Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 5602

Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 34. Go back in thread:

 

Re: stymied

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 2:22:39

In reply to Babes in PsychoBabbleLand? DrBob, Please read..., posted by kid_A on June 12, 2002, at 16:35:52

> By and large I would say that the primary body of users here that I have come in contact with are polite and civil individuals. Despite our imbalances, I think we live up to the notion of a mostly civil online society.

I totally agree, you guys are great. Seriously. :-)

> I do think it possible, within the bounds of reason to determine if a poster is adding either more signal or perhaps noise to the environment

Possible how? Interesting question...

> Unfortunately ... I think that some people are feeling alienated and helpless in their ability to not only speak their minds, but to preserve what for them has previously been a welcoming environment unhindered by social upheaval.
>
> Letting users run rampant regardless of their effect (outside the bounds of what could be considered uncivil behaviour) on others while at the same time stymieing those users who have over a period of time both contributed positively to the board and come to rely on it for support only serves to alienate many users for the sake of one or two.
>
> Whats left is a homogenized and watered down mode of conversation ... where we are ill advised to speak our mind lest we be banished for some period of time. We all become dictated by fake and constrained responses even when threatened or perhaps challenged.
>
> I do think at times punishment can be unfairly meted out where perhaps some compassion would have served the community better, especially in instances where those who have so well contributed previously have been isolated from their peers for their perhaps minor violations of civility.

It sounds like you're saying the wrong people are stymied? People who should be able to speak their minds are helpless, and those who shouldn't are running rampant?

IMO, a civil environment is a welcoming environment. And to keep it civil, restraint is necessary -- *especially* when threatened or challenged. It can be frustrating, but it's for the good of the community as a whole. You may think it's bland, but spicy food isn't for everyone, either.

As far as being fair, I'm trying...

Bob

 

Re: stymied » Dr. Bob

Posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 2:50:10

In reply to Re: stymied, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 2:22:39

Dr. Bob, kid_A wrote:
"I do think it possible, within the bounds of reason to determine if a poster is adding either more signal or perhaps noise to the environment."

And you answered with:
"Possible how? Interesting question..."

Strictly out of curiousity (no criticism whatsoever), can you 'read' people? And if you can do so, do you trust your judgements most times? How much can you trust your intuition? As a practicing psychiatrist, I don't doubt you can't operate by intuition much, but the rest of us, as ordinary posters, can & do. I'm always willing to change or expand my previously held views, but I'm rarely wrong.

Without mentioning names, I've noticed that the boards are quieter & perhaps, more productive lately when certain posters aren't posting. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Seems to happen every time, but I've only been a part of these boards since early December.

 

Re: stymied » IsoM

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 7:46:12

In reply to Re: stymied » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 2:50:10

If you trust your intuition, IsoM, I hope you can "read" my feelings and thoughts as I write this. Feelings and thoughts that are only partially caused by the fact that I am aware that the boards are quieter when I'm not around, and so that I am one of the posters to whom you refer.

I am so painfully confused, and I really don't understand what you mean, what so many people seem to mean. Is a person's worthiness to contribute to a community judged by whether or not they make waves, whether or not things go smoother when they are absent? I can think of so many people whom the world would not have been blessed with if that were true. When someone cares passionately about something, when someone doesn't hold the majority view, they tend to disturb.

I am always drawn back here because I so admire Dr. Bob and the "values" he upholds here in this community. I so admire the fact that his blockings are done based on a poster's willingness to abide by a simple (to me, very simple and clear) and minimal set of rules he has established. I so admire that he doesn't base his decisions on how much he or anyone else "likes" a poster, or what his intuition tells him about a poster, or what he or the majority of posters feel of the "target" (I can't think of a better word offhand) of the incivility. That to me is a virtue, but to so many it seems a fault, and I get so confused and so frustrated that I can't seem to wrap my brain around the idea. It doesn't occur to me for one moment that Dr. Bob picks on the person he is blocking; on the contrary, I sense a great deal of liking on his part for some of those he blocks, and a fair amount of frustration towards the choices that force him to block someone. (Forgive me if I'm wrong here, Dr. Bob. I'm just struggling to make sense of it all.)

