![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 77. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on June 28, 2007, at 14:31:22
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2007, at 12:23:33
> > I think it would be nice if you could support your deputies a little bit.
> >
> > sunnydays
>
> I agree! I'm sincerely grateful for all the work the deputies do for me -- and for Babble. They enable me to have more balance in my life, and they enable Babble to remain a supportive community. It really is a hard job, and we're lucky to have volunteers who do it so well.**See a full thot chunk. Cool. Now thats refreshing, and its good to see public thanks and recognition. It helps I bet. And for Bob to have more balance in his(your) life...wow, one time in chat we were marvelling over that you even had a mother!!! You do seem rather not-quite-real therefore impermeable to hurt etc.....
(ROFL!!! the words omniscient, omipotent come to mind....LOL!)
>
> > I am trying to keep my comments civil, and sometimes that vagueness is because of the rules here. I am just trying to follow them because I understand them better than before. But this doesn't work either, because other innocent people get hurt in the process.
> >
> > Happyflower
>
> That's a good point, being uncivil, but vague, means *more* people may feel accused or put down.
*??so being UNCIVIL and vague is even worse than being outright uncivil? Is this what you are saying? Its unclear to me. Sorry. Guess it makes sense though, cuz then others, in our low self esteem ways, tend to take it upon ourselves...:-(
Oh, I just re-read it, what I think I was trying to figger, is that the way you wrote that makes it seem like you considered HF uncivil and is that civil???
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaackkk.
Seriously, I am getting a headache.
>
> > so...I thought about this post and I suppose part of what it was about, and only part, is that sometimes (perhaps it's hard-wired) we are vigilant of possible ill intentions of others- and maybe we see it even when it isn't there ...
> >
> > I do think we like to argue, to find wrongs, to criticize....
> > why do we do it?
> > and we really tend to see evils in "authority"
> > is it a matter of convenience, a place to store the uncomfortable within ourselves? ...
> >
> > obsidian
>
> Thanks for reflecting on this process. There are a number of angles that could be examined, including:
>
> 1. I and the deputies are vigilant for incivility, and others may model themselves after us.
>
> 2. People may be vigilant for "evil" in authority now because they've experienced it before.
>
> 3. We may also "hold" uncomfortable parts for others. Such as?
>
> Bob1. Now that IS interesting...I am learning bout modelling in relation to my kids. I think for me, I just hate it when people fight is all.
2.That is most likely true IMHO. I am not doubt NOT alone in my distrust of authority, cuz w/authority comes a certain amount of power (deputies here have very little IMHO) and humans being what they are, some abuse that power, and feeling powerless is a very frightening and sickening feeling....but that is in more of a cop context. Don't feel that way bout deputies. But Bob ....ummmmmm....well......hmmmmm...
3. Not sure what you mean here, but i been thru my 'I love to hate Bob' phase. And most definately YES, it was a place to put my negativities. Now that has calmed into just a general distrust...
That is MY take on those thots, I cannot speak ofr others.
M
Posted by Happyflower on June 28, 2007, at 14:59:25
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2007, at 12:23:33
Dr. Bob,
I think my vagness comment was taken out of context of my orginal post. You wanted to know about the preceptions of envy of deputies.
I wrote about my experiences of those preceptions of deputies. I didn't single anyone out, because that would be outright uncivil. But when I talked about my experiences, I just used "deputy" in the vague sense because not all my experiences were from all the duputies, and not all deputies made me feel the way I have at times.
So how do we discuss the preceptions of deputies, which is one of your ideas, without mentioning the deputies either as a whole or as indivduals?
After all didnt' you also imply that we felt "envy" of the deptuties? I know I dont' feel envy, and not all babblers feel that way. I am sure you didn't mean ALL babblers, right? But you had to use the vague form of babblers to explain what you were asking, right? Or am I off base?
Posted by confuzyq on June 28, 2007, at 20:54:39
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2007, at 12:23:33
> > so...I thought about this post and I suppose part of what it was about, and only part, is that sometimes (perhaps it's hard-wired) we are vigilant of possible ill intentions of others- and maybe we see it even when it isn't there ...
> >
> > I do think we like to argue, to find wrongs, to criticize....
> > why do we do it?
> > and we really tend to see evils in "authority"
> > is it a matter of convenience, a place to store the uncomfortable within ourselves? ...
