![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by pegasus on June 22, 2004, at 16:23:15
In reply to What I *really* don't get are the inconsistencies, posted by Dinah on June 22, 2004, at 10:31:42
Right. And one gripe at this point is that even if you go read his links and disagree with the conclusions he draws from them, he just keeps saying that his links have demonstrated the things that he asserts. Even though in my opinion they haven't. I feel that he ignored my main points when I tried to disagree with him. It's just getting my hackles up, that he doesn't seem to me to be interested in a back and forth dialog about any of this, even though he's putting forth these opinions in a relatively . . . ahem . . . assertive way.
He says he feels that his skeptical posts are valuable to babble. And yet, I can't help suspecting, because of his style, that he might have other motives. This is just my opinion, and my read on the situation, but I am not getting a feeling of support and respect from his posts, like I do from almost everyone else here. Quite the contrary. This really bothers me quite a lot. I don't think babble is meant to be about people giving opinions in any form (he says he won't be PC about his opinions, which I think means that he doesn't want to worry about how anyone else feels about his wording or approach). Babble is meant to be where we can be supportive and helpful to each other. Even when we sometimes disagree with each other. Many of us do that in a very respectful and supportive way.
I've asked him not to post to me in the future, and so has Aphrodite. Maybe others would find it helpful to do the same. I won't be responding to any further posts from him, either.
Dr. Bob, I hope you can think of something to do to help with this situation. I know he's not being overtly inappropriate or uncivil, but I feel (and apparently others do as well) that it's putting a bad flavor into babble, which many of us depend on.pegasus
Posted by tabitha on June 23, 2004, at 1:53:25
In reply to Re: What I *really* don't get are the inconsistencies, posted by pegasus on June 22, 2004, at 16:23:15
I'm guessing Dr Bob would consider posting skeptical stuff about therapy to fall under 'education', and he's said repeatedly, different points of view are fine. So I doubt he'll rule against F in general, although I have to agree, that statement about psychoanalysis being only valuable to line therapist's pockets sounded like an exaggeration/overgeneralization to me. What gives, Dr Bob?
I feel for all of you who are feeling burned by this. Suddenly our little safe haven of the therapy board, usually relatively free of conflict, isn't so safe, and Dr Bob refuses to make it safe again. Anger is perfectly understandable in this situation. But if Dr Bob won't protect us, we'll have to protect ourselves. Can I offer some calming affirmations?
1. My therapy is OK. I don't need other people to support my choice of therapy. It works for me and I'm keeping it.
(this one is for when you're afraid F will use your disclosures to feed his point of view)
2. Therapy is hard. It's normal to struggle and have upsets. It doesn't mean I'm doing the wrong thing, or that therapy is bad, or that my therapist is bad.3. I notice F seems to be trying awfully hard to convince others that therapy is bad. Why might F want to do that? (come up with some ideas here. hint: what might be happening in F's life now, or in F's history, that might contribute?) Do any of those reasons have anything to do with me or my therapy? No they don't.
4. I sure wish Dr Bob would keep the board safer. But when he won't, I can protect myself. I can keep myself safe. No one can make me feel bad about myself or my therapy.
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 23, 2004, at 5:20:08
In reply to Re: What I *really* don't get are the inconsistencies, posted by pegasus on June 22, 2004, at 16:23:15
On the internet you can find ANYTHING to support ANY point of view.
So, if he is producing websites that say something is bad, I can bet you there are websites out there that that say the opposite.
So simply post them in reply.
Nikki xx
Posted by Dinah on June 23, 2004, at 8:00:23
In reply to Re: What I *really* don't get are the inconsistencies, posted by tabitha on June 23, 2004, at 1:53:25
I bow before your insight.
You are absolutely positively right about Dr. Bob. And also right about the therapy board, a wonderfully supportive and usually conflict free area of the relatively safe and supportive haven of the internet that is Babble (all that therapy, I guess). I wish my therapist had the wonderful understanding of this issue that you have.
Add that to the fact that this poster, possibly quite inadvertantly, stumbled onto a barely and imperfectly scabbed over (and definitely not healed) putrified wound in my own psyche, and it certainly led to a bad situation on my part. For which I really do apologize.
Tabitha, you really do astound me with your wisdom sometimes, in all seriousness.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 23, 2004, at 9:03:14
In reply to Re: What I *really* don't get are the inconsistencies, posted by tabitha on June 23, 2004, at 1:53:25
I hope I don't offend anyone here, but arguing semantics gives me a kind of perverse pleasure.
And I don't know all the history here.
And I agree that referencing only one web site seems to me like a limited view.
But............(the nitpicking part)
this particular statement:
"Psychoanalysis has never been shown to help any condition, with the exception of the therapists bank account."
while certainly generalizing and sweeping and, since for every rule there is an exception, probably not accurate.....
it didn't seem to me as a personal attack of all that are in therapy.
The word psychoANALYSIS was used, not psychoTHERAPY. I tend to think of "pure" analysis to be the lay-on-the-couch type, with the therapist saying nothing but 'hmmmmm' while stroking his beard and writing in a notebook. My therapy, for example, leans towards analysis and is quite valuable, but I wouldn't call it "pure" analysis. It has elements of interpersonal, cognitive, etc. also.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 23, 2004, at 10:50:37
In reply to Nitpicking, posted by AuntieMel on June 23, 2004, at 9:03:14
Posted by pegasus on June 23, 2004, at 11:50:17
In reply to this is the internet.., posted by NikkiT2 on June 23, 2004, at 5:20:08
I've done that, and he hasn't said anything about it. But hopefully it's helpful for other folks. And for myself. I think that's one thing that has been so aggravating for me. I can argue with people who listen, but I don't feel like my point of view counts in this one. And, yeah, I'm like a moth to the flame here. I teethed on arguments like this, and it's just *so* hard to decline to participate when I disagree about something that I think is important.
pegasus
Posted by pegasus on June 23, 2004, at 11:53:56
In reply to Nitpicking, posted by AuntieMel on June 23, 2004, at 9:03:14
You're absolutately right. And some people on babble to seem to do true psychoanalysis, and find it helpful. It is still alive in the world, and it does still have supporters, even if most therapists these days use a different approach.
Also, our poster in question sometimes does seem (to me) to equate all of psychotherapy with psychoanalysis and a few other approaches that he is skeptical about.
pegasus
Posted by lucy stone on June 23, 2004, at 12:48:47
In reply to Nitpicking, posted by AuntieMel on June 23, 2004, at 9:03:14
I do the lay on the couch type of psychoanalysis but it is modern psychoanalysis, not the T stroking his beard (though he has a beard!) type. He talks a lot. I go 4 times a week and it has transformed by life. It is very expensive but I have the money, so what's the problem? I believe the comment about analysis not improving anything by the analyst's bank account was aimed at me because I had tangled a bit with fires on the topic. I didn't like the comment but I let it go...my analysis in action.
Posted by tabitha on June 24, 2004, at 2:19:09
In reply to Re: Oh wise Tabitha, posted by Dinah on June 23, 2004, at 8:00:23
Thank you for the compliments. I'll resist my knee-jerk impulse to duck them somehow.
This situation is pushing some painful buttons for you-- I wish I could make it better. (((Dinah)))
Posted by gardenergirl on June 24, 2004, at 14:12:10
In reply to Re: Oh, and one more thing... » gardenergirl, posted by spoc on June 22, 2004, at 12:51:24
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:24:48
In reply to this is the internet.., posted by NikkiT2 on June 23, 2004, at 5:20:08
> Speaking as one of the fragile ones, how can I receive more support from others when it feels unsafe to post when certain posters are using the thread for less than noble purposes?
>
> AphroditePeople can post to you even if you're not posting yourself. Maybe it would feel safer if you ignored those posts?
> This forum is not the place I would expect to be challenged in my choice of modalities. Encouraged, yes; supported, yes; questioned as to the validity of my choice? Absolutely NOT.
>
> partlycloudyWhat if your choice were a particular medication?
> People have been sanctioned for saying negative things about anti-benzo sites, yet the statement:
>
> "In many ways PT has actually gotten worse since then: examples such as rebirthing therapy, Recovered memory therapy, and MPD (dissociative disorder) therapy have become quite the "in style" therapies, but they are HIGHLY questionable, if not outright frauds, as my links have demonstrated."
>
> is just dandy.
>
> Does anyone know if Dr. Bob gets grant money from the manufacturers of Effexor?
