![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on June 15, 2002, at 18:18:53
In reply to re moderation of lostboync, posted by katekite on June 15, 2002, at 17:23:17
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2002, at 23:05:49
In reply to re moderation of lostboync, posted by katekite on June 15, 2002, at 17:23:17
> On the psycho-psycho-babble section of the website lostboyNC (sp?) wrote something along the lines of the following:
> that major depression and other axis I disorders should not be considered psychological, but rather neurological, and that spending time or money on psychological treatments is a total waste.The particular statement I had a problem with was:
> > There is no relationship whatsoever between psychology and serious mental illness.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20020516/msgs/346.htmlBecause, for example, someone's psychology can have a lot to do with how they deal with their illness.
> telling someone they are over-generalizing ... questions the validity of their opinion...
>
> I do believe everyone should be allowed strong opinions. By choosing to occasionally ask people not to say particular things that aren't in themselves particularly offensive, Dr. Bob is influencing the character of what is postedStrong opinions are fine, but not everything people believe is true and exaggerating and overgeneralizing tend not to further the goals of this site, support and education. I *absolutely* want to influence the character of what's posted!
Bob
Posted by omega man on June 16, 2002, at 1:32:47
In reply to re moderation of lostboync, posted by katekite on June 15, 2002, at 17:23:17
>he may be indirectly steer people to and from opinions. Is that what is wanted?
I answered that particular post with an explanation of why he was over-generalizing which is probably more helpful..but perhaps this forum needs another employee to come on and provide a more communacitive ..communaciti...you know what I mean...
I don't think this forum would be what it is if DR bob was trying to steer opinion..
its not an opinionated reply, about overgenerilzation...overgeneraliz....general opinion.
its an intelligent observation.
Posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 5:59:25
In reply to Re: re moderation of lostboync » katekite, posted by omega man on June 16, 2002, at 1:32:47
As a writing teacher, I always tell students not to begin their opinions with "I think," "I feel," or "I believe," as everyone knows it's an opinion, and adding those qualifiers weakens an argument. That said, I'd be willing to bet you'd find overgeneralizations in about 50% of the posts.
Overgeneralizations are logical fallacies, but they're not evil. And they happen without incident all the time. Some fall for them; some don't. In this case, it really has more to do with whether one believes what the poster is saying.
If I put up a post up that said in it somewhere, "Alcohol is bad for you," would I have been called out for overgeneralizing? How about, "Milk is good for you"? Both are overgeneralizations. A glass of wine or beer a day, for example, is actually considered good for you, while milk is horribly high in fat and actually bad for a majority of our lactose-intolerant population.
I may not agree with the statement that was made, but it's what some of us know as, "a provocative opinion asserted provocatively." [from the textbook Writing Worth Reading] And it made me interested in hearing the argument.
beardy : )>
Posted by katekite on June 16, 2002, at 10:23:53
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 5:59:25
I don't disagree that Dr. Bob has to influence the character of what is posted to protect the site's goals. I meant influence in a negative and restrictive way: I didn't think he wanted to do that.
I would have liked a chance to hear LostBoyNC's opinion on why he felt psychology was unrelated to serious mental illness. He probably had some personal experience that might have been enlightening, or saw some study, might have explained how he came up with that perception.
Who are any of us to say that he is not 100% correct? Perhaps in 50 years there will be a genetic or physiological explanation for serious mental illness, quick and tidy medical solutions, and therapy will be reserved for minor mental problems.
For example, CBT works quite well for many things, but perhaps it works through enhancing firing of particular circuits and inhibiting firing of others, upregulation, down-regulation, etc. Our conditioned responses are neurological! C. elegans and Pavlov's dogs are good teachers for this concept.
Psychology in some teaching is an set of principles like id and ego, etc, constructs that have no definable neurological correlate. Psychology in other teaching is virtually anything that pertains to the brain. We could have asked which he meant. I'm guessing he meant the former, but how will we know? I think Dr. Bob guessed otherwise?
Apart from a semantic discussion of the meaning of psychology, there may be real contention over how or whether therapy can support those with mental illness.
I believe whole-heartedly that therapy makes a difference for everyone who believes it does (and I'm included in that believer-segment, luckily).
Let's suppose LostBoyNC has major depression and is maybe a bit paranoid and a bit agitated. Lets suppose he doesn't think talking helps at all because it's not neurological. Suppose he was searching the web for magic neurological cures and happened by here. Suppose he posted that psychology sucked, and I talked and I showed him some evidence that therapy changes neurophysiological measures of stress, (Like how depressed aids patients taught coping skills have much lower cortisol and thus a better disease course than those who weren't.)Suppose I found the reference to the studies that showed CBT reduced recurrence of major depression more than a course of drugs. Pretty cool findings and obviously have to be neurological in the mechanism. Maybe he'd end up being less afraid of therapy and maybe he might call someone when he feels really close to suicide vs figuring that because its biological its unchangeable through thought and action. Maybe that would be good for him. (I'm giving myself a lot of credit in advance here, LOL, and am not convinced he wouldn't have told me what I was saying was stupid).