> >
> > obsidian
>
> Thanks for reflecting on this process. There are a number of angles that could be examined, including:
>
> 1. I and the deputies are vigilant for incivility, and others may model themselves after us.
>
> 2. People may be vigilant for "evil" in authority now because they've experienced it before.
>
> 3. We may also "hold" uncomfortable parts for others. Such as?
>
> Bob4. Sometimes objections are valid but respect of explanation or accountability is not given, and this can disturb the peace. Moreso as it could so easily be avoided by mere admissions when just and logical, with no lists of possible issues on part of objectors appended. Reasons some authorities may exhibit this behavior include...?
Posted by obsidian on June 29, 2007, at 0:20:40
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2007, at 12:23:33
so...I thought about this post and I suppose part of what it was about, and only part, is that sometimes (perhaps it's hard-wired) we are vigilant of possible ill intentions of others- and maybe we see it even when it isn't there ...
> >
> > I do think we like to argue, to find wrongs, to criticize....
> > why do we do it?
> > and we really tend to see evils in "authority"
> > is it a matter of convenience, a place to store the uncomfortable within ourselves? ...
> >
> > obsidian
>
> Thanks for reflecting on this process. There are a number of angles that could be examined, including:
>
> 1. I and the deputies are vigilant for incivility, and others may model themselves after us.yes, I know what is expected on this site, and it sometimes keeps me from posting certain things
...but, I'd like to think that I'd stop and think anyway - the anonymity however might be too tempting ;-)> 2. People may be vigilant for "evil" in authority now because they've experienced it before.
my goodness yes! I have certainly experienced this...we learn to distrust those people who would be the ones we are supposed to "listen to"
we start to doubt their intentions, to test them and maybe finally to reject them
>
> 3. We may also "hold" uncomfortable parts for others. Such as?well now isn't this a complicated question?
well, let me see now....I'll just pick one thing : anger
for instance...I am not comfortable with anger..it makes me feel guilty, however if I am met with a despicable foe, full of malice and worthy of no compassion or consideration, then I can be angry as I want to be at them...and I need not feel badly about it (it is funny just how many people like these I can find ;-), but seriously
but who am I in this instance??
an innocent victim, exploited, with good intentions, with fleece as white as snow, saintly, virginal, all that good stuff, etc.
but where is my self-centeredness, my lack of concern for other people, my ignorance, my mistakes, the false assumptions I make??
so.... somewhere in between lies the truth
so back to my hating conflict...it would seem that resolving it would require some identification with the person with whom you are in conflict, an understanding of their understanding, a recognition of them in you...if they live on a whole other planet (or so it feels) then it isn't so likely
and if you are one of "us" and they are part of "them" well...
the antonym of "evil" is "righteous" which would seem to suggest to me that rage against what is "evil" can be considered sanctioned, can be "right", and then one can debate endlessly about what is "right"
....to summarize - I don't talk politics or religion unless I want to take on a very uncomfortable and conflictual position...uh... NOT!
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:35:02
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2007, at 12:23:33
> I agree! I'm sincerely grateful for all the work the deputies do for me -- and for Babble. They enable me to have more balance in my life, and they enable Babble to remain a supportive community. It really is a hard job, and we're lucky to have volunteers who do it so well.
Thank you, Dr. Bob. I appreciate it.
Sometimes I wish for a bit more balance in my own life, so I understand that feeling.
> 3. We may also "hold" uncomfortable parts for others. Such as?
I'm a analytic dunce, so I really don't understand 3). Can you or someone who does understand it kindly explain?
Posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:23:23
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 7:35:02
Dr Bob, my comments:
> > I agree! I'm sincerely grateful for all the work the deputies do for me -- and for Babble. They enable me to have more balance in my life, and they enable Babble to remain a supportive community. It really is a hard job, and we're lucky to have volunteers who do it so well.
>
> Thank you, Dr. Bob. I appreciate it.
>
> Sometimes I wish for a bit more balance in my own life, so I understand that feeling.
>Yes, this was nice of Dr Bob to say. I also agree that the deputies require balance in their own lives, which could perhaps be scheduled in? Dr Bob's presence here is seemingly random, but is that so? What if we knew for certain that he'd be reviewing the boards, say, on a weekly basis?
That might make for some balance in the deputies' lives.
Just a thought.> > 3. We may also "hold" uncomfortable parts for others. Such as?