>
> DinahWeren't the negative things about the anti-benzo sites stronger than "HIGHLY questionable, if not outright frauds"?
Unfortunately, I'm not receiving grant money from anyone. Don't you think there are a lot of posts here critical of Effexor?
> > Psychoanalysis has never been shown to help any condition, with the exception of the therapists bank account.
>
> I absolutely agree with Dinah. I read this statement, especially the use of the word "never", to be a sweeping generalization about psychoanalysis. I also read it to be an untrue statement, as psychoanalysis certainly has helped people in the past, and is currently helping posters on this forum.
>
> gardenergirlIt's sweeping, yes, but I took it to mean that no study has shown psychoanalysis to be effective for any particular diagnosis, not that psychoanalysis has never helped any individual.
> I feel that he ignored my main points when I tried to disagree with him.
>
> I can't help suspecting, because of his style, that he might have other motives.
>
> I won't be responding to any further posts from him> I'm like a moth to the flame here. I teethed on arguments like this, and it's just *so* hard to decline to participate when I disagree about something that I think is important.
>
> pegasusI agree, if you feel upset by someone, it may be best just not to respond -- or not even to read. Which may be easier said than done, I know, but may also be worth working at...
There may be posters who try to start arguments and upset others. Of course, not everyone who starts an argument or upsets someone else *intends* to do so...
> Can I offer some calming affirmations?
>
> 1. My therapy is OK. I don't need other people to support my choice of therapy. It works for me and I'm keeping it.
>
> 2. Therapy is hard. It's normal to struggle and have upsets. It doesn't mean I'm doing the wrong thing, or that therapy is bad, or that my therapist is bad.
>
> 3. I notice F seems to be trying awfully hard to convince others that therapy is bad. Why might F want to do that? ... Do any of those reasons have anything to do with me or my therapy? No they don't.
>
> 4. I sure wish Dr Bob would keep the board safer. But when he won't, I can protect myself. I can keep myself safe. No one can make me feel bad about myself or my therapy.
>
> tabitha> if he is producing websites that say something is bad, I can bet you there are websites out there that that say the opposite.
>
> So simply post them in reply.
>
> Nikki xxExcellent, thanks!
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on June 24, 2004, at 20:31:51
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:24:48
> > This forum is not the place I would expect to be challenged in my choice of modalities. Encouraged, yes; supported, yes; questioned as to the validity of my choice? Absolutely NOT.
> >
> > partlycloudy
>
> What if your choice were a particular medication?
As a matter of fact I have used this forum for researching the effexor that I take as part of my med cocktail. There were so many posts that I had to narrow it down with more key words when I googled, to include the side effects and benefits that I was experiencing. I mostly posted regarding my own experience - questions, requests for validation of the symptoms I was feeling, and duration of symptoms.I can't recall anyone ever responding to my post with a scathing remark about how I chose that particular medication. People simply reported their own experiences, and made no challenge to me to argue about the medication of my choice.
So my experience on these two boards (psychology and psycho-babble) have differed significantly.
Posted by tabitha on June 25, 2004, at 2:40:53
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:24:48
> > > Psychoanalysis has never been shown to help any condition, with the exception of the therapists bank account.
> >>
> It's sweeping, yes, but I took it to mean that no study has shown psychoanalysis to be effective for any particular diagnosis, not that psychoanalysis has never helped any individual.Thanks for explaining your reasoning. When I read it I filtered out the "has never been shown" part and just read "psychoanalysis never helped anything except the therapist's bank account."
Posted by lucy stone on June 25, 2004, at 8:29:41
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 24, 2004, at 19:24:48
>>
> It's sweeping, yes, but I took it to mean that no study has shown psychoanalysis to be effective for any particular diagnosis, not that psychoanalysis has never helped any individual.>You could take it that way if read in isolation. However, this poster has repeatedly posted negative things about analysis. When read in context of the other posts it become clear that the poster believes analysis does not help any individual. After the first negative post I replied that my analysis has been of great benefit to me, and the poster answered that the change I have experienced as the result of my work could be explained simply by the passage of time. The poster used this same explanation "time heals all wounds" to another poster about results gained by a different type of treatment. It is clear to me that this poster thinks most therapies are of no use to individuals. The exception would be CBT, which the poster apparently thinks is effective.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 16:37:30
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by lucy stone on June 25, 2004, at 8:29:41
> this poster has repeatedly posted negative things about analysis. When read in context of the other posts it become clear that the poster believes analysis does not help any individual.