Apart from whatever effect what we say might have on him, being supportive helps us. The founding principle of AA was a good one, that helping others helps us. It seems that principle applies to this site. That's why we're here, to exchange support and information just like the idealized exchange I described above. Which is what Dr. Bob just said before, but from which I've drawn the opposite conclusion: that lostboync shouldn't have been criticized for his over-generalization, but rather been supported and talked to.
I know Dr. Bob's intent is good and the line is always hard to find, but this clearly seems to me like a statement that was not harmful.
I wanted to hear his opinion, I don't think he would have hurt others had he simply stopped the swearing which he was not given a chance to do, and the chance to help him, and us, is perhaps lost.
I'm playing devil's advocate at this point. Obviously LostBoyNC didn't make friends in the short time he was here. But perhaps he could have benefitted or perhaps we could have, or both, had he had just a little more leeway.
And with that, I will accept Dr. Bob's judgement or lack thereof. :) I have appreciated his moderation in every instance up until now and will appreciate it hereafter.
Kate
Posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:14:25
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by katekite on June 16, 2002, at 10:23:53
"Who are any of us to say that he is not 100% correct? Perhaps in 50 years there will be a genetic or physiological explanation for serious mental illness, quick and tidy medical solutions, and therapy will be reserved for minor mental problems."
________________
>>>As long as we're human, we will need third parties to hear our story, like in AA. We will always be spiritual and emotional, analytical, etc. AA incorporates faith, psychology, confession, making amends, and hopefully all of this leads to serenity. Anyway, life will never be that simple, no way.
If what you say above were true, we would be robots.
__________________________________________________"There is no relationship whatsoever between psychology and serious mental illness"
__________________________________________________>>>That's just totally wrong. That is a huge overgeneralization.
Say you have twins separated at birth. One goes to a loving, nurturing home where he is taken care of, loved, and made always to feel important.
One somehow ends up in nightmare situation. She's ignored, beaten, sexually abused, just horrible.What pill do you give the little girl to make it not hurt anymore. (Answer) It will take pills, faith and intense therapy and dedication on her part to ever hope to pull out.
What pill do you give the caretaker?
A good therapist can save your ass when your whole world is falling apart. I know. They've done it for me.
Phil
Posted by IsoM on June 16, 2002, at 12:18:02
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations » katekite, posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:14:25
Posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:20:02
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations » katekite, posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:14:25
Lostboy can come back but if he can't control his anger driven language, I don't really see any point in listening. People don't do that in your face in person, why should they be allowed to here.
Posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 14:13:52
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations ps » Phil, posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:20:02
I don't care whether what the guy said was true or false. What I care about is issuing a PBC based on someone making overgeneralizations. We make them every day, and almost every argument has one. (See my post above.) The issue with this one is that someone didn't find them supportive. But who's going to issue a PBC to someone who says, "Fish oil is good for you," when that's clearly an overgeneralization? And those overgeneralizations are made thousands of times a week on PB.
Although this poster in question used some questionable language and seemed to be quite angry, it's hard to tell whether one of us will be blocked next time because we made an overgeneralization. This is when I (and possibly Kate) begin to worry whether some rules are arbitrary.
beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2002, at 14:32:46
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by katekite on June 16, 2002, at 10:23:53
> Suppose he posted that psychology sucked...
Now that I would've let go. Maybe what I'm trying to do is differentiate between facts and opinions?
> being supportive helps us... lostboync shouldn't have been criticized for his over-generalization, but rather been supported and talked to.
Yes, but it goes both ways. He should've been supportive of others, too, or at least not disruptive.
> I don't think he would have hurt others had he simply stopped the swearing which he was not given a chance to do
>
> KateHe *was* given a chance.
----
> As a writing teacher, I always tell students not to begin their opinions with "I think," "I feel," or "I believe," as everyone knows it's an opinion, and adding those qualifiers weakens an argument.
> I may not agree with the statement that was made, but it's what some of us know as, "a provocative opinion asserted provocatively."
To primary goal of writing here, however, should not be to argue or to provoke.
> Overgeneralizations are logical fallacies, but they're not evil. And they happen without incident all the time. Some fall for them; some don't.
I don't think I said they were evil. But if some "fall" for them, isn't that an issue?
> If I put up a post up that said in it somewhere, "Alcohol is bad for you," would I have been called out for overgeneralizing?
>
> beardy : )>I guess to be consistent you would need to be...