>
> I'm a analytic dunce, so I really don't understand 3). Can you or someone who does understand it kindly explain?Yeah, I don't get the holding stuff either.
Thanks for reading.
sp
Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2007, at 8:39:27
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by scratchpad on June 29, 2007, at 8:23:23
Posted by muffled on June 29, 2007, at 9:53:46
In reply to Re: conflict: #4 » Dr. Bob, posted by confuzyq on June 28, 2007, at 20:54:39
4. Sometimes objections are valid but respect of explanation or accountability is not given, and this can disturb the peace. Moreso as it could so easily be avoided by mere admissions when just and logical, with no lists of possible issues on part of objectors appended. Reasons some authorities may exhibit this behavior include...?
*Ummm lemme try...
Bob don't seem to REALLY listen to us even when our complaints ideas have validity, and that is upsetting?
The word lipservice comes to mind...
That he should be more flexible and honest bout his thots on our ideas rather than seemingly being so reluctant to change ?
Reasons some authorities may exhibit this behavior include...?
Ummm, cuz the authority figure just plain don't got enuf time??? Cuz they got their own personality issues that they struggle with?Man I dumb as a stump I suppose.
Posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 18:38:49
In reply to Re: conflict » Dr. Bob, posted by obsidian on June 29, 2007, at 0:20:40
I really should be able to say something sensible about this.
How many times have I tried to get the hang of projective identification (failed), not to speak of all the time doing/talking about/? this in therapy.
I imagine the idea is that bits of ourselves are put into other people more or less compulsively. In therapy this is made explicit when the T says something like 'since you are not able to deal with such and such, I will hold it for you until you are ready to take it back'.
One problem I had here was that I have an overliteral mind and imagined this quite materially.The standard formula used is of the good-enough mother who is able to accept the difficult parts of her child and tolerate the ambivalence until the kid can do so himself.
Which I guess you have heard before.
Posted by obsidian on July 1, 2007, at 23:05:54
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 18:38:49
> I really should be able to say something sensible about this.
>
> How many times have I tried to get the hang of projective identification (failed), not to speak of all the time doing/talking about/? this in therapy.
>
> I imagine the idea is that bits of ourselves are put into other people more or less compulsively. In therapy this is made explicit when the T says something like 'since you are not able to deal with such and such, I will hold it for you until you are ready to take it back'.
> One problem I had here was that I have an overliteral mind and imagined this quite materially.
>
> The standard formula used is of the good-enough mother who is able to accept the difficult parts of her child and tolerate the ambivalence until the kid can do so himself.
>
> Which I guess you have heard before.I never could really grasp that stuff...if someone could draw me a picture however, then???...maybe I could
but perhaps I did describe it
I dunno
-obsid
Posted by Sigismund on July 1, 2007, at 23:50:53
In reply to Re: conflict » Sigismund, posted by obsidian on July 1, 2007, at 23:05:54
This stuff was washing around in my head and I thought that we learn to think of ourselves as seperate (sort of, sometimes, which is not such a bad idea given the facts), but we might not, and I don't think very small children do, and all this holding stuff is about what we go through to get there.
Of course someone might want to hold, but the other person might not want to be held, not out in the open anyway.
There's my therapy for you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2007, at 21:01:22
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Sigismund on June 29, 2007, at 18:38:49
> I am not doubt NOT alone in my distrust of authority, cuz w/authority comes a certain amount of power ... and humans being what they are, some abuse that power, and feeling powerless is a very frightening and sickening feeling....
>
> M> I'll just pick one thing : anger
>
> for instance...I am not comfortable with anger..it makes me feel guilty, however if I am met with a despicable foe, full of malice and worthy of no compassion or consideration, then I can be angry as I want to be at them...and I need not feel badly about it
>
> but who am I in this instance??
>
> an innocent victim, exploited, with good intentions, with fleece as white as snow, saintly, virginal, all that good stuff, etc.
>
> but where is my self-centeredness, my lack of concern for other people, my ignorance, my mistakes, the false assumptions I make??
>
> obsidian> I imagine the idea is that bits of ourselves are put into other people more or less compulsively. In therapy this is made explicit when the T says something like 'since you are not able to deal with such and such, I will hold it for you until you are ready to take it back'.
>
> SigismundSo in this context the deputies and I might "hold" abusiveness or anger or something when posters aren't able to deal with it?
