![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 71. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:05:51
In reply to Re: A suggestion, posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:03:14
Posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 22:27:40
In reply to Re: A suggestion, posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:03:14
I've gotten it too, Spoc. And I described my reaction to it.
How did you feel when you heard them addressed to you?
I'm genuinely curious, as I wonder how different people perceive the same thing.
Intellectually, I knew, and know, that Dr. Bob doesn't mean any harm by it. But on a gut level, how did it *feel* to hear directed towards you?
Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:42:55
In reply to Re: A suggestion » spoc, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 22:27:40
> I'm genuinely curious, as I wonder how different people perceive the same thing.
>
> Intellectually, I knew, and know, that Dr. Bob doesn't mean any harm by it. But on a gut level, how did it *feel* to hear directed towards you?<<<<< Oh, at the time and being newer, I was "certain" he was hinting that perhaps I didn't fit in. Maybe for my own sake, maybe for (worse) the sake of others. It didn't feel good at all (but I admit it's not unusual for me to perceive things that way). Anyway, after that I did notice the statement in other places where the poster wasn't being "bad," so I could see it as not having been personal. (I think! Oh my... :)
But I agree it could be worded more softly/tactfully.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2004, at 0:32:39
In reply to Re: But... » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on June 26, 2004, at 21:44:02
(((Dinah))) I think you are pretty exceptional too.
That is kind of funny about admin right now. Social seems pretty safe. And Open was a silly blast tonight. We laughed, we snorted, we cried, we sang songs.
We missed you.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2004, at 0:35:40
In reply to Re: A suggestion » Dinah, posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 22:42:55
I recognized, too, that was probably not Dr. Bob's intended mesage. I am pretty sensitive, some of you may have noticed. :)
And sometimes I pick up on a "flavor" whether it's intended or not, and feel stung by it. It's something I'm working on being more aware of. I guess I need to slather on the psychological sunscreen every day rather than get complacent.
gg
Posted by partlycloudy on June 27, 2004, at 7:29:14
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...
>
> BobYeah, some loss. Well, here goes this squeaky wheel out the door. Thanks for nothing,
DOCTOR.
Posted by Dinah on June 27, 2004, at 8:40:52
In reply to More to the point, Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on June 27, 2004, at 7:29:14
Posted by Dinah on June 27, 2004, at 8:44:17
In reply to More to the point, Dr. Bob, posted by partlycloudy on June 27, 2004, at 7:29:14
If anyone else has any ideas, maybe you could contribute them.
How about something like:
"A poster's safety is always my primary concern, and of course I want you to do what is best for you. However, I hope you are able to find a way to post here while feeling safe, because the board would really miss your contribution if you were gone."
You could save the other wording for those occasions when you really do mean "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
Posted by Dinah on June 27, 2004, at 8:59:02
In reply to Re: Suggested rewording - Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 27, 2004, at 8:44:17
Ooh, or...
If you are familiar with the poster and the particular nature of his/her contribution, you could substitute "contribution" with "humor", or "insight", or "caring", or something like that.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 27, 2004, at 9:13:25
In reply to Re: Suggested rewording - Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 27, 2004, at 8:59:02
That sounds much more validating to me. No "ouch" as I read it. Good job, Dinah.
gg
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 11:11:45
In reply to Re: apparent inconsistencies, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 15:55:50
It really was just meant to help.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 11:15:22
In reply to I really meant no criticism by my suggestion » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2004, at 11:11:45
I thought about it, but I'm not going to.
Peace?
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.