Bob
Posted by wendy b. on June 16, 2002, at 14:56:18
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations » katekite, posted by Phil on June 16, 2002, at 12:14:25
> "Who are any of us to say that he is not 100% correct? Perhaps in 50 years there will be a genetic or physiological explanation for serious mental illness, quick and tidy medical solutions, and therapy will be reserved for minor mental problems."
> ________________
> >>>As long as we're human, we will need third parties to hear our story, like in AA. We will always be spiritual and emotional, analytical, etc. AA incorporates faith, psychology, confession, making amends, and hopefully all of this leads to serenity. Anyway, life will never be that simple, no way.
> If what you say above were true, we would be robots.
> __________________________________________________
>
> "There is no relationship whatsoever between psychology and serious mental illness"
> __________________________________________________
>
> >>>That's just totally wrong. That is a huge overgeneralization.
> Say you have twins separated at birth. One goes to a loving, nurturing home where he is taken care of, loved, and made always to feel important.
> One somehow ends up in nightmare situation. She's ignored, beaten, sexually abused, just horrible.
>
> What pill do you give the little girl to make it not hurt anymore. (Answer) It will take pills, faith and intense therapy and dedication on her part to ever hope to pull out.
>
> What pill do you give the caretaker?
>
>
>
> A good therapist can save your ass when your whole world is falling apart. I know. They've done it for me.
>
> PhilDear everyone,
I don't know whether this is a discussion of whether therapy is important to recovery or not, or whether neurologically-based thinking about our disorders is a better way to go. But, that's not a discussion for here (Admin), anyway.
I feel, as Phil does, that the statements LostBoy made on 2 of the boards were based on anger and the emotions he had involving getting assessed for his disability by someone who was less than understanding about his condition. That's not exactly a good place to come from when voicing an opinion that's supposed to be helping other people, and supporting the aims of education on this site.
So that's why I agree (apparently in the minority here, but I can cope with that!) with Dr Bob's PBCs to LostBoy. He was giving early warning to someone who could have become, given the opportunity, as UNCIVIL as some of the worst offenders in PsychoBabble's Hall of Fame. [Take your pick on who THOSE might be.] But I think Bob was right to let him know he was entering dangerous territory.
Also, check this out:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20020516/msgs/352.html
a post in which LostBoy opines that psychiatry is "mired down in subjective BS" and posts a reference to a book on Amazon that attempts to trash Freud's credibility. There are a dozen such books, BTW, most of them have some emotional gripe, and no science. In another "strong opinion" (??), LostBoy says that many of the severely mentally ill "were made worse by applying Freudian psychology BS to them. This is an abomination." Well, I'm sorry guys, but this is offensive to me and to my sensibilities, and if LostBoy hasn't been blocked by now, I feel he should be.
Strong opinion is one thing, but calling an established field of academic study (and a practice that has, to many people, much validity), BS (bullshit) twice offends me. I feel that, for me, and for many of the people I know, talk-therapy has intrinsic value and efficacy. So don't trash it, ok? It just ain't polite.
Freud developed the technique of listening to patients talk about their lives, their neuroses, their physical symptoms, their dreams, etc. Why this is so threatening to people, I'll never know. It's always people who have never read a word of Freud who throw his ideas in the "dustbin of history," with no real critique based on a careful reading and a knowledge of the work...
Hope I'm not ranting here, I took a long time writing this so that it would not offend anyone...
All the best to all you civil people, and a shake of the index finger at the uncivil,
Wendy
PS: Freudian psychology - what is that? Freud is associated with the field of psychiatry, as far as I know, and was as much a biologist as a psychoanalyst, having done his first real research in medical school in zoology, examining the gonads of eels at a marine biology station in Trieste. Betcha didn't know that!
Posted by katekite on June 16, 2002, at 15:45:59
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2002, at 14:32:46
> Now that I would've let go. Maybe what I'm trying to do is differentiate between facts and opinions?----------
> I guess to be consistent you would need to be...
>
> Bob-------
This statement I like as it evidences an awareness of being inconsistent. This is all that I was trying to point out, and this is what bothers me and beardedlady. Obviously no one can be 100% consistent but I appreciate now that you are aware of it.
I think my original posting may have been misleading to some of those who have responded and I apologize if I was unclear: I am a proponent of therapy and did not mean to suggest that it isn't very helpful.
Thanks, Dr. Bob, for discussing this issue.
kate
Posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 16:30:43
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations- have to weigh in, sorry, posted by wendy b. on June 16, 2002, at 14:56:18
Wendy:
I knew you'd be especially upset about his Freud comments. But I wonder how offended you would have been had he been speaking of someone else, just as I wonder why no one on the med board has received a PBC for overgeneralizing in the past.
I could have found many reasons to issue a PBC to lostboync. My problem is that it was issued because he was overgeneralizing. That's not against the rules, and it's something every single person on this board does. Usually, it's not something so controversial as this, and it goes unnoticed.
