![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 84. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 0:05:35
In reply to Re: a crucible » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on December 18, 2013, at 20:44:58
> > Has anybody else ever felt seen as different than others, or that others wanted to control or change them?
> Someone might try to control me but they can't cause I am me and very strong willed and stubborn.
Thanks for stepping forward. Anybody else?
Bob
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 19, 2013, at 1:10:07
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 0:05:35
> > > Has anybody else ever felt seen as different than others, or that others wanted to control or change them?
> Thanks for stepping forward. Anybody else?
>
> BobVirtually all my life. Started in school, would have been labeled ADHD or some such nonsense today. Bright kid, bored in class, and willful enough to defy. Parents and teachers were constantly trying to get me to be like the other kids, i.e. compliant. I've never done compliant very well. Similar experiences in the work world as an adult, again where compliance is king, and sycophants flourish. Like cliques in school, the desire for group uniformity excludes all others who don't match.
Posted by SLS on December 19, 2013, at 4:42:52
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2013, at 19:48:47
I don't understand the metaphor of "the crucible".
> Lou could be seen as someone who is a bit different and who others feel they can't control
"Could"? Another "could"? I don't know that you can control Lou Pilder, but any attempts to do so "could" trigger an eruption of antisemitism around the world. Where does one draw the line?
I don't look to control Lou Pilder - I look to control only you. How am I doing?
> Has anybody else ever felt seen as different than others,...Yes - and not in a good way. It took me awhile to learn that each person is different from any other, whether they feel different or or not. Even identical twins diverge at some point in their evolution as human beings.
> ...or that others wanted to control or change them?
Just my parents - my mother in particular.
Being a first-born, I have a tendency to respect authority. However, I never seemed to give authority carte-blanche to act in ways that were in conflict with my belief system. I tend to go out of my way to challenge authority when I feel there is injustice, unfairness, or abuse of power. I usually like to work within the system to effect change unless I feel that the system is corrupt, tyrannical, or does not exhibit a respect for natural law.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on December 19, 2013, at 12:00:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-- Lou's Little Shoppe-, posted by alexandra_k on December 17, 2013, at 17:27:18
But as I'm sure you know historically women have received far less education-- or no education-- by the way, this still goes on in many countries--
and had far fewer opportunites to have experiences, to have access to publication, to be able to develop their ideas-- or even access to a milieu where they were involved in the production of ideas-- they have been barred acess to occupations, positions, etc
So it's hardly a mystery why they're produced far less philosophy, literature, etc than men.
Even today, the same paper, or identical resumes, presented as a man's and a women's yields far more and far better publications and job offers for the man than for the woman. So it's not that the harms are in the far distant past. And anyway, at what point do you think women started to be accepted to law schools, medical schools, the top academic institutions of the country?
Do you have a clear sense of the history here?
I dont know about Australia, but I do know about the US-- and these things happened in the very very recent past. Maybe you need to read a bit about hese things. It might change your sense of your historic situation.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 20, 2013, at 10:47:03
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by SLS on December 19, 2013, at 4:42:52
> > Has anybody else ever felt seen as different than others, or that others wanted to control or change them?
> Someone might try to control me but they can't cause I am me and very strong willed and stubborn.
>
> Phillipa> Virtually all my life. Started in school, would have been labeled ADHD or some such nonsense today. Bright kid, bored in class, and willful enough to defy. Parents and teachers were constantly trying to get me to be like the other kids, i.e. compliant. I've never done compliant very well. Similar experiences in the work world as an adult, again where compliance is king, and sycophants flourish. Like cliques in school, the desire for group uniformity excludes all others who don't match.
>
> Moishe Pipik> Yes - and not in a good way. It took me awhile to learn that each person is different from any other, whether they feel different or or not. Even identical twins diverge at some point in their evolution as human beings.
>
> Being a first-born, I have a tendency to respect authority. However, I never seemed to give authority carte-blanche to act in ways that were in conflict with my belief system. I tend to go out of my way to challenge authority when I feel there is injustice, unfairness, or abuse of power. I usually like to work within the system to effect change unless I feel that the system is corrupt, tyrannical, or does not exhibit a respect for natural law.
