![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:47:28
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:36:03
> But Alexandra, can't a website hosted by a physician who has published about the therapeutic potentials of the internet have a real time dynamic like a chat room or a group therapy session? Isn't there a place for spontaneity, emotion and flow in discourse here?
So long as people don't post anything that could lead to others feeling accused or put down, sure. The trouble is that I, for one do not take so much trouble to be civil in my 'real world' or 'real time' interactions. In posting here I get the chance to really think about what I am saying and the effects that that may have on a reader before I hit the 'submit' key. What takes a lot of working out now may become automatic and occur in real time interactions eventually. It is harder, though. It is a skill that must be worked on and developed.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:05:10
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:47:28
did you forget that he hurt my feelings? i guess so.
Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 20:36:03
i think we are forgetting that we are have real true emotions and we get hurt and mad. i did read through my post a million times. once again, we all take things out of context no matter how careful people are with there posts. its pretty wierd that we have yet to hear from bob, it took him no time to jot down his message to me, but i am suppossed to read caredfully through my posts. pleeeeeeeeeease, are the rules not for him to?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2004, at 5:40:05
In reply to Re: one last thing..dr bob-alex, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 22:05:10
> i feel like you are a mean teacher
> they are just scared to agree> did you forget that he hurt my feelings? i guess so.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
In reply to Re: please be civil » newwife, posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2004, at 5:40:05
Jesus, Bobby, you are really something. I feel angry that you appear to believe you are above the very rules that you set for everyone else. Specifically, the ubiquitous PBC line you toss out: "Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down." I feel, like so many others who posted, that your response to newwife contained uncalled-for and unjustifiable elements of sarcasm and mean-spiritedness. In any case, she unambiguously told you that she felt "hurt and put down" by the remark. No guesswork or interpretation required on your part to see that under the PBC rules, you earned yourself a PBC. The number of posts you let go by before actually responding to her about your "asking them to leave" remark was also very noticeable. You left her hanging in the wind for a long time. Then there's the notion you introduce about making the guests feel unwelcome by saying they can always go elsewhere. I feel this is a cheap shot and a non-sequitor. It does seem very clear from her posts that YOU made her feel unwelcome. Give it up, Bobby -- cut out the bullsh**. I'd like to see you just admit you stepped over the line in your response. Admitting to a mistake won't kill you. After all, you did once (and only once) on PB before, way back in 2002. And you're still breathing. I feel frustrated -- like so many others -- that what you've perfected on Psycho-Babble is the art of creating the illusion that you're responding without actually providing a substantial response at all. I perceive you as a master of rhetorical misdirection. Online psych forums may have a future, but to be honest, I don't feel you're the ideal person to be refereeing a site such as this. I just perceive far too many of your judgments as being off target and your responses dismissive. Maybe it's time to pass the baton on PB. Atticus
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
Ever see the Caine Mutiny or read the book? I better double q it: "The Caine Mutiny". When I saw the movie as a kid I just thought the Captain was deranged and completely wrong but in later viewings, I realized the crew was also to blame. They turned an eccentric captain into a madman. The captain (Bogart) makes an issue over a quart of missing strawberries but the crew, in turn, made it an even bigger issue and things escalated from there. Perhaps that's the point (or one of the points) of the book.
verne
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:01:14
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate with this reference, Verne, is it that Newwife, Attica, and the rest of us ought not act muntinously or we may drive Bob mad? Was it Captain Queeg's rigidity and inability to empathize with his crew that caused his demise? I can't remember the movie well but perhaps this quote from the movie says something about his downfall: "...there are four ways of doing things on board my ship. The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way. (If) They do things my way, we'll get along...(Queeg)?"
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:01:14
The reason I mentioned the book is that it probes the nature of mutiny. I'm not suggesting Dr. Bob will be driven mad, join the navy, suddenly misplace a quart of strawberries, or anything in particular.
I am suggesting that like the captain, Dr. Bob is the authority, and we the posters, the "crew". And that like a navy ship, the HMS Babble has rules.
verne
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:36:05
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » Toph, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
OK, I was just reacting to the ascribing blame part of your original post. I've been spendiing entirely too much time here, and I don't have my sea legs yet. -Toph
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 15:51:36
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 11:57:30
I guess my response would be that despite his extensive training and experience, certain character traits made the captain of the Caine unsuitable for his position of leadership, and this capriciousness (or even the perception of it among his subordinates) turned his crew against him. His unresponsiveness to the situation didn't help. Perhaps, in this instance, one might infer that an advanced psychiatric degree does not necessarily translate into management and administrative skills. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:17:30
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » Toph, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 15:28:21
There is one very crucial difference. The crew on the Caine were Queeg's subordinates, and bound by military law to obey his every command -- no matter how absurd. I don't recall signing a loyalty oath when I registered on PB. Atticus
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 16:17:45
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
once again, good point, i agree with you AGAIN!
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
Atticus,
When I use the navy analogy I don't mean to suggest that psychobabble has a military-like loyalty oath. But there are similarities such as agreeing to the terms of service or civility guidelines. There is an authority and a set of rules.
The captain was eccentric, capricious, and perhaps a poor leader, but if the crew had accepted him with his quirks, the ship would have made its destination.
Once the crew rebelled, questioned authority, and mutinied, the captain's weaknesses were magnified. The mutiniers thought the captain, who probably could have got them where they were going - maybe with a few detours, like looking for strawberries - was unfit, and in doing so, helped make him unfit.
The crew undercut him and precipitated the fall. The crew became his undoing and made the ship's mission impossible. If the crew had met him half way (given him the benefit of the doubt) a mutiny could have been avoided.
verne
Posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
In reply to Re: Infallibility » verne, posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:36:05
You seem to be getting your sea legs. By this, and before anyone comes down on me, I mean you are catching on to the 'mysterious ways of babble.'
