![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 23 to 47 of 66. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on February 16, 2005, at 10:41:00
> > Please don't be sarcastic or post information that you know to be false.
>
> You never did address my concern. I never said that Toph wasn't being sarcastic. I said that you may be jumping to conclusions about his understanding of the application of the gated communities.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he understood. I didn't know if he did or not. But I did want him to understand that if he did understand, then I didn't want him to do that.
> My understanding of Bob's new rule is that you are no longer allowed to say that gated communities are a bad idea because it would logically follow that you were saying that people who belonged to gated communities were bad, and that would be uncivil.
>
> If my understanding is wrong, Dr. Bob, I hope that you will take the time to correct my understanding
>
> DinahThat's not a new rule. There is of course a difference between the idea of gated communities and the people who might belong to them.
--
> your short rebukes trigger huge transference reactions in me. They conjer up similar strident orders like, "clean your room,"finish your plate,"because I said so,""stop fighting" and "shut your big trap." These concise instructions were occasionally accompanied by a swift whack on the head with the heal of a shoe or a firm punch in the shoulder by another authority figure. Perhaps you can see why I feel like you dispise me sometimes and why your words resonate so that I have to lash out in a defensive posture. I apologize for being so dramatic all the time but drama is the story of my life.
>
> TophThanks for reflecting on this. I don't despise you. I just want to minimize the fighting here. How about a new chapter in your story? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 16, 2005, at 19:14:43
I read over that a few times, and I don't think I feel significantly less offended.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that that's how Dr. Bob sees us. It explains rather a lot. But I'm sad about it. I'm very sad about it.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 20:57:54
((((Dinah))))
How about on an individual level, though? I mean, I can see how I tend to swing to those two extremes (with a preference towards narrowing my boundaries). If it happens with people on an individual level then I don't think it is all that suprising that those dynamics should play out in a group environment too...
I dunno.
I agree that parts of it were a bit hard to take.
And that they didn't really talk about it on an individual level - but I needed to do that so as to 'translate' it for myself to try and figure out what was being said. Lots of the terminology was unfamiliar to me.What about how you have said before that sometimes you need to try to emotionally withdraw. I wondered if that could be seen as a narrowing of boundaries when caring for Babble becomes a bit too much. That you have said stuff before about having to lower your expectations. I just wondered whether that might be a swing from one to the other right there. And there hasn't been a successful resolution of that stuff yet, has there?
I dunno.
Tell me to stoppit if ya like.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:10:43
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
by the way I really should emphasise that that was *my* take on it. Probably one that wouldn't be endorsed by either the author or Dr B.
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 21:07:35
Well, to be fair, I'd probably be outraged if I knew what my therapist thought of me, especially in clinical terms.
I think as much as I say I want to know what makes Dr. Bob tick, I really don't - any more than I want to know what my therapist really thinks of me.
But it does make me sad, because it does explain so much.
Of COURSE Dr. Bob doesn't understand what we're trying to say, or understand us, if he's thinking in those terms. And of COURSE we don't understand him.
The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:34:38
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
I don't understand why you say it's not a new rule. One minute we were able to argue with you the attributes of gated communities, then Alexandra said that people might feel like they would be disliked for joining them, then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative, then you started handing out PBC's.
Am I missing something in the timeline?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 22:54:18
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and...
As opposed to?
> then you said that yes, that was true, and we'd probably have to make it uncivil to say anything about gated communities that was negative
Sorry, I see how I may not have been so clear:
> > If someone who joins up to a smaller board reads that other people think that smaller boards are elitist and co then they may take that personally.
>
> I agree. If we go ahead with this, that might need to be considered uncivil...I guess it depends what's said, and how. I do think saying smaller boards are elitist could lead members of smaller boards to feel accused of being elitist...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
So one way of looking at Babble is looking at the unique individuals that comprise it. (And on that score we would quite like Dr Bob to just LOVE Babble).
> How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
And another way of looking at Babble is in terms of group dynamics where it is something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time).
But you can see it both ways.
You can like the particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being satisfyed with the group dynamic.
You can like the particular posters while being satisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.All I mean to say is that what Dr Bob thinks of Babble (as an abstract entity process group) is a seperate issue from what Dr Bob thinks of the individual posters who comprise Babble. Or at least that one doesn't have to reflect the other.
Or have I missed your point completely?????
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:27:02
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
I suppose I go back to the coral colony again.
And I am sad that Dr. Bob would see Babble as "something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time)".
I think that Dr. Bob's actions say that that's exactly how he views it. You've hit the nail on the head.
And it makes me sad.
I should be happy to have such insight, so that I won't get so frustrated in trying to communicate with him.
But I just want to cry.
Anyone want to cry with me?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:35:26
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:27:02
> I suppose I go back to the coral colony again.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that one.
> And I am sad that Dr. Bob would see Babble as "something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time)".Oh, but wait. That doesn't mean that he doesn't see it the other way AS WELL. That doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the particular posters. Just because he looks at it as a process group sometimes doesn't mean that he sees it that way all the time.
From a group dynamics perspective you can see patterns over time that don't emerge unless you look at it as a process group. I guess his primary allegance has to be with the process group though, but the reason why is that by looking out for the process group you can maintain the group well for the benefit of many many posters over time. Instead of just helping out the odd individual (which is not to be sneezed at that is true) but isn't it better to help out the majority of present and future posters too?????
> I think that Dr. Bob's actions say that that's exactly how he views it. You've hit the nail on the head.