If someone repeatedly posts negative things about Effexor, does that necessarily mean they believe Effexor doesn't help anyone? And if they do in fact believe Effexor doesn't help anyone, should they not be able to post that?
I'm sorry if this has been upsetting, but I do think negative things about treatment should be able to be posted.
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on June 25, 2004, at 18:14:49
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 16:37:30
Regarding your comments on effexor, my post above was
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/359999.html
Did you get a chance to see that?
Posted by lucy stone on June 25, 2004, at 20:12:40
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2004, at 16:37:30
.
>
> If someone repeatedly posts negative things about Effexor, does that necessarily mean they believe Effexor doesn't help anyone? And if they do in fact believe Effexor doesn't help anyone, should they not be able to post that?
>
> I'm sorry if this has been upsetting, but I do think negative things about treatment should be able to be posted.
>
> Bob
Well, I'm new here, but the discription of the board does say "for education and support" not "for debate." I used to spend way too much time on debate boards, it was really an addiction for me, and I stopped with great difficulty. The time I spent debating on line was not healthy for me. I am not looking to debate anyone. The poster we are discussing is not being supportive in any way. The poster is also not being educational since s/he is not linking educational sites but is linking "skeptics" sites. His purpose does not seem to be education but denigration of therapy. If he falls within your posting guidelines he has the right to post, but I also have the right not to stick around. I was happy to find this site since in my real life I have no one to talk with about my therapy but if it is not safe I can't stay.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 15:55:50
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by lucy stone on June 25, 2004, at 20:12:40
> I have used this forum for researching the effexor that I take as part of my med cocktail.
>
> I can't recall anyone ever responding to my post with a scathing remark about how I chose that particular medication.
>
> partlycloudyI'm glad you didn't receive any scathing responses, but there certainly have been a number of posts critical of Effexor...
> If he falls within your posting guidelines he has the right to post, but I also have the right not to stick around. I was happy to find this site since in my real life I have no one to talk with about my therapy but if it is not safe I can't stay.
>
> lucy stoneIMO, under the current guidelines, his posts have been acceptable. You don't have to read them, though. Also, remember Tabitha's affirmations:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/359281.html
However, if even given the above you don't feel safe, then maybe it would in fact be better for you not to stay. Which would be a loss for us...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 20:49:10
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 15:55:50
>
> However, if even given the above you don't feel safe, then maybe it would in fact be better for you not to stay. Which would be a loss for us...
>
> BobDr. Bob, I'm only saying this to provide information to you so that you can be optimally effective. My therapist says almost the same thing, so it's not just you. It must be some therapist thing they teach you to say to emphasize personal responsibility or somesuch. But I thought I ought to let you know that when you say it to me (I can't speak for anyone else) it sort of sounds like "Don't let the door hit you on your way out" regardless of the extra sentence tacked on.
Just something for you to consider.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2004, at 21:36:25
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 20:49:10
I caught a flavor of that as well. I thought it was just me. And I don't *think* I learned that. Maybe it's an internship thing. :)
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 21:44:02
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on June 26, 2004, at 21:36:25
Gardenergirl, you are exceptional. I'm sure when they taught you about emphasizing personal responsibility, you came up with a lovely non-distancing way of putting it. (Perhaps you could help my therapist with that.)
You know, this is the only time I can ever remember when the Admin board seems safer than the rest of Babble. Tho I suppose I could post on Social as well?
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 26, 2004, at 21:51:45
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 20:49:10
I read it the same way - I felt "OUCH"!! I'm sure he didn't mean it that way. But that is the way it felt. Perhaps more emphasis on the positive would have been helpful. Emmy
Posted by gabbix2 on June 26, 2004, at 21:58:11
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dinah, posted by TofuEmmy on June 26, 2004, at 21:51:45
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:03:14
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dinah, posted by TofuEmmy on June 26, 2004, at 21:51:45
I absolutely know what you mean, but do think it's definitely a standard blurb from the repertoire of replies to various situations. I have seen it in many places before (and heard something similar myself once too). But yes, there would seem to be room for reworking the words, which I gather are just saying that people should weigh what hurts more: being here or not being here.
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.