The PBC should have been issued on other grounds. Letting him know he is in dangerous territory is one thing. Not allowing overgeneralizing is quite another dangerous territory.
And rather than your information about Freud being on the PBA board, I was hoping you would slam lostboync immediately under his post. I have been waiting and waiting!
your pal, beardy
Posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 16:37:12
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by katekite on June 16, 2002, at 15:45:59
Although katekite and I argued for consistency here, I don't think this is where either of us wanted it to go. I was hoping that PBCs could be issued on the grounds that were full of hate and venom toward those of us who don't agree! I was hoping that an uncivil tone would be enough.
I want to be able to say, "Relax! Have a beer!" without being told I was overgeneralizing, since many people can't drink beer with their meds. I want to be able to say, "Broccoli is sooooo good for you," without worrying that someone will cite me for overgeneralizing, since folks on antiflatulence diets, low-fiber diets, or sucrose-free diets can't have broccoli.
havin' a beer-dy
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2002, at 17:08:05
In reply to last word on overgen., I hope (and so do you!) » katekite, posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 16:37:12
> I wonder why no one on the med board has received a PBC for overgeneralizing in the past.
>
> I could have found many reasons to issue a PBC to lostboync. My problem is that it was issued because he was overgeneralizing. That's not against the rulesIt's in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
It hasn't been there from the very beginning, but this did come up before, and it's been there for a while now.
> I was hoping you would slam lostboync immediately under his post.
Please don't suggest that anyone harm anyone else, thanks.
> I want to be able to say, "Relax! Have a beer!"
You can do that, that's not overgeneralizing.
> I want to be able to say, "Broccoli is sooooo good for you,"
Hmm, if you're posting that to a particular person, maybe that shouldn't count as overgeneralizing, either -- and maybe I should take back what I said before about alcohol and milk... There's that other "rule" about not jumping to conclusions, but that has a different intent...
I guess even "broccoli is good for people" would be OK. Maybe that's generalizing, but not overgeneralizing? But "broccoli is good for everyone no matter what" would be overgeneralizing.
How's that? Better?
Bob
Posted by omega man on June 16, 2002, at 17:11:22
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations- have to weigh in, sorry, posted by wendy b. on June 16, 2002, at 14:56:18
Posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 17:30:14
In reply to Re: overgeneralizations, posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2002, at 17:08:05
> > I was hoping you would slam lostboync immediately under his post.
>
> Please don't suggest that anyone harm anyone else, thanks.You can't be serious, Dr. Bob. Is that REALLY what you think I did--suggest someone harm another? Rather than tell her I wished to see her post an intensely persuasive, extraordinarily intelligent, Wendy-style response?
My goodness. That beer I'm drinkin'? Maybe you should have it.
beardy : )>
Posted by mist on June 16, 2002, at 18:51:25
In reply to Re: beer » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 17:30:14
or so the theory goes (especially uncooked)
Not that this is a thread about broccoli...
Posted by Krazy Kat on June 16, 2002, at 18:54:30
In reply to Re: beer » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 17:30:14
Posted by ctrlalt n del on June 16, 2002, at 19:27:19
In reply to wow, this is what i'm missin'... ;) (nm), posted by Krazy Kat on June 16, 2002, at 18:54:30
Posted by ctrlalt n del on June 16, 2002, at 19:32:58
In reply to Re: freud overgeneralized too.. (nm) » wendy b., posted by omega man on June 16, 2002, at 17:11:22
Posted by ctrlalt n del on June 16, 2002, at 19:34:39
In reply to .freud ate his greens with a scalpel in high heels (nm), posted by ctrlalt n del on June 16, 2002, at 19:32:58
Posted by IsoM on June 16, 2002, at 20:37:27
In reply to ...groceries eh Bob ; ) (nm), posted by ctrlalt n del on June 16, 2002, at 19:27:19
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 16, 2002, at 22:21:39
In reply to Re: beer » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on June 16, 2002, at 17:30:14
> > > I was hoping you would slam lostboync immediately under his post.
> >
> > Please don't suggest that anyone harm anyone else, thanks.
>
> You can't be serious, Dr. Bob. Is that REALLY what you think I did--suggest someone harm another? Rather than tell her I wished to see her post an intensely persuasive, extraordinarily intelligent, Wendy-style response?Well, maybe "harm" was too strong. But it wasn't supportive. Thanks for restating it.
Bob
Posted by Leighwit on June 17, 2002, at 15:42:37
In reply to re moderation of lostboync, posted by katekite on June 15, 2002, at 17:23:17
I value the moderated, civil tone of Psychobabble and the efforts of Dr. Bob to maintain clear and consistent standards. In my opinion, the reliable *atmosphere* of Babble is one of its core competencies.
Laurie
This is the end of the 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.