>
> And it makes me sad.
>
> I should be happy to have such insight, so that I won't get so frustrated in trying to communicate with him.
>
> But I just want to cry.
>
> Anyone want to cry with me?
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:46:26
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:35:26
No, that's not quite what I meant. I didn't mean that he does or doesn't care about individual posters.
I meant about the coral colony. But I think that I don't know how to explain. Those that see things the way I do will understand without explanation. And I don't think those who don't see things the way I do will understand with a million posts. At least I know Dr. Bob won't. I imagine it's true of other posters as well.
Which is what makes me want to cry. But I can't explain that either.
It just makes me too sad to try.
P.S. By see things the way I do, I don't mean agree with me, I mean see things the way I do. It's a completely different thing, but that's beyond me to explain as well.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:53:47
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 23:46:26
Well now I JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. I am like that - see??? Someone tells me I can't and then I will make it my whole life's mission.
So, you will not get out of it that easy, ok???
So.
A coral colony. Hmm. Are you going to tell me about it, or am I going to have to do a google???
Is it a metaphor???
What does that mean to you???
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 0:07:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:53:47
I don't mean to be tantalizing.
But I don't think I'm up to it right now, Alexandra. Trying to translate from my head to the world gets exhausting sometimes.
I think I used the metaphor or simile or something in a post somewhere. But I doubt it was much more comprehensible there than here.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:13:10
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 0:07:36
Does this help???
>a coral colony can be thought of as an apartment building with many different rooms and hallways that house different marine species. Not all coral species build reefs. The actual architects of coral reefs are hard or stony corals, which are referred to as hermatypic or reef-building corals. As the polyps of stony corals grow, they produce limestone for their skeletons. When they die, their skeletons are left behind and are used as foundations for new polyps, which build new skeletons over the old ones. An actual coral mound or tree is composed of layer upon layer of skeletons covered by a thin layer of living polyps.
>Hard and soft coral, as well as sponges and clams, make up the structure of a coral reef.
>Other types of animals and plants also contribute to the structure of the reef. Many types of algae, seaweed, sponge, sediment and even mollusks like giant clams and oysters, add to the architecture of a coral reef. When these organisms die, they also serve as foundations for new corals.
http://www.coralreef.org/coralreefinfo/about.html
Just whenever you feel up to it.
(((Dinah))))
I really want to try to understand.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:18:07
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:13:10
Unfolding as opposed to going round and round?
Is that the point???
Posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:23:41
In reply to Re: I:A/M, posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:18:07
Our posts are the skeletons upon which future posters build?????
Posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 2:38:04
In reply to Re: exclusion=bad, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:36:02
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 8:51:11
In reply to Re: I:A/M » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 18, 2005, at 0:13:10
I might not be saying it quite the way Dinah means it, but to me a coral colony:
1) is made up of individual living things - no two quite alike
2) the individual can not live without the colony
3) the colony can not live without the individuals
We are all individuals with our own virtues, faults and personalities. No two alike.
On many levels we depend on the babble colony to live. The feedback, the support, the humor, the seriousness. Even supporting other people fulfills a need in us. Babble provides *all* of us with *something* we are lacking elsewhere.
But without us, the babble colony wouldn't live either.
---------------
It is a whole, made up of the sum of the parts. It is not just an internet service that can be reproduced at any time. And it isn't a service like a restaraunt where people (customers) are interchangable.
Posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 9:12:53
In reply to Re: Coral colony » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 8:51:11
It's a beautiful metaphor, Mel, and I am in full agreement with its sentiment, but couldn't a proponent of separate sub-colonies say that some individuals like the bottom of the reef, some swim freely on the surface, and others prefer to hide in caves?
Toph
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 10:14:03
In reply to Re: Coral colony » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 9:12:53
I can't take credit for the metaphor - it's Dinah's and I was only trying to explain it as I understood it. I could easily be completely wrong.
--------------- start of humor ------------------------
a proponant of separate sub-colonies can say whatever he wants, right? but I haven't seen any swimming coral.....
--------------- end of humor ------------------------
Yes, individuals can prefer different things. That is the beauty of individuality, after all. The only question here is the structure of babble, and if babble would retain its wonderful uniqueness if that part of it changed.
Take the park metaphor that came up before. I see a park as a place that is open to all and people come and go at will. Some might meet and go off together as a group, but nobody cares because they remain mostly anonymous.
I don't think of babble that way.
I think of babble as a private club, but one that has only membership requirement: mutual respect. Anyone can join, and some might naturally form bonds that they don't form with the rest of the club, but everyone is welcome to join in the activities - as long as they maintain that mutual respect.
But again, those are my views. Others are free to have differing ones.
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 11:16:35
In reply to Re: Coral colony » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 8:51:11
Maybe PC is right. :)
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean. I'm still a bit stymied in how to express it further, because it's something I feel and see, and I don't have enough words for it.
But it's got something to do with Babble being formed by the posters who came before, whether they're still posting here or not, the posters who are here now, and the posters yet to post. And that you can't see Babble as (at a loss for words here) without taking into account (at a loss for words here too). And that the environment has to be kept right for the individual organisms to form the beauty of the coral reef. And that you might see the beauty but you miss a good part of the wonder if you don't see the individual organisms make up the whole.
And that when Dr. Bob sees Babble in terms of massification and bipolar urges or whatever it was that he was pointing us to, he's not only missing the wonder, but he's also missing the ... (again at a loