriptions of problems and to see situations in different ways. In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:16:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on January 16, 2003, at 19:59:56
> What do you mean you got off course? How have we righted you?
I meant I should've posted my PBC sooner. And I'm righted in the sense that I see that now.
> Do you mean by that quote that your rulings about racism will be guided by your subjective feelings rather than reason and that your perception is the only one that matters? In that case why have all these discussions? ... Are you trying to say that you are Supreme Court and there will be no appeals?
I think ultimately it is in fact my perception that will matter the most. But these discussions allow me to receive feedback -- and to try to explain myself. Regarding the quote, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
In reply to Re: where to draw the line, posted by Mitchell on January 18, 2003, at 8:40:59
> In group work, skilled leaders or strong group members can use focusing techniques to divert confrontration and promote better understanding. What this group needs is more self-less facilitators and maybe not as much moderation.
>
> Skilled voluntary facilitation might replace the need for so much moderation. Facilitators don't need to be identified as such, they just need to know what needs to be done and when to do it. For that purpose, some sort of lay-therapists training might be useful - a page where therapuetic conversational techniques can be studied by those wanting to improve their group facilitation skills. I think we would soon find these skills useful in developing stronger families, workplaces, and other group relationships in our local communities.IMO, there's already a lot of skilled voluntary facilitation here. OTOH, there's always room for improvement. Can you suggest any descriptions of therapeutic conversational techniques?
I also wonder if another factor is that this is a message board rather than a mailing list or a chat room. On a message board, threads may stay more "alive" -- sub-threads that have been dropped can more easily be picked up again. That's good if it's to provide more support or information, but not good if it's to escalate conflict.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on January 18, 2003, at 17:21:43
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
Bob, I sent an email to you a few days ago. It's further about guidelines & rules regarding this forum, & how they may be interpreted. I do hope you've got it. If you don't, I have kept a back-up copy & can resend it.
If you have received it, could you please respond to it? I really am seeking answers & trying to understand your views. I'd rather do that than throw my hands in the air & give up. I'm trying my best to be reasonable & understanding.Because I thought it was perhaps more personal & not quite suitable to discuss here, I emailed it rather than posting it on this board for public scrutiny.
Thank you for your patience.
Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 9:23:58
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2003, at 16:39:45
> IMO, there's already a lot of skilled voluntary facilitation here. OTOH, there's always room for improvement. Can you suggest any descriptions of therapeutic conversational techniques?
>
> I also wonder if another factor is that this is a message board rather than a mailing list or a chat room. On a message board, threads may stay more "alive" -- sub-threads that have been dropped can more easily be picked up again. That's good if it's to provide more support or information, but not good if it's to escalate conflict.
>
> BobAsynchrony complicates group conversation, for sure. Deeper knowledge of therapeutic facilitation might help assure the skills are on hand when needed - the more people who know conflict resolution techniques, or better techniques for empathetic guided self-discovery, the more likely a best technique will be employed at the right time, or that fruitful statements will rise above less productive conversation. The current cadre of voluntary facilitators might improve their skills. Better recognition of therapeutic skills *might* increase the likelihood that group members will defer to a more skilled conversationalist rather than break an attempted consensus not to respond to a troublesome post.
That's all theoretical, of course. As for what skills should be posted, I figure if our medical schools don't have an arsenal of techniques ready to teach the public, we need to shut them down now and start training caring doctors who don't intend to monopolize the franchise to healing skills. I could make it a project (publishing therapeutic techniques, getting permission from authors OR shutting down self-serving schools), but for now I am busy with other social manipulations.
I can offer a few techniques, but they could tend to identify my personal preferences. In general, things like Rogerian empathetic listening and neurolinguistic techniques come to mind. I have a section of books that describe techniques, so I can only assume phsych professionals should have an idea what conversational skills can be best learned and applied for peer or co-counseling settings.
Posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:04:04
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 9:23:58
I quickly searched the web to validate my long held impression that most psychology tutorials are academically oriented. The tutorials are designed to help people pass classes, so they can get a credential then improvise techniques from what they have learned.
http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/tutor.html
Of these on-line academically oriented tutorials, Eliza is the classic, IMO.
http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.htmlThe Eliza computer system is about as stupid and uncaring as is the worst therapist, but the very nature of the language returned by the therapeutic software can evoke therapeutic thought. Practice with Eliza might help self-appointed peer counselors learn to use evocative questions rather than provocative comments.