Please don't think I have any particular reason for addressing this question to you, other than that you have a clear and logical way of expressing yourself and I feel like I should understand better. And also don't feel that you need to reply. I completely understand (because I do take responsibility for my actions) if you would rather not.

I just feel so.... separate..... different.... sometimes, based on my inability to understand some things that others seem to understand so naturally.

 

Re: stymied » Dinah

Posted by beardedlady on June 14, 2002, at 10:28:50

In reply to Re: stymied » IsoM, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 7:46:12

Dinah:

> If you trust your intuition, IsoM, I hope you can "read" my feelings and thoughts as I write this. Feelings and thoughts that are only partially caused by the fact that I am aware that the boards are quieter when I'm not around, and so that I am one of the posters to whom you refer.

When I read Iso's post, I couldn't figure out where it had anything to do with you. Who's missing from the board these days? I haven't seen much by Phil, Krazy Kat, Kiddo, Kid-A, Kazoo, etc. Trouble's not blocked anymore, but she's absent, and I don't think Ron Hill is blocked, but he's gone. My other pal Colin is a no-show, too (unless his block isn't over). Lou is still blocked, Adamie's still blocked, and my bud Zo is blocked again. (I'm sure there are others; if I missed one or two, I hope they will forgive me!)

So why is it about you?

> I am so painfully confused, and I really don't understand what you mean, what so many people seem to mean. Is a person's worthiness to contribute to a community judged by whether or not they make waves, whether or not things go smoother when they are absent? I can think of so many people whom the world would not have been blessed with if that were true. When someone cares passionately about something, when someone doesn't hold the majority view, they tend to disturb.

Let's say you're at a rock concert, and everyone's enjoying the music. Suddenly, a group of six or seven protesters stand up and heckle the performers, banging trashcan lids and singing different songs, ruining it for everyone. Should they be allowed to stay, just because their view is important? Or maybe they should be asked to leave until they can find a better, less harmful, less annoying way to express their views. It's not about holding different views or making waves. It's about the way those things are done. I hope this makes it less confusing.

> Please don't think I have any particular reason for addressing this question to you, other than that you have a clear and logical way of expressing yourself and I feel like I should understand better. And also don't feel that you need to reply. I completely understand (because I do take responsibility for my actions) if you would rather not.

I read both posts. I didn't think Iso was talking about you, but I do think you were addressing your post to her because you thought she was referring to you. I can't fathom why. She is one of the most cordial and civil posters on the board.

And I also can't figure out how Iso's post led to yours on PSB. How does it get there that quickly? And why does it go there at all?

beardy

 

interesting assumptions

Posted by Krazy Kat on June 14, 2002, at 11:16:19

In reply to Re: stymied » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on June 14, 2002, at 10:28:50

I think these responses are good examples of how one 'assumes' things. I can certainly assume I am one of the people being referred to by Dr. B. - actually, I'd like to know if that's the case. It would be interesting to think that a community was more productive, better off, or whatever Dr. B. said, without me. Hmmm. I guess it Would hurt my feelings some, but it wouldn't really matter, as I have accepted what PSB is and isn't, and I think I have a much firmer grip on reality at the moment. :)

I'm choosing not to post here for a few reasons, pretty similar to those I have mentioned before. And I do agree with Kid A - and if Dr. B. wants PSB to be bland and white bread (or is that "bred"), then it is certainly not a place for me. Which is interesting, because for about a year and a half, it was.

Take care.

