![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 66. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on February 15, 2005, at 3:56:40
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2005, at 22:49:48
> Who said this community was soon to be gated? Please don't
> be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
>Are you certain yourself, Dr. Bob? That Toph was not confused or unaware of how the new system is to work? If you have reason to believe that Toph is fully informed of the impact the changes will bring, that's one thing. But you didn't ask, you know. And you didn't correct any misperception he might have. Isn't immediately giving a PBC jumping to conclusions? Unless of course you have information that isn't available to me? The FAQ is quite clear on jumping to conclusions.
I realize that you may be feeling sensitive on this subject. But perhaps not everyone has followed the topic as closely as you have.
Posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 1:10:06
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 15, 2005, at 3:56:40
>
> > Who said this community was soon to be gated? Please don't
> > be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
> >
>
> Are you certain yourself, Dr. Bob? That Toph was not confused or unaware of how the new system is to work? If you have reason to believe that Toph is fully informed of the impact the changes will bring, that's one thing. But you didn't ask, you know. And you didn't correct any misperception he might have. Isn't immediately giving a PBC jumping to conclusions? Unless of course you have information that isn't available to me? The FAQ is quite clear on jumping to conclusions.
>
> I realize that you may be feeling sensitive on this subject. But perhaps not everyone has followed the topic as closely as you have.Thank you Dinah. Bob was right that I was sarcastic, but I have seen nothing but inconsistency with how sarcasm is treatred here. As to the issue of gated communities, that thread came and went during the three weeks Bob blocked me from participating. I think you know that I am not shy about joining the fray here, so when I returned I only skimmed this very long thread. I didn' know that Bob had abandoned the idea. I guess he does listen. I turn my comments now to Bob.
I apologize for being sarcastic about your idea. As for the other part of your PBC, I am once again offended by your assumptions about me. I thought you had a plan to create gated communities, I even thought you coined the phrase. I poked fun at the silly notion and you felt that I would be needlessly alarming others. Well, if you assumed that I knew that this was untrue, wouldn't you also assume other would know this were untrue? How could I alram them?Please be civil and don't make accusations about others unless you know that your assumptions are true.
While on the subject of gated communities, I am probably repeating others' sentiments here, but it just strikes me as puzzling that you would support such a notion. I think you should consider the following system of equations:
inclusion=good; exclusion=bad
inclusion=pluralism; exclusion=divisiveness
Therefore using the principle of substitution,
pluralism=good; divisiveness=bad
But if you resurrect the idea, can we form communities that excude you, or will you have the master key to everyone's fence? I was thinking that I would invite members (only certain members, mind you) to join the Anti-social Sarcastic Society using the anacronym, the A.S.S. community. Then, like in college where fraternity members ask, "Are you a Sigma Chi?," people will ask me, " are you an A.S.S.?" And I will proudly reply, "Yes, indeed I am an A.S.S. But you can't be an A.S.S., it's an exclusive group." But if you have a master key, well then you can be an A.S.S., too Bob.See everybody in six weeks.
Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 1:52:02
In reply to Re: please be civil Bob » Dinah, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 1:10:06
for what it is worth...
There has been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion of small boards.
I think the idea is that if peoples continue posting their thoughts on them being devisive and co then people may be a little afraid to join up worrying about what the other posters may think of them.
Not that it follows from the point that people don't like small boards to the point that people don't like the people who post to small boards.
But sometimes we need to take (fairly predictable) irrational responses into account as well.
You didn't get blocked, Toph, you got warned. I think it is a new application of civility rules to apply it to peoples feelings about small boards. See, for example
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/455774.html
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 1:59:56
In reply to Re: please be civil Bob » Dinah, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 1:10:06
By the way here is a varient:
... it just strikes me as puzzling that you would not support such a notion. I think you should consider the following system of equations:
inclusion=good; exclusion=bad
inclusion=small groups; exclusion=large groups
Therefore using the principle of substitution,
small groups=good; large groups=badMy point is just that you can argue most anything with logic. And whatever you want to equate 'good' and 'bad' with you need to justify. Otherwise you are begging the question (which is to say assuming just that which you are setting out to offer a proof of).