>
> SLSSo it seems to me at least some posters here have experienced others trying to control them, and have at least sometimes resisted.
Turning it around, has anybody here ever seen others as different than them, or wanted to control or change others?
Bob
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 20, 2013, at 13:43:45
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 20, 2013, at 10:47:03
> Turning it around, has anybody here ever seen others as different than them, or wanted to control or change others?
>
> BobWanting to control and ATTEMPTING to control are two very different things, and I think that's a very big problem in our culture, in general. Quite similar to the civility rules here, there is a (mistaken) belief that such things can be legislated successfully and without negative consequences for all. There are a gazillion things I'd LIKE to control, but I know I have no right to do that, and I'm smart enough to know that it creates more problems than it solves.
Posted by Phillipa on December 20, 2013, at 20:53:27
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 20, 2013, at 10:47:03
To me one can not control another. Exception being if you had the authority to lock a person up whether in a jail for a crime or a psych unit for Inability to care for self or might do harm to self or others. Then one might try to help the person see that changing some ways could be to the person's benefit. That for a variety of reasons also. Would depend on the variables. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2013, at 10:59:11
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 20, 2013, at 10:47:03
> Turning it around, has anybody here ever seen others as different than them, or wanted to control or change others?
yeah. i guess that is a fairly standard response to difference.
?
"The end of the road" is a great book if you can find it. i think it is mostly out of print... one of the characters is characterized as a person who doesn't have a personality of her own. she just sort of... assimilates isn't quite the word... incorporates... takes on... her husband Joe's personality. he is kind of intense... which, i guess, makes him kinda catchy.
anyhow, he likes to debate. so they debate a lot. there is a sentence or a paragraph or something that describes one of their interactions. where she is continuing to defend her position because she knows that that is what he expects / wants her to do... even though he persuaded her already that she was wrong. or perhaps she never really had her heart behind what she was saying, it was more that she was supposed to pick a different position from his and defend it as best she could.
anyway... i think he hits her at some point because he is trying to get her to stand up for herself / think for herself / be her own person. uh... just like him. ahahaha.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2013, at 11:06:45
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2013, at 10:59:11
yeah. i guess that was the problem with where i was living before. me doing my thing (or trying to) and them doing their thing (or trying to) just didn't seem to be mutually compatible.
so i tried a bit to change them, for sure. but then realized the training that would require... sometimes it seems more trouble than it is worth. so all that is to be done is to bug off.
Posted by jane d on December 21, 2013, at 16:12:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-- Lou's Little Shoppe-, posted by Willful on December 19, 2013, at 12:00:45
> But as I'm sure you know historically women have received far less education-- or no education-- by the way, this still goes on in many countries--
>
> and had far fewer opportunites to have experiences, to have access to publication, to be able to develop their ideas-- or even access to a milieu where they were involved in the production of ideas-- they have been barred acess to occupations, positions, etc
>
> So it's hardly a mystery why they're produced far less philosophy, literature, etc than men.
>
> Even today, the same paper, or identical resumes, presented as a man's and a women's yields far more and far better publications and job offers for the man than for the woman. So it's not that the harms are in the far distant past. And anyway, at what point do you think women started to be accepted to law schools, medical schools, the top academic institutions of the country?
>
> Do you have a clear sense of the history here?
>
> I dont know about Australia, but I do know about the US-- and these things happened in the very very recent past. Maybe you need to read a bit about hese things. It might change your sense of your historic situation.
>
>
I just saw this quote in the obituary of Janet Rowland who helped find basis of cancer in genetic mutations."After receiving her bachelors degree at 19, she was accepted to the universitys medical school but was told she would have to wait nine months to enroll: the school had already accepted its quota of women for the year three in a class of 65. "
That would have been at Chicago in about 1945.
That's a little before my time but not so much. It certainly shaped who was available to teach me 30 years ago. And that has in turn shaped who is available for students to be taught by and look up to even now. And things have changed tremendously for the better in the last 30 years.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2013, at 0:39:59
In reply to Women and academics » Willful, posted by jane d on December 21, 2013, at 16:12:53
> That's a little before my time but not so much. It certainly shaped who was available to teach me 30 years ago. And that has in turn shaped who is available for students to be taught by and look up to even now. And things have changed tremendously for the better in the last 30 years.