- kk

 

Re: interesting assumptions » Krazy Kat

Posted by beardedlady on June 14, 2002, at 11:28:43

In reply to interesting assumptions, posted by Krazy Kat on June 14, 2002, at 11:16:19

> I can certainly assume I am one of the people being referred to by Dr. B. - actually, I'd like to know if that's the case. It would be interesting to think that a community was more productive, better off, or whatever Dr. B. said, without me.

Did Dr. Bob actually say this--about anyone? I didn't see him refer to anyone, nor can I even imagine he would ever say this community was better without certain posters. Did you confuse his post with someone else's?

beardy

 

Re: stymied » beardedlady

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:29:26

In reply to Re: stymied » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on June 14, 2002, at 10:28:50

Actually beardy no. i didn't assume it was about me. i knew it want'. but i thought becaust i knew it wasnt it was ok to ask. but i did think it could apply to me. not that it did.

i knwo isom is civil. that's why i gave her an out. because it wasnt' directed towards her. and i knew it wasnt drirected towards me though i knw at times it could be.

it really wasn't althoogh perhaps yuo don't believe that.

thats okay. but it i've just been reading posts about this and not udnerstanding adn tried to ask to understand and chose isom because i like her so it woudnt be misconstrued. withi is my own odd attemot at civiltiy although i know it doenst come across as cirvil. i dont' know how to coe accross as civil., my own ideas of civil apparently dont fall in witht the norm and i;m sorry.

sorrry ot isom too.

 

Re: posted on psb

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:42:13

In reply to Re: stymied » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:29:26

because i needed support and that's the right board.

sometimes i have trouble with self hatred. started last night. not so fast to post.

only tangentailly relatedto this theread.

 

Sorry IsoM. (nm)

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:58:23

In reply to Re: posted on psb, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:42:13

 

NOT meant to target anybody.... » Dinah

Posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 12:40:19

In reply to Sorry IsoM. (nm), posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 11:58:23

No, no, Dinah - my question was directed entirely to Dr. Bob & that's all I was curious about - intuition. You see I wondered if psychiatrists (though not all, of course) operate on their intuition along with their formal training. It wasn't meant as criticism of Dr. Bob's methods - the question was meant to be taken at face value & nothing more. I figured if I asked a psychiatrist (rather than any patients), I'd get an honest answer to a direct question.

Dear Dinah, I do understand you & I think I read you very well. No, sweetie, you're not one of those 'disruptive' posters. AND I'm not at all insulted or hurt if you possibly thought I was referring to you. In fact, I wasn't referring to any one really. All I meant was that some people have difficulty 'reading' others whether face-to-face or through written communication.

I've always excelled at English courses but when I took a course in business-related communication, I was surprised but how easily messages can be misconstrued through the written media in the work environment & we were taught how to deal with it. I believe the same is true with this board with so many posters coming from such varied backgrounds & never getting a chance to meet each other face-to-face like one can at work.

So, sweetie, my previous post wasn't meant for ANY ONE, & certainly not you or dear krazy kat. It was meant simply as a observation that certain posters have unfortunately clashed in the past by misinterpreting one another & then it's escalated from there. Without the conflict happening, the boards seem more productive.

And Dinah, don't apologise - it's not needed by me. Remember, I have a son who can't help that he misinterprets things at times & I thoroughly do understand how difficult it is for some not to be able to read others. While I bemoan my horrible time-management/organisational concepts, I'm so grateful my ability to read people excells. We're all 'blind' in some area or another, but excell in others.

 

Re: Possible how? ...some thoughts... » Dr. Bob

Posted by kid_A on June 14, 2002, at 12:46:55

In reply to Re: stymied, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 2:22:39


> Possible how? Interesting question...

DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria of contributive posting... (bear with me...)

01. what are the poster's motivations for being a part of this community?

02. when answering posts, does the poster apply individual attention to what is being said, or do they answer the post the same way regardless of what is said

03. relating to 01, if the poster is soley intent on support, is the advice given healthy to others in the opinion of those seeking help? Are there references or commonalities that can be understood without the necesity of such things as faith?

