![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 184 to 208 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:09:42
In reply to Re: make change » SLS, posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 21:12:34
I wonder how Dr Bob feels when he talks to other psychiatrists. Whether the civility dinger that goes off in his head goes into overtime or quite what. Must be frustrating that he can't really haul them over the coals to rephrase to his satisfaction the way he can do with us, here. I wonder if he thinks he is raising a generation of inter-personally more effective people or... If this is something of an experiment to him. Anyone wonder what other clinicians make of his 'yay' or 'nay' on rephrasings?
Easy enough to read between the lines in the archives...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:19:04
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:09:42
I think that is partly why Bob's efforts to get other clinicians involved in the site were largely unsuccessful. Partly why the clinicians who were involved here reduced their involvement over time. He has this idiosyncratic thing going on with respect to the technical details of what it is okay to say and what leaves you open to being blocked for up to one year. I think most clinicians really wouldn't be so very bothered to learn the idiosyncrasies of what Bob does and does not find acceptable. I mean really - what would the point be?
Bob might think that he has some special insight into inter-personal communication but really the whole area is fraught with controversy and what he requires goes well beyond 'suggestions' for improving inter-personal communications with minimizing misunderstanding and arguing and interpersonal offense.
People often do try and communicate something of their rationale for leaving when they have invested in the site over time. Bob doesn't really seem to take what people have to say about that terribly seriously. The experiment continues.
Sometimes I wonder if he is on some kind of 'self-destruct' mission for the site. To see how far he can push the idiosyncracies of what is and what is not acceptable... To see how far he can push the blocking limits... To see how far he can go... And what core group of people remains.
We surely know one thing: Those who tend to idealize tend to get blocked less. The 'good' people who invest much effort in trying to be 'good' in trying to tow a line because acceptance is dependent on that. Recapitulating something, no doubt. A selected group... Kinda interesting, really.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:26:30
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:19:04
> We surely know one thing: Those who tend to idealize tend to get blocked less. The 'good' people who invest much effort in trying to be 'good' in trying to tow a line because acceptance is dependent on that.Except sometimes he seems to think it is kinda fun to block them too. 'Just to see what will happen'? Perhaps... Will it break or will it be stronger? Curiosity... Perhaps...
I don't think it is fair that he is allowed to play with us in such a way...
'I'm not a clinician I have no responsibility for your mental health' on the one hand...
'How does that make you feel' on the other...I'm not terribly surprised that some have thought that he is indeed getting the 'best of both worlds' (or attempting to) in a way that is at least ethically questionable. I'm not terribly surprised that the 'informed' consent that we provide here is dubious with respect to how 'informed' it is and with respect to how much people really are in the position to offer 'informed' consent for what it is that he does offer us.
And then there are country boundaries, too. I suppose the management of the politics board makes most sense with respect to norms on expression in the USA. Which people from the USA 'might plausibly' feel hurt and accused, in particular. Never mind those whose ancestors were Nazi's and how those people 'might plausibly' feel. Never mind norms on political expression for people outside the USA.
It really is surprising that there hasn't been more of an inquiry as to what Bob is actually doing... But I guess the University spoke with their feet when they decided they didn't want a bar of it...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:32:26
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:26:30
One might wonder how fair it is that he presents himself as a 'psychiatrist from the University of Chicago' when he tries to absolve himself of responsibility with respect to both norms of practice for psychaitrists and norms of practice for employees of the University of Chicago by saying he simply isn't posting here as a person in either of those roles.
If he isn't bound by the code of conduct then how is he justified in claiming those affiliations for this context?
Only in America, perhaps...
I wonder if his insurance covers professional misconduct on this board or whether his 'disclaimer' sufficiently absolves him...
Posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 1:45:36
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 1:32:26
Dr. Bob doesn't enjoy blocking people, it is just something he has to do as an administrator.
He says he's sorry when he does it.
Also Dr. Bob is trying to block less now by letting people solve problems on their own.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2009, at 2:18:58
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 1:45:36
> Dr. Bob doesn't enjoy blocking people, it is just something he has to do as an administrator.
I don't think the 'has to' is forced upon him from without. His 'decision' arises from the rules that he voluntarily decided on and the way that he chooses to interpret the words of others.
> He says he's sorry when he does it.
Yes... And then he does it again, over and over. That wasn't quite what I thought 'sorry' meant...
> Also Dr. Bob is trying to block less now by letting people solve problems on their own.
Intermittently. He seems to try this intermittently, yes.
Posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:46:51
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 1:45:36
I think the whole civility thing is an experiment of sorts. Are we teachable? Would we change our manner of communication? Would we become better people? Obviously, Dr. Hsiung has concluded that it has had positive results. It is hard not to acknowledge, though, that people do show more respect for each other than before the advent of enforceable rules of civility.
All I can say is that something doesn't feel right to me right now.
An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
- Scott
Posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 5:53:10
In reply to Re: make change, posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:46:51
> An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
>
>
> - ScottPlease don't do that. I just visited a forum with no civility rules and it was awful there. Very scary.
Posted by SLS on August 9, 2009, at 5:56:42
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 5:53:10
> > An interesting experiment would be to announce a moratorium on the enforcement of the rules of civility for a few months and see what happens.
> Please don't do that. I just visited a forum with no civility rules and it was awful there. Very scary.
Okay. I vacate my suggestion.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2009, at 10:27:46
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2009, at 20:58:59
"Privacy is very important to me. I am not comfortable with Twitter because I am not comfortable with the level of exposure there. I feel frustrated because I don't feel that I've been able to communicate those concerns to you in such a way that you see them the way I do."
I mean, it's not certain that Dr. Bob doesn't understand them. At any rate, he was open to honoring people's feelings whether he understood the reasoning or not. And it's possible that he understood every word, but just didn't agree.
Although admittedly, I can't quite recall the entire conversation and may have missed the mark. My brain gets totally disorganized when my computer isn't working right.
Posted by Deneb on August 9, 2009, at 10:34:32
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dinah on August 9, 2009, at 10:27:46
Wow Dinah, you're good! You're the Queen of "I statements". :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on August 8, 2009, at 18:37:43
> How about:
>
> Privacy is important to me and I feel frustrated.
>
> Deneb> How about "I've often felt frustrated about privacy issues. Privacy is really important to me."
Those are both fine. Feeling frustrated is a statement about you more than me.
> It seems to me that if a person wanted to get the fact that they felt privacy didn't seem to be given as much priority as they wished it would here at PB - It seems to me that it might not be possible to say that in any way that would be acceptable.
But also fine would be:
"I feel privacy doesn't seem to be given as much priority as I wish it would here at PB."
or, more directly:
"I wish privacy were given more priority here at PB."
And of course Dinah's suggestion was excellent.
> The way that makes me feel reminds me of the earlier days in my marriage, when I'd try to talk with my husband about something & it just would NOT work out - I remember feeling really like a big metal door clanged down between us & I would think, "OK. Fine. I guess I just can't be heard about this. Oh well. I feel less close & I feel a sense of aloneness in this relationship, when I'd hoped to be able to share honestly about how I felt. Oh well. Whatever."
>
> Things don't feel like that now in my marriage, thank God. But I DO remember how it felt. And it didn't feel nice. I don't find it a nice feeling to not be able to be honest & open about how I feel.
>
> KathWhat's different in your marriage now, may I ask? It's nice to be able to be honest and open, but that doesn't always bring people closer.
--
> the stupid rules
Remember, the idea here is not to post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
> sometimes the best way to support a person in this kind of position is NOT to try and get them to tow some line that you don't really believe in. Rather, it is an attempt to get the ... rules changed.
>
> alexandra_kAt this time, would you feel more supported if others encouraged you to apologize or rephrase or if they attempted to get that rule changed?
Bob
Posted by Kath on August 10, 2009, at 18:06:50
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
> But also fine would be:
>
> "I feel privacy doesn't seem to be given as much priority as I wish it would here at PB."
>
> or, more directly:
>
> "I wish privacy were given more priority here at PB."YAYYYYYYYYYY - so there IS a way to say it. Good.
> > Things don't feel like that now in my marriage, thank God. But I DO remember how it felt. And it didn't feel nice. I don't find it a nice feeling to not be able to be honest & open about how I feel.
> >
>
> What's different in your marriage now, may I ask? It's nice to be able to be honest and open, but that doesn't always bring people closer.Yes, you may ask & I'm okay with answering also.
:-)
I think the main thing that's changed is that if my husband reacts defensively about something I say, I no longer allow my discomfort about his potential/perceived anger to silence me.I will maybe say something like, "I am not attacking you. What I'm saying is not meant to be a judgement about you...." & then go on to talk more about whatever it is.
I must give myself a jolly good pat on the back about this also! I actually usually get pretty teed off that he's taken it personally. But I am able to rise above my anger/frustration, to keep the conversation from just turning into nastiness. I refuse to allow that to happen.
Another example is if he responds to a comment with something like, "So you're saying that I always buy lentils that are broken!" (This actually was a phone conversation on Friday!) And I replied, "No, that's not what I'm saying at all! The lentils that we have right now have lots of broken ones in them. When you asked me if there was anything else I'd like you to bring home, I said, "If they have any green lentils that don't have broken ones in them, could you get some of them." (I sprout lentils & it's a pain to pick out the broken ones, in case anyone's wondering why the heck it matters! lol)
Kath
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 10, 2009, at 18:19:12
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Kath on August 10, 2009, at 18:06:50
> I will maybe say something like, "I am not attacking you. What I'm saying is not meant to be a judgement about you...." & then go on to talk more about whatever it is.
>
> I must give myself a jolly good pat on the back about this also! I actually usually get pretty teed off that he's taken it personally. But I am able to rise above my anger/frustration, to keep the conversation from just turning into nastiness. I refuse to allow that to happen.Thanks for replying. You deserve that pat on the back! I think it can help here, too, to focus on the issue instead of the person. At least when being negative. :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 11, 2009, at 9:51:34
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2009, at 4:33:07
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2009, at 13:34:28
> At this time, would you feel more supported if others encouraged you to apologize or rephrase or if they attempted to get that rule changed?
Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 11, 2009, at 9:51:34
>
> Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
>
>that doesn't make your policy right.
Posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 8:56:09
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
Hey Alex,
I really like you here. Please don't get blocked. Maybe you can fight for changing the rules while still following the rules? Protesters aren't very effective in jail.
Please don't get blocked. Try to rephrase or something, even if you don't believe it is right. You know I care about you. I don't want to force you to do anything of course, but I am selfish and really like seeing you here.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
In reply to Re: make change » alexandra_k, posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 8:56:09
> Try to rephrase or something, even if you don't believe it is right.
No. I can't believe one friend would ask that of another.
Bob being divisive again...
Not able to answer a straight question...
Not able to look at himself instead of turning things around onto others.
Whatever - this site is indeed his to do with what he wills.
Just don't expect many posters to stand by and watch you do what you do with your rules.
I quit.
Posted by Deneb on August 12, 2009, at 20:24:33
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
I'm sorry Alex. Ignore what I say if you don't agree. I just don't really understand why you think the way you do.
I'm sorry, I won't ever try to make you rephrase or apologize again.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:28:54
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
Bob's 'above' the rules. He thinks it is perfectly acceptable for him to judge that Muffled or Zen were being 'uncivil' in saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk. He thinks civility has to do with decency - so I guess he thought their saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk was indecent, too. He judged that the community would be 'better off' if they were blocked for a time.
If he goes around judging other people to be 'civil' or 'uncivil', 'decent' or 'indecent', to be 'positive contributors' or to be 'harmful for the community' then it seems hypocritical for him to expect that we will treat him the same way we treat others here.
I wouldn't say of someone here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid'. Bob is big enough to look after himself, however. People have told him repeatedly why they have trouble with some of what he does. Look, now, here he is trying to say what he thinks makes a good friend. What gives him authority? It isn't like there is anything like a consensus from the psychiatric community. What gives him expertise to be the authority?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
But I think it is positively harmful for him to present himself like he has some access to the true nature of friendship, civility, or decency, that escapes those who do not agree with him. Maybe he doesn't think this... But then what is it that justifies his not altering his behavior in light of what people have had to say about the harmful effects of his judgements / punishments?
What it comes down to: It is his site.
The issue is then one of false advertising.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 12, 2009, at 22:17:56
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 5:36:40
> >
> > Would you feel more supported in your alleged mission for this site if people encouraged you to apologize or change your rules, or if they attempted to get e.g., Zen or Muffled to not say 'sh*t' without an asterisk?
> >
> >
>
> that doesn't make your policy right.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...that doesn't make...].
In reading justs parts of this topic, I find many aspects of what I think is of great importance to the members of a mental health community.
The aspect of the apology that is being discussed here is one of them. You see, there could be unbeknownst to some of you the thread where this came up . If you could email me for that, then I think that you could see aspects of importance here and what could be the issue involving the apology.
The apology is to who? The board? Mr. Hsiung as head of the board? The member? something else?
Now if the apology is to the member that was the recipiant of the stament in question, then is it not up to that member to accept or not the apology on the basis of being sincere and sufficiant? If so, how could one determine if it is or is not? Would an apology make what is unacceptable any less unacceptable to allow the statement to stand as not being sanctioned?
Let us reason together. Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction? If so, is that sincere and sufficiant of the one apologizing?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
In reply to Re: make change, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2009, at 4:33:07
> Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.
you don't see people trying to get teh rules here changed???before i was talking about the stupid rules...
now i'm actually thinking that it is denseness or dumbness on your part. obviously deliberate obtuseness at any rate.
i don't think it is civil at all of you to play such pointless games with us talking things round and round and i can't tell whether it is due to denseness, dumbness, or deliberate obtuseness. i also can't tell which interpretation would be more charitable.
at this point, i really don't care. because i don't voluntarily seek out interactions that are like that. i thought you were different... i think i was delusional, or something...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 19:54:13
>
> > Maybe you'd feel supported by both. I'm sad not to be seeing either.I'm not actually looking for support when I post on the admin board. Not terribly sure what the point of the admin board is anymore, but I remember when the admin board was different in the sense that it wasn't about 'support and education' (in Bob's sense).
So I'm not looking for support. I'm not even looking for other people to post in agreement with what I'm saying about the rules. Not too much looking in the archives shows me that others have felt similarly. Not too much looking on the boards now shows me that many have reduced their input significantly or left because they didn't feel that you were approaching the issue receptively or intelligently. Because they got sick of you talking around the issue and they gave up wondering whether it was that you didn't get it or whether you couldn't get it.
Posted by Sigismund on August 14, 2009, at 22:02:59
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2009, at 20:07:25
>Could one be coached to post an apology in order to avoid a sanction?
Yes, although I know nobody who would react well to any attempt at coaching from me.
>If so, is that sincere and sufficient of the one apologizing?It's implicit in your question. Perhaps not.
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.