My take is that most published psyche techniques are either directed at an academic professional audience, are dumbed down and sugar coated to improve book sales of popular authors or reflect the culture of the current federal health regime (as in the DHHS clinical protocols).
Others advance unique techniques (for example http://www.rc.org/ ; http://www.mindbodyconsult.com/protocols/ ) but the interests of their individual authors cloud the techniques. Some web resources are on-line summaries of classroom lessons ( http://learn.sdstate.edu/share/Module2Section4.html ). In most cases, to learn conversational skills to help our neighbors and calm our communities we still must buy into some sort of religious or pop-psyche sect or pay good money to authors who probably earn far more than many of us.
I don't find on the web a well-informed tutorial of therapeutic techniques based on meta-analysis of research investigating a variety of therapeutic conversational techniques. In a culture flooded with both information and with psychological distress, I find that beyond sad. It is no wonder that we divest our power to the greedy and self-serving. In a nation equipped with weapons of mass destruction and which has used chemical weapons against its own people, the lack of credible conversational training for non-enrolled students is tragic.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 7:14:24
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques (folo), posted by Mitchell on January 19, 2003, at 10:04:04
> I quickly searched the web to validate my long held impression that most psychology tutorials are academically oriented.
> http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/tutor.html
> http://www.rc.org/
> http://www.mindbodyconsult.com/protocols/
> http://learn.sdstate.edu/share/Module2Section4.html> I don't find on the web a well-informed tutorial of therapeutic techniques based on meta-analysis of research investigating a variety of therapeutic conversational techniques.
Thanks for looking. Meta-analyses are going to tend to be academically oriented... :-) I did a quick search, too:
How to teach and facilitate discussion online: Respond to difficult situations
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/ltg/nursweb/DISCUSS/DISCUS10.htmFacilitating a successful support group
http://www.christiancaregivers.com/dgfacilitating.htmlHow to be an effective team leader
http://www.effectivemeetings.com/teams/leader/effective2.aspWhat do you think of those?
Bob
Posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2003, at 7:14:24
Dr. Bob:
I have plenty of information on brief-treatment (client-centered, or also called person-centered) skills (to tie into your Rogerian ideas) and their required listening skills (I have picked up in social work...and these are the current, front-line tools used in all of social work) , as well as group facilitator skills, ethics, confidentiality (however it pertains to here), and intervention skills that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
I am not quite so sure about getting into deeper Psychoanalytic skills, because I think folks need specific training on how to use them well and properly. (As you know..it takes a *lot* of training to use many of the more complex theories and models.) If you would like me to email you further, please let me know. Thanks!
Jay
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:33:48
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
> I have plenty of information ... that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
Developing as a guide sounds good! Maybe others here could work with you on it?
Bob
Posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 21:40:04
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2003, at 21:33:48
> > I have plenty of information ... that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
>
> Developing as a guide sounds good! Maybe others here could work with you on it?
>
> Bob
Absolutely! I think it can be a good learning experience for us all. If others are interested..could we get a way to let folks know...and maybe some of us can even exchange an email addy for this 'project'?Jay
Posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on January 21, 2003, at 10:53:18
> Dr. Bob:
>
> I have plenty of information on brief-treatment (client-centered, or also called person-centered) skills (to tie into your Rogerian ideas) and their required listening skills (I have picked up in social work...and these are the current, front-line tools used in all of social work) , as well as group facilitator skills, ethics, confidentiality (however it pertains to here), and intervention skills that I would be happy to either email to you, or possibly develop as a guide for the resource library, from my social work experience.
>
> I am not quite so sure about getting into deeper Psychoanalytic skills, because I think folks need specific training on how to use them well and properly. (As you know..it takes a *lot* of training to use many of the more complex theories and models.) If you would like me to email you further, please let me know. Thanks!
>
> Jay
>Thanks, Jay. Your experience might already reflect some integration of meta-review in front-line clinical practices. Psychoanalytic stuff does not score well as an intervention tool, but the word "brief" appears very high on the list of favored approaches, suggesting brief interactions can offer some of the best verbal medicine. I'll set up and share an e-mail addy with you in case there is anything else I can contribute to your effort. Looks to me like you might know where to go with this.
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
I must confess that I don't have a really good grasp about what you guys are talking about, but the whole conversation is making me nervous.
Would you mind telling me what concrete effects this project would have on PB posters, or what requirements it might bring them?