04. what is the poster's history with the board? Have they made attempts at sensible conversation, either asking for advice, or giving it? Have people found their advice helpfull?

05. when posting what might be considered an uncivl message, is this incvility intentional or is it perhaps an error in judgement? If you've ever seen an honest to god flame-war, you'll understand what I mean.

06. does the poster respect the rules of the board to the utmost of their abilities?

07. does the poster respect the opinions of others, and is the poster willing to calmly discuss their own opinions, if questioned?

08. what does the poster think about me? Haha... yuk yuk... just kidding...

09. has the posters comments on the board resulted in the consternation of more than one of the other members of the board, at the same time or over a period of time?

10. is the poster willing to listen, or are they just a one way transmiter? do they answer questions with questions? are their messages lucid, are their answers lucid?

...blah, just some things I think could be applied... Im not in favour of kicking anyone off the board. If you kick one person off, whats to say that another person might be next. I dont think anyone wants that looming over their shoulder...

We are all, by and large adults here, and hopefully we can conduct ourselves in ways that don't add distress to anyone's life. It's hard enough dealing with depression when you feel threatend or excluded. I think the theology board was a good step in the right direction... I certainly hope that everyone here has a chance to contribute meaningfully and perhaps gain some sort of solace from others. I think that is the true function of this board, support, and being supported.

 

Re: Thank you so much... » IsoM

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 12:50:19

In reply to NOT meant to target anybody.... » Dinah, posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 12:40:19

Thank you so much for understanding IsoM. I think my thinking is skewed right now because of the self hating mode I'm in.

I didn't think you were referring to me. I really didn't. But I did think it was likely that you wouldn't want to respond and I wanted to let you know that was okay. But perhaps that was the self hatred thinking.

My therapist is always amazed at the ways I attempt to be polite, and I fear the circuitous way I express myself would fall under that. When reading over my post after seeing it from another perspective, I was appalled.

Thanks again for understanding.

 

Not a problme at all... :-) » Dinah

Posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 13:01:58

In reply to Re: Thank you so much... » IsoM, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 12:50:19

We can make smily faces but too bad there's no hearts to make....

 

Re: oh, i finally understand what i said

Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 13:09:06

In reply to Re: stymied » IsoM, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 7:46:12

>I am aware that the boards are quieter when I'm not around, and so that I am one of the posters to whom you refer.

It was that sentence. I couldn't completely figure out what was going on and I was feeling so stupid and confused.

I didn't mean that IsoM was referring to me or me as a part of a group. I merely meant that I objectively recognized myself as someone without whom the board would be quieter sometimes.

Well, now I feel stupid but in a less confused way. That was very poorly worded on my part. It was meant to be self-deprecating, not an accusation that IsoM was saying anything about me.

Don't mean to belabor the point. I just couldn't figure out what was going on, and it was an epiphany to me to finally figure it out. And I must have gone over that post ten times in an ocd way and totally missed it.

That's why I really like chat. Those lapses in sense on my part can be caught at once.

A less confused, but still chastened....
Dinah

 

Missing what one's done... » Dinah

Posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 13:28:23

In reply to Re: oh, i finally understand what i said, posted by Dinah on June 14, 2002, at 13:09:06

Isn't it weird the way we can totally miss something even though we're staring at it? I do that a lot too.

I remember one math exam I was doing & when I checked it over, couldn't find any mistakes I might've made. But when the exam came back, in a long equation, I'd written (as part of the equation) 13x - 7x = 12x. How the heck couldn't I see that?

Or I might misread a word & a sentence won't make sense. So I go back to check & no matter how often I reread it, I'll continue misreading that same word.

My brain seems to be stuck on that certain neural pathway & I need a break of an hour or so (sometimes a day) before I can reread or recheck it with a fresh perspective & see my error.

 

Re: Possible how?