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
In reply to Re: please be civil Bob » Dinah, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 1:10:06
> I think you should consider the following system of equations:
> inclusion=good; exclusion=badInclusion of everyone and exclusion of no one?
I've been wondering if that kind of "solidarity" might be an example of, in group terms, "massification", for example, see:
http://psychematters.com/papers/hopper2.htm
There, Hopper refers specifically to people who have been traumatized...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
I didn't read the whole thing, Dr. Bob, because frankly I felt too insulted from what I had read. Would I have felt less insulted later on? Could you perhaps summarize it in a non-insulting manner? Just call me stupid, but it didn't seem like a nice thing to compare Babble with.
You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities. It's bad enough that we are no longer allowed under the civility rules to express our feelings on a *topic*, but even worse if people are punished for not *understanding* the application of the topic.
Posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:20:54
In reply to Re: my take, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 1:52:02
Yes, Alexandra. Thank you. Babblers *are* no longer allowed to state their feelings about the gated communities, unless of course those feelings are positive.
Naturally it doesn't follow that people who don't like small boards wouldn't like people who join small boards. And people who join small boards might well *feel* like people wouldn't like them if they joined one. But I know how you feel about taking responsibility for ones' own feelings, as I think you've expressed it eloquently before. Just because they might feel it, doesn't make it true.
Dr. Bob obviously takes your concerns very much to heart, as he has silenced any discussion of dissent to the very idea of gated communities, even in advance of their being implemented. My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding rather than assuming that I am posting something I know to be untrue. Because I'm not. That's my understanding of the new rule.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:32:49
In reply to Re: my take » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:20:54
Thank you for saying that, Dinah.
My 'please be sensitive' was for expressing *my* feelings about the 'coziness.' I thought I even made it clear that it didn't even mean I didn't like the person, just that I couldn't feel good in the room.
But I can't fathom what I was talking about would happen here anyway. For example - Alexandra (I hope you don't mind being an example, Alexandra) likes the idea of smaller rooms, but I seriously doubt if she would be comfortable hurting someone that wanted in.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:38:23
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:41:39
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 16, 2005, at 3:06:32
A quote
George Orwell (1949) was instructive about the politicisation of language in totalitarian states.
Note to Dr. Bob - this is in humor - I couldn't resist the opening you gave me.
Posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
Massification? For a moment I thought you'd gone Catholic on me Bob. Not sure what you're saying with that. Do psychologists actually talk to each other that way?
Sorry that I went ballistic, thanks for your patience. I try to stay away from Admin as much as possible, but somehow I must be an angry man or something.
I relize that this should probably be on PBP, but I think it may explain why people react so explosively when reprimanded here. When you give a PBC or block, you give terse admonitions or demands: "be civil," "don't accuse others," "don't be sarcastic," etc. without a lengthy explanation like, "Toph, I appreciate your views , but I would prefer that you not use a sarcastic tone as that upsets me and I consider it uncivil." Here's my thought, I am not sure what transference is but I see it discussed on PBP a lot. From what little I know, your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
Toph
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 11:24:27
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
I think similar experiences explain a lot of our reactions - but I hadn't heard it put so accurately.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 15:22:04
In reply to Re: inclusion=good; exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2005, at 2:04:57
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
In reply to Re: thanks for the link (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 15:22:04
An attempted translation:
When people have been traumatised (which is a kind of boundary violation) then there can be a fear of annihilation. To deal with that people can vaccilate between narrowing their boundaries (by externalising to protect ones individual identity being lost in a merger) and enlarging their boundaries (by internalising so as to feel part of something greater). On the individual level this can lead to vacillation between pushing people away for fear of becoming merged with them and losing ones own identity, and clinging for fear of abandonment, of losing something that is perceived to be ‘part of oneself’. This same process can be acted out on the group level and is referred to as aggregation (narrowing of boundaries) and massification (enlarging of boundaries) respectively.