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding women and academics to Psycho-Babble Social. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20131211/msgs/1056840.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2013, at 0:41:21
In reply to Re: a crucible » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on December 20, 2013, at 20:53:27
> Wanting to control and ATTEMPTING to control are two very different things, and I think that's a very big problem in our culture, in general. Quite similar to the civility rules here, there is a (mistaken) belief that such things can be legislated successfully and without negative consequences for all. There are a gazillion things I'd LIKE to control, but I know I have no right to do that, and I'm smart enough to know that it creates more problems than it solves.
>
> Moishe Pipik> To me one can not control another. Exception being if you had the authority to lock a person up whether in a jail for a crime or a psych unit ... Then one might try to help the person see that changing some ways could be to the person's benefit. That for a variety of reasons also. Would depend on the variables.
>
> PhillipaSpeaking of the civility rules, and having authority, has anybody ever felt I saw them as different than me, or that I wanted, or attempted, to control or change them?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 23, 2013, at 0:54:14
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2013, at 0:41:21
> Speaking of the civility rules, and having authority, has anybody ever felt I saw them as different than me, or that I wanted, or attempted, to control or change them?
i guess that's why you blocked people sometimes. for saying things in ways you didn't like.
Posted by Ronnjee on December 23, 2013, at 11:06:21
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2013, at 0:41:21
> Speaking of the civility rules, and having authority, has anybody ever felt I saw them as different than me, or that I wanted, or attempted, to control or change them?
>
> BobYour enforcement of those rules often seemed to be classic negative reinforcement - that admonishments and blocks would yield a positive result of different behaviors, or cessation of the "bad" ones. I will say that I don't think you've been terribly heavy-handed about it.
BUT.....the assignation of deputies is a different thing. Much like the canary-in-a -coal-mine thing, some deputies appeared to be ultra-sensitive people whose tolerance threshold for "incivility", like the canary's low threshold for oxygen deprivation, was very low. Maybe what's good for a coal mine isn't necessarily good for the forum.
Posted by Phillipa on December 23, 2013, at 19:42:46
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 23, 2013, at 0:41:21
Honestly? I must say yes. It seems to me that it's always been okay to feel something without fear of block. But to think something was a cause for a block in some cases. But to me feelings are one thing being emotional and to think would mean using ones brain to think a thought. Why is this? Thanks clearing this up would be helpful for me. As in real life I (almost said think) but feel I've become easier for others to have me back down or an issue. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 3:11:48
In reply to Re: a crucible » Dr. Bob, posted by Phillipa on December 23, 2013, at 19:42:46
> some deputies appeared to be ultra-sensitive people whose tolerance threshold for "incivility", like the canary's low threshold for oxygen deprivation, was very low. Maybe what's good for a coal mine isn't necessarily good for the forum.
>
> RonnjeeTo be fair, back then, I had a low tolerance myself. So I may have selected "ultra-sensitive" deputies.
> It seems to me that it's always been okay to feel something without fear of block. But to think something was a cause for a block in some cases. But to me feelings are one thing being emotional and to think would mean using ones brain to think a thought. Why is this? Thanks clearing this up would be helpful for me. As in real life I (almost said think) but feel I've become easier for others to have me back down or an issue.
>
> PhillipaIt depends on what you think. If you say you think someone's stupid, they might feel put down, so I'd consider that uncivil. But if you say you think you back down easily, that's about you, not anybody else. And saying you feel angry, or whatever, is about you, too.
Does that help?
Bob
Posted by Ronnjee on December 24, 2013, at 10:10:36
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 3:11:48
> To be fair, back then, I had a low tolerance myself. So I may have selected "ultra-sensitive" deputies.
>
> Bob
OK - fair enough. Please tell us what has changed in your thinking since "back then".