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 17:47:42
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 18:00:49
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Thanks Mel, though it seems like Admin has been in the "Perfect Storm" lately.
It does take some courage to begin posting here.
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
Let me be sure I understand your argument. The crew was to blame for Captain Queeg's incredibly poor judgment and stewardship of the vessel he commanded, and if it had just let him go on his merry demented way, all would have been well? So even if a leader proves himself or herself utterly unfit for command, those under that command shouldn't question his or her decisions? I couldn't disagree more, if that's what you're asserting. We have critical faculties for a reason: to independently assess situations and apply our own moral and ethical standards. If we don't, I feel, we become sheep. The crew wasn't Queeg's downfall; Queeg was. I ask anyone who remembers his meltdown during the court martial to ask themselves if this man should have been in charge of anything anywhere. Enabling such behavior only reinforces it, I believe. I firmly believe that all of our leaders, those we agree with and those we don't, should always be subject to our constant scrutiny and appraisal. Because if they make a poor judgment call, a lot of people stand to get hurt. It's essential to question authority -- the most basic tenet in a democratic-thinking society, even if the forum is PB. Atticus
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
i agree and my feeling stood to be hurt in this situation and i feel like i tried to hard to avoid hurting anyone else. does dr bob do the same?
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 22:13:04
In reply to Re atticus, posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
No he doesn't. Not hard enough. In any case, I've said my piece about Bobby's gross deficiencies as the administrator and mediator of a site such as this. You'd think that after so many years of doing this he'd be better at it. His concept of cyber-psych is sound; it's his execution -- his virtual bedside manner -- that sucks. I've found a new site to post poems, and left a message for Malthus and Jai on Writing. They both know how to get in touch with me via e-mail. Me, I've had enough of this place. It served a purpose for a while, but I've had it with little Bobby's megalomania routine. Ta. Atticus
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 23:05:52
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
> Let me be sure I understand your argument. The crew was to blame for Captain Queeg's incredibly poor judgment and stewardship of the vessel he commanded, and if it had just let him go on his merry demented way, all would have been well?
The point I'm trying to express is that the crew shared in, or contributed to, the captain's meltdown. I can't remember the book but after the trial in the movie, the lawyer for the captain gives the crew a tongue-lashing for their part in the captain's failures.
This is more than a story about a captain that becomes unhinged and a crew that mutinies. It's about the nature of rebellion and authority - how any revolt will shape and influence the authority. The crew created Captain Queeg.
The captain or authority doesn't exist in a vacuum. "Captain" is a meaningless title without a ship and crew. And the mutiny isn't simply about an inept captain and disgruntled crew that takes command. They all share in the failure.
The reason I brought up the Caine Mutiny is not that Dr. Bob resembles the captain or the posters, the crew in a particular way. For me the comparison with the book had more to do with the nature of any "mutiny" - especially the interaction between the rebels and the authority - how both shape each other.
How an obsession with a tiny pail of missing strawberries can lead - with a little "help" - to a complete collapse of command. The captain may have gotten silly over the strawberries but the crew was quite serious about undermining his authority from then on. And in the end, he was found unfit for command - which is exactly what the crew had hoped for all along.
verne
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 23:29:46
In reply to Re: Re atticus » newwife, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 22:13:04
i am kinda done with it too. i have a group of gals that are great and we will always be friends, but i refuse to come to what i thought was a support site and voice my opinion only to have it belittled by the boss of the site. kinda sucks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 3:41:24
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
> your response to newwife contained uncalled-for and unjustifiable elements of sarcasm and mean-spiritedness.
First, please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility
>
> The number of posts you let go by before actually responding to her about your "asking them to leave" remark was also very noticeable.
>
> Then there's the notion you introduce about making the guests feel unwelcome by saying they can always go elsewhere.The above remind me of something Haim Weinberg said about virtual large groups:
> Unfortunately, idealization is a double-edged sword. It fosters unrealistic expectations of the group leader, and when these expectations are not met, the group becomes furious.
>
> We can argue that processes in the VLG reveal the Internet Unconscious, which contains an illusory belief that ultimate freedom of speech is achieved in cyberspace and that forum members always show respect and tolerance to different opinions.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/388862.html
I may be wrong, but unrealistic expectations and illusory beliefs (for example, regarding infallibility, availability, and tolerance) may be part of the group dynamic now. I say part of the group dynamic because I don't mean to attribute them to particular individuals, though particular individuals may be expressing them now.
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 12, 2004, at 12:06:03
In reply to Re: group dynamic + please be civil » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 3:41:24
>
> The above remind me of something Haim Weinberg said about virtual large groups:
>
> > Unfortunately, idealization is a double-edged sword. It fosters unrealistic expectations of the group leader, and when these expectations are not met, the group becomes furious.
> >I find it very interesting, Bob, that you left out a very salient part of Mr. Weinberg's advice to virtual VLG administators: "it (idealization) creates an intensive counter-transference reaction of the leader. It is very easy to fall into the trap." This is exactly what many of us accused you of in this thread, namely that you let counter-transference get the best of you with newwife. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, after all, you're human. If you trust the group it can dynamically work it out with you. I don't think I could even read so many posts as you do without building some pretty strong feelings about the posters and myself. You maintain that your response was purely neutral, a cerebral inquiry to have her further clarify her analogy. I will accept that (or I'm trying to, anyway). I just wanted to note the curious ommission in your citation.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 2:05:18
In reply to Re: group dynamic + please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 12, 2004, at 12:06:03
> I just wanted to note the curious ommission in your citation.
More evidence that I'm not perfect. :-)
Seriously, I left it out because it didn't have to do with the point I was trying to make. But what kind of countertransference did you see me as having?
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.