--
> so back to my hating conflict...it would seem that resolving it would require some identification with the person with whom you are in conflict, an understanding of their understanding, a recognition of them in you...if they live on a whole other planet (or so it feels) then it isn't so likely
>
> and if you are one of "us" and they are part of "them" well...
>
> the antonym of "evil" is "righteous" which would seem to suggest to me that rage against what is "evil" can be considered sanctioned, can be "right"
>
> obsidianI agree, it's really hard when things get polarized.
Bob
Posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 22:25:07
In reply to Re: conflict, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2007, at 21:01:22
>So in this context the deputies and I might "hold" abusiveness or anger or something when posters aren't able to deal with it?
*rofl, what it comes down to is ya 'hold' the sh*t that flies!!!
Na, just deps/admin expected to intervene to some extent, so no surprizes there. The 'authority' and 'power' they potentially have is enough to make people think twice...and mebbe back off...
So to me its NOT holding anything *so* much, as the people arguing just sucking it up and stopping. Though there is perhaps some animosity involved as well, but mostly as a result of feeling the scarey powerless feeling IMO.See, if I tell someboddy to slow down in a school zone, they MIGHT slow down, or they just gonna flip me off...
But a cop says slow down...they generally do...cuz they don't want a ticket...
So babblers don't want people mad, so they real careful how they word stuff in a *situation*, but deps/admin. when they intervene,generally it stops..So it was mentioned somewhere Bob, that you said it was easy to intervene as a poster, beleive me, it is NOT. You end up sucked into the argument, or you end up getting bit on the *ss, or SOMETIMES it works.....
I think deps can struggle with this in their roles too.Sorry if this don't make sense. I trying real hard to make sense.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 2:16:49
In reply to ya hold the sh*t!! ROFL!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on July 3, 2007, at 22:25:07
> it was mentioned somewhere Bob, that you said it was easy to intervene as a poster, beleive me, it is NOT. You end up sucked into the argument, or you end up getting bit on the *ss, or SOMETIMES it works.....
I didn't mean to imply it was easy. It can be hard to keep from getting sucked in, and intervening isn't always appreciated. But I think more situations could be prevented, and it would be more supportive, if that were tried more often.
> rofl, what it comes down to is ya 'hold' the sh*t that flies!!!
Well, it does seem to come our way sometimes...
But instead of saying we "hold" it, it might be clearer to say we might be seen as abusive or angry or sh*tty or something when posters aren't able to deal with seeing themselves that way.
Bob
Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 9:10:15
In reply to Re: holding the sh*t, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2007, at 2:16:49
>But instead of saying we "hold" it, it might be clearer to say we might be seen as abusive or angry or sh*tty or something when posters aren't able to deal with seeing themselves that way.
*ok, can't let this go by...
This is a turnabout...
Oooooh there's 'some'thing here...
Can't quite figger it, other than I think there's some grain of truth there somewhere, but I don't think this would be a general rule, but it could be a sometimes thing.
Hmmm, however if there is a grain....I *can't* figger it, mebbe someone can help figger this statement?
I'm not sure I like it!
LOL.
Mebbe it'll come to me.
M
Posted by sunnydays on July 4, 2007, at 10:25:35
In reply to huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all?, posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 9:10:15
Transference muffled... he's saying people are projecting their own bad feelings about themselves onto himself and the deputies. The way I understand what he's saying is that people can't deal with seeing themselves as angry or abusive, so they project that image onto the deputies or Dr. Bob.
Not sure I agree with that completely, I think there are legitimate complaints, and that people are trying to make the site better in many cases. But I think that's what he was saying...
sunnydays
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2007, at 12:17:19
In reply to Re: huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all? » muffled, posted by sunnydays on July 4, 2007, at 10:25:35
Whenever my therapist says stuff like that, my mind feels like it's in Trigonometry again. I understood algebra so well, but in Trig, my brain froze.
I'm not sure if that's because I am defending myself against truth in Freudian ideas, or if Freud really is the Trig of Psychology.
But... I must say that it's difficult to see how pointing out this theory on Dr. Bob's part will be helpful overall. Anymore than it was helpful when my therapist did it. :)
But everyone's not me, and not everyone responds as I do.
Posted by confuzyq on July 4, 2007, at 14:34:21
In reply to Re: huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all? » muffled, posted by sunnydays on July 4, 2007, at 10:25:35
> Transference muffled... he's saying people are projecting their own bad feelings about themselves onto himself and the deputies. The way I understand what he's saying is that people can't deal with seeing themselves as angry or abusive, so they project that image onto the deputies or Dr. Bob.