So (gee, I hope this counts as ‘fair use’):
‘People who have been traumatised, have experienced the fear of annihilation, and who have developed protective encapsulations are highly likely to create processes of Incohesion [ie to partake in the above described vacillation], and to be vulnerable to the constraints of roles associated with Incohesion. People who have developed contact-shunning, crustacean protections [narrowing of boundaries] are likely to personify states of aggregation, and those who have developed merger-hungry, amoeboid protections [enlargement of boundaries] are likely to personify states of massification… There are mixtures of types of personification, and there are mixtures and rapid shifts between states of aggregation and massification. Moreover, the processes of large complex social systems are often personified by more than one person, and during phases of rapid oscillation both crustacean and amoeboid styles of personification may be found’.
Sometimes people withdraw from Babble…
Sometimes people take an affront to Babble as an affront to themselves personally…
Or see the division of Babble as losing part of oneself…
This can be described as aggregation and massification respectively.
Individuals can vacillate over time.
And the group as a whole can have a different flavour at different times depending on the most vocal members of the group.Something to think about (gee, I hope this counts as ‘fair use’ as well…)
‘In order to protect against the difficulties and anxieties associated with massification, a social system shifts back towards the state of aggregation, and the original anxieties and difficulties re-emerge. And the entire process repeats itself. In the same way that traumatised people who are overwhelmed by their fear of annihilation are caught in incessant motion, without possibilities of resolution, incohesive social systems oscillate incessantly between states of aggregation and states of massification. These oscillations manifest motion and process, but no dynamic, dialectical movement. An incohesive social system is in a state of social paralysis’.
Hmm. So round and round we go…
Just my take (for what it is worth….)
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
Good 'splanation, Alex. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I couldn't muster the energy to read the article.
Thanks again. I 'spect that your 'splanation made it clearer than I would have got on my own, anyway.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:33:17
In reply to I think, therefore (I:A/M) :-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 9:38:23
And here I thought I:A/M was some clever way of saying I'm Auntie Mel (AM). whooops, giggles.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 22:32:21
Posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 22:55:10
Nah. I think therapy turned my brain to mush today.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 23:13:44
In reply to Re: you been drinking gg??? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on February 16, 2005, at 23:07:58
Posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
In reply to Re: very well put » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 11:24:27
Thank you Mel, I guess I should have put it on PB Psych after all.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 9:07:44
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Actually I think this was the right place to put it, since this is where it manifests most.
Now - don't argue with a compliment or you'll have to go time-out.
{smile}
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 17:25:05
In reply to Re: very well put » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 17, 2005, at 6:53:16
Yeah Toph, I agree - I get that too.
I find it hard not to take PBC's as a slap.I have found that if you don't understand and you ask him to explain why then he typically will. Though that could take a couple of days... Patience...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
> > Please don't be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
>
> You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he understood. I didn't know if he did or not. But I did want him to understand that if he did understand, then I didn't want him to do that.
> My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
>
> If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding
>
> DinahThat's not a new rule. There is of course a difference between the idea of gated communities and the people who might belong to them.
--
> your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
>
> TophThanks for reflecting on this. I don't despise you. I just want to minimize the fighting here. How about a new chapter in your story? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
I read over that a few times, and I don't think I feel significantly less offended.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that that's how Dr. Bob sees us. It explains rather a lot. But I'm sad about it. I'm very sad about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
((((Dinah))))
How about on an individual level, though? I mean, I can see how I tend to swing to those two extremes (with a preference towards narrowing my boundaries). If it happens with people on an individual level then I don't think it is all that suprising that those dynamics should play out in a group environment too...
I dunno.
I agree that parts of it were a bit hard to take.
And that they didn't really talk about it on an individual level - but I needed to do that so as to 'translate' it for myself to try and figure out what was being said. Lots of the terminology was unfamiliar to me.What about how you have said before that sometimes you need to try to emotionally withdraw. I wondered if that could be seen as a narrowing of boundaries when caring for Babble becomes a bit too much. That you have said stuff before about having to lower your expectations. I just wondered whether that might be a swing from one to the other right there. And there hasn't been a successful resolution of that stuff yet, has there?
I dunno.
Tell me to stoppit if ya like.
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.