Posted by Phillipa on December 24, 2013, at 19:53:53
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 3:11:48
Dr Bob somewhat as I understand it I can think about me but not what someone else says? Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on December 25, 2013, at 16:18:11
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 3:11:48
> It depends on what you think. If you say you think someone's stupid, they might feel put down, so I'd consider that uncivil. But if you say you think you back down easily, that's about you, not anybody else. And saying you feel angry, or whatever, is about you, too.
things can get tricky, though.
i guess because boundaries are porous. our feelings and beliefs and perceptions are an interface between ourself and things that lie outside ourself including other people. we have feelings about them and beliefs about them and we perceive them to be certain ways. it can be really hard to disentangle the mess of where one person starts or stops and another begins. i mean they are my feelings and beliefs and perceptions and in a sense they say more about me than they say about you. but of course my feelings and beliefs and perceptions about / of you are about / of you = they represent you.
i realise i have more trouble with this than most. but that's resulted in my being perhaps more motivated to learn about the way things are with this than most. and this has resulted in my coming to learn something about some of the aspects of this that are controversial. because people are working on this. and there are problems. and much is controversial. but of course (like anything) there are areas of broad consensus, too (like what i said in the paragraph above).
and your particular views on this (on what is civil and what is not civil - insofar as certain things are considered civil because they are about me or uncivil because they are about others) isn't consensus at all. or isn't the standard line. or anything like that. and why is it okay to be uncivil to yourself anyway? i don't get that. like you said to dinah... why care about the particular words if you can accept the intention? and why does a snort (of derision? how else is one supposed to interpret a snort)? civil when your threshold is set to capture all those other false positives...
?
or maybe i'm broken that i don't get this.
i'm sorry.
i guess things seem to be different now. but i don't really know. i don't know. maybe it is better for me not to think overly much on this.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 26, 2013, at 3:53:48
In reply to Re: a crucible » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 25, 2013, at 16:18:11
I am going to train to be an orthopedic surgeon in a top 50 university. I am. Otherwise... I'm going to do it anyways in developing nations. Which... Sounds awful. Irresponsible and all that... But people have given me the tools / resources to understand...
Point being: It's okay. Whether I get this or not. I mean... I'd rather get it. I... I like to think that I have good social skills, actually.
I mean...
Autism this and autism that...
I'd actually done pretty well in philosophy. And not that logic stuff, neither. Not the highly technical stuff. Not the Getteriology process (definition followed by counter-example followed by revised definition followed by revised counter-example followed by re-revised definition...)
I have decided: I don't regret doing what I've done. In terms of choosing my supervisor. Choosing my University. I have knowledge and understanding that I would not have got if I had have pursued alternative options. Even though alternative options would have given me pieces of paper well before now*
*IMportant caveat... I do think I could have been nurtured more. And that would have resulted in increased productivity from me. But lets compare that situation with me vs that situation with my supervisor. What he produced with the time he had (with fairly minimal supervising of me) vs what I would have achieved with more input...
Things get hard...
And I... Don't begrudge. Because I've learned a f*ck*ng lot, actually. ANd: If I wrote it up: He would read it. And... Wow. He would. And eventually approve / sign off on it. So... What am I bitching about?????
Back to the subject...
I want to go to medical school. This 'autistic spectrum' thing is license for people to write me off as a lab geek. There is a bunch of stuffs about that... About how some people should be left to write their reviews of battlestar gallactica back in the lab while the people with actual social skills get to see patients...
The thing is...
1) You can have your flight plan. You can have your just following instructions / going by the rule book 9 to 5 occupation that is consistent with your raising a family and having kids etc etc etc...
or:
2) You can have your person who is prepared to devote their life. In the sense that: Because I choose not to have kids and a partner etc etc (because in my feeling... To do so properly would involve some weird kind of 'good wife' thing that isn't on the books along with a career in early childhood education followed by primary education followed by...) So... Someone who decides to contribute back to society in this way. I mean... Raising kids isn't 9 to 5. You are on call 24/7. To do it properly... But what if you don't have the skills to do it 'properly'? Well... Surgery is... Second best? Something...
?
The Vanuatu thing is... Prospects for contributing back to society. The pieces of paper don't matter. The lack of knowledge that went behind them might... Insofar as it is actually lacking. I think I see... This is the key... This attitude.
I get that I have to go. If it means I go crazy or whatever... Build up my exposure gradually... My ability to perform... That is what is about to me.. Actually.. IN some weird way...