>
> Not sure I agree with that completely, I think there are legitimate complaints, and that people are trying to make the site better in many cases. But I think that's what he was saying...
>
> sunnydays
I don't agree with it completely either. I also don't think it's necessarily a good idea or the best way to handle things, implanting the thought in suggestible, conflicted, vulnerable, etc. etc. people (some of whom may need more than anything else to learn to draw lines and stand up for what they believe is right) that when something doesn't sit right with them, it's usually their "own stuff." Of course that's true for everyone sometimes (and more of the time for some than others). We're humans. If I graduate from shrink school does that mean that anytime someone is annoyed with me or disagrees with how I do things or if I do them consistently, it gets to be "their stuff?"
Posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:06:44
In reply to Re: huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all?, posted by confuzyq on July 4, 2007, at 14:34:21
that when we feel hurt we respond to it - and that the other person "becomes" the one who has hurt us without a benefit of the doubt
and that can feel pretty sh*tty ;-)
Posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:18:50
In reply to I guess that what I think is............, posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:06:44
it just makes me think of how wars happen, an insult, a hurt, an injury, then a move to hurt the other, then a countermove, etc, etc
everyone has their sh*t, and if you don't stand up for yourself then you're lost
war is inevitable to some extent I suppose
and there are sometimes good reasons to fightI find too many times for myself how I am reacting to some very old themes though....does it really matter though if the present is indeed like the past in someways?? I dunno
but sometimes it really gets away from menow I don't know if this relates to babble conflict at all anymore
but maybe the question is...
how are you going to see people in "authority"? well intentioned? not? fallible? condascending? where does it matter? where does it not?
maybe every person decides for themselves and it all plays out, conflict and all
when will you question it? how will you react to it? does it even warrant thinking about it? d you really have to justify anger? maybe not? Maybe you just don't want to take anyone's "sh*t"?
Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 21:38:20
In reply to and yeah it is based in reality..............., posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:18:50
Too confusing for me!!!
Alls I know is everybody keeps saying 'sh*t' and theres a part of me thats JUST LOVING THAT!!!!!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:49:14
In reply to Waaaaagghh!!! ;-o!!!, posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 21:38:20
some people would say you are "the sh*t"
this is a title of high honor I hope you are aware of
I can really talk sh*t, ya know
I got a lot of sh*t to say
this thread has gone to sh*t
:-)
Posted by muffled on July 4, 2007, at 22:11:01
In reply to sh*t! muffs! you are the best................ » muffled, posted by obsidian on July 4, 2007, at 21:49:14
Posted by Sigismund on July 4, 2007, at 23:52:41
In reply to Re: huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all?, posted by Dinah on July 4, 2007, at 12:17:19
>Whenever my therapist says stuff like that, my mind feels like it's in Trigonometry again.
Yes, that's what it was like for me too.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2007, at 2:17:14
In reply to Re: huh???? Anybody 'get' this at all?, posted by confuzyq on July 4, 2007, at 14:34:21
> Can't quite figger it, other than I think there's some grain of truth there somewhere, but I don't think this would be a general rule, but it could be a sometimes thing.
>
> M> I don't agree with it completely either. I also don't think it's necessarily a good idea or the best way to handle things, implanting the thought in suggestible, conflicted, vulnerable, etc. etc. people (some of whom may need more than anything else to learn to draw lines and stand up for what they believe is right) that when something doesn't sit right with them, it's usually their "own stuff." Of course that's true for everyone sometimes (and more of the time for some than others). We're humans. If I graduate from shrink school does that mean that anytime someone is annoyed with me or disagrees with how I do things or if I do them consistently, it gets to be "their stuff?"
>
> confuzyqSorry, I did try to be clear before that this was only one of a number of angles that could be examined -- a sometimes thing -- but still I think I should rephrase that. How about:
> But instead of saying we "hold" it, it might be clearer to say I sometimes allow myself to be seen as abusive or angry or sh*tty or something and don't insist that I'm innocent, with good intentions, saintly, etc.
Also, I meant to say something about perceptions and certainly not to imply that anyone actually was abusive or angry or sh*tty.
Also, I agree that this idea can be misused to avoid taking responsibility for something that's deserved.
Thanks for being open to exploring something sensitive,
Bob
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.