Just exactly what, in plain English, are you proposing for Babble participants.
Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 16:39:46
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
Dinah wrote:
> Would you mind telling me what concrete effects this project would have on PB posters, or what requirements it might bring them?Researchers cannot say what concrete effects this board has on participants. It would be even more difficult to say what effects a specific training aid will have. It is easier to say what effects it might have. It might help people learn to better help each other.
When doctors talk to us about our problems, we benefit from their training in how to talk to people. But in self-help groups, people often want to help don't know how. Unless the doctors' training is worthless, the same training might be useful for lay people who try to help each other. Some of the techniques are as simple as knowing when to give information and when to ask for information.
The only requirement I imagine is that if people want to read the page about ways doctors have learned to talk to clients about problems, they would be required to click a link leading to the page. My concern is that access to that kind of training now involves too many requirements, like paying for a book or a class. I am suggesting the information may be freely distributed without cost.
One concrete effect would be people who read such a guide would receive free training, on demand at their leisure, in brief therapeutic techniques without having to tell anyone that they had studied the subject. I am not the one to write such a guide. My suggestion is that writers with access to the best science could write a useful guide.
Flesch reading ease: 69.5
Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 7.9
Posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:33:17
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Mitchell on January 21, 2003, at 22:30:58
Hey..thanks Mitchell. This sounds like it could be interesting..and maybe you could bring to the table info..I will do the same...and we will see if others want to get involved. My email addy is:
jay_ghostrider@yahoo.caLets talk!
Jay :-)
Posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:57:18
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques, posted by Dinah on January 22, 2003, at 8:49:45
Hi Dinah:
Well..for once I feel useful around here..heh. I am a college grad social worker, with plenty of experience (not bragging..just for reference).
See, when people talk to each other, there are many, many was to answer as a 'helper'. A lot involves listening skills..being able to empathize with a person..and allowing them to make their decision, rather then just giving advice. I know of a whole slewful of therapies and techniques that work, from my personal practice. It may be fun to get the whole board involved, and I think we can learn a lot about each other.
A good focus is the Rogerian based person-centered counselling, which emphasizes working on problems in the 'here and now'. There are other different, and even fun therapies, like the "Im ok..Your ok Therapy" which is used in a type of therapy called Transactional Analysis.
It's not so much a matter of teaching therapies..because that would take far too long, and requires extensive expertise to do them right. I've only been working for 8 or so years, and am now honing my skills in particular therapies.
Basically...what we can do is to help us help ourselves...and in turn the PB community. We can make it simple and easy. Even things like...listening skills...when *not* to offer advice...true empathy. Listening skills are far more complex than people think. So, we can hopefully expand on that, and even find it useful outside of the board.
If interested..or suggestions..please feel free to email me at: jay_ghostrider@yahoo.ca
I hope that clears things up a bit...and am always open to all comments and suggestions. It would be nice to get a group of us to work on this.
Sincerely,
Jay
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2003, at 9:06:17
In reply to Re: therapeutic conversational techniques » Dinah, posted by jay on January 23, 2003, at 3:57:18
The nervousness I referred to earlier was about a possible sense of elitism that it might convey. That posters who already feel unsure about adding their comments and support might feel more so if they felt that there were people on the board who had special techniques. I guess it could work the opposite way. People would have access to the techniques and thus feel more competent to post, but perhaps they wouldn't feel that they had mastered the techniques as well as others. Perhaps this nervousness comes from my recent concern on the board with making newcomers feel welcome.
Plus, I keep having the old stereotype of a college student who is taking a few psychology classes. That we may get so stuck on technique that we lose the genuineness that currently is one of the best things about this board. Not to mention that my dear departed grandma could offer a few tips to many mental health professionals I have come in contact with on how to listen and be supportive. She never learned a technique in her life, but she cared about how others felt. And she cared about making others feel comfortable and accepted.
Finally, I remember being extremely turned off by the twelve step programs and Recovery, Inc. by their groupspeak. I tend to run screaming into the night when confronted by groupspeak. And I would hate to have phrases used in techniques amount to that.
I guess how I would feel about any such project would depend a lot on implementation. If it was just something like the tips section, that people could read about new skills if they wished to, that wouldn't bother me. (I'm not sure you can "learn" these skills through reading. Don't people who are trained in these skills receive a lot of supervision in them?) If it became an expected or preferred way of relating on the board, I don't think I'd like it at all.
Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
Go forward in 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.