Remember this...
The main motivation to finish my PhD: My supervisor will actually read it and tell me what he (really!) thinks. Which will... Help my understanding immensely.
I could have finished up years ago most places else... But I'd never had th is opportunity still in front of me.
I want to do med. But if I don't get to... It's okay. I see a future direction for my life...
But still... I wish I understood better why you blocked me. Because it still hurts. And I don't.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2013, at 13:39:09
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by alexandra_k on December 26, 2013, at 3:53:48
> OK - fair enough. Please tell us what has changed in your thinking since "back then".
>
> RonnjeeIt's still evolving, but maybe one way to look at it is: Back then: shield posters (and give them a refuge for a day). Now: support them in shielding themselves and each other (and give them a refuge for a lifetime).
--
> somewhat as I understand it I can think about me but not what someone else says?
>
> PhillipaI can't, and wouldn't want to, control what you think. The idea is it can be more civil to post about yourself than about someone else.
--
> > If you say you think someone's stupid, they might feel put down, so I'd consider that uncivil. But if you say you think you back down easily, that's about you, not anybody else. And saying you feel angry, or whatever, is about you, too.
>
> things can get tricky, though.
>
> i guess because boundaries are porous. our feelings and beliefs and perceptions are an interface between ourself and things that lie outside ourself including other people. we have feelings about them and beliefs about them and we perceive them to be certain ways. it can be really hard to disentangle the mess of where one person starts or stops and another begins. i mean they are my feelings and beliefs and perceptions and in a sense they say more about me than they say about you. but of course my feelings and beliefs and perceptions about / of you are about / of you = they represent you.
>
> and your particular views on this ... isn't consensus at all. or isn't the standard line. or anything like that. and why is it okay to be uncivil to yourself anyway? i don't get that.
>
> ?
>
> i guess things seem to be different now. but i don't really know. i don't know. maybe it is better for me not to think overly much on this.> *IMportant caveat... I do think I could have been nurtured more. And that would have resulted in increased productivity from me. But lets compare that situation with me vs that situation with my supervisor. What he produced with the time he had (with fairly minimal supervising of me) vs what I would have achieved with more input...
>
> Things get hard...
>
> And I... Don't begrudge. Because I've learned a f*ck*ng lot, actually. ANd: If I wrote it up: He would read it. And... Wow. He would. And eventually approve / sign off on it. So... What am I bitching about?????
>
> But still... I wish I understood better why you blocked me. Because it still hurts. And I don't.
>
> alexandra_kBeing uncivil to others makes the community less supportive, but being uncivil to oneself doesn't.
Maybe my view on civility isn't a consensus, but I do try to explain it, and to be consistent (and at the same time open to change).
It can be hard to disentangle the other side, too. My feelings and beliefs and perceptions may say more about me than you, but they may say something about you, too, and may affect how I treat you, which may affect you.
Maybe I could've been more nurturing and not blocked you. I don't remember the details. Was my tolerance too low? I'm sorry I hurt you. I'm in this crucible, too.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2013, at 20:08:49
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2013, at 13:39:09
thanks for taking the time. and thanks for still being here. and thanks for... letting me still be here. i managed to lay off the beer... but i discovered the wine. which is probably worse, actually. anyway... my mates brought me a slow cooker. :)
Posted by Phillipa on December 27, 2013, at 20:48:22
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2013, at 13:39:09
Suppose I think someone it right or hit the nail on the head as the saying goes. That's not uncivil. Wouldn't it sound somewhat silly then to say I feel you could or might be right? Rather wishy washy to me? Phillipa
Posted by HomelyCygnet on December 31, 2013, at 10:26:26
In reply to Re: a crucible, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2013, at 13:39:09
Posted by HomelyCygnet on January 1, 2014, at 12:19:56
In reply to There, I was led into temptation, posted by Dinah on December 9, 2013, at 12:50:03
might be a better literary selection for you to consider Bob. Do you take any responsibity at all for your years of mismanagement and failed leadership ? What did you get out of manipulating these self righteous former deputies and their friends into becoming a lynch mob after Lou?
> Thanks a lot, Dr. Bob.
>
> I actually do regret that. I expect better from myself.
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.