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 23:15:24

In reply to Re: Possible how? ...some thoughts... » Dr. Bob, posted by kid_A on June 14, 2002, at 12:46:55

> 04. ... Have people found their advice helpfull?

This to me seems to be the big one. But you said:

> > > I do think it possible, within the bounds of reason to determine if a poster is adding either more signal or perhaps noise to the environment

How would you determine that?

Bob

 

Re: intuition

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 23:25:07

In reply to Re: stymied » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on June 14, 2002, at 2:50:10

> Strictly out of curiousity (no criticism whatsoever), can you 'read' people? And if you can do so, do you trust your judgements most times? How much can you trust your intuition? As a practicing psychiatrist, I don't doubt you can't operate by intuition much, but the rest of us, as ordinary posters, can & do.

I think intuition is important. But not infallible. But I am a practicing psychiatrist. But there's no manual (at least, not that I'm aware of) on *this* kind of practice...

Bob

 

Re: Possible how? » Dr. Bob

Posted by kid_A on June 15, 2002, at 1:38:19

In reply to Re: Possible how?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 23:15:24

> > > > I do think it possible, within the bounds of reason to determine if a poster is adding either more signal or perhaps noise to the environment
>
> How would you determine that?

I think you have to look at a long range view of the interactions between posters. You have to look at the responses to posts over time and see if they more often veer towards gratitude, apathy, or annoyance...

I don't suppose it is predetermined by what is being said by the poster, but rather the reaction to it... If more people react in hostility than not, then we can say that a poster is doing more harm than good...

perhaps subjective... i don't know... its not a meter i would imagine should be applied to this board, but i offer it up as conjecture...

 

subjectivity » kid_A

Posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 6:07:15

In reply to Re: Possible how? » Dr. Bob, posted by kid_A on June 15, 2002, at 1:38:19

Don't apologize for its being subjective. In order for Dr. Bob to block someone from posting, he has to assume the intent of the poster was negative. Everything about this board is subjective.

beardy

 

Re: intent

Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2002, at 10:22:07

In reply to subjectivity » kid_A, posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 6:07:15

> In order for Dr. Bob to block someone from posting, he has to assume the intent of the poster was negative.

That's not actually true. For example, "tough love" might be well-meaning, but just too tough...

Bob

 

oh, i don't know...it doesn't really matter :) (nm) » beardedlady

Posted by Krazy Kat on June 15, 2002, at 10:51:35

In reply to Re: interesting assumptions » Krazy Kat, posted by beardedlady on June 14, 2002, at 11:28:43

 

Re: subjectivity » beardedlady

Posted by Krazy Kat on June 15, 2002, at 10:55:39

In reply to subjectivity » kid_A, posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 6:07:15

this is where is gets particularly difficult i think. Dr. Bob assumes negativity, we should assume positivity (is that a word?) from the poster. Room for a lot of error there...

 

Re: intuition » Dr. Bob

Posted by IsoM on June 15, 2002, at 14:27:27

In reply to Re: intuition, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2002, at 23:25:07

So my question still stands - do you use your intuition when talking with patients, even if it's fallible? Especially when it 'shouts' out to you? Like I said, it's not criticism but sheer curiousity on how a psychiatrist might operate.

 

Re: intuition--the sixth sense » IsoM

Posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 14:46:42

In reply to Re: intuition » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on June 15, 2002, at 14:27:27

How can we not use intuition--in psychiatry or graphic design or everyday life? It's our sixth sense. It's like seeing, touching, tasting. We do these things without having to think about them! Intuition turns us around when an unsavory-looking character is coming our way. Intuition tells us to drive a different direction to the bank today. It's the link between logic and emotion, between common sense and feeling.

I have heard, however, that intution in men is underdeveloped, so this may all be moot.

beardy

 

I knew you were going to say that, Beardy. (nm)

Posted by Phil on June 15, 2002, at 17:39:37

In reply to Re: intuition--the sixth sense » IsoM, posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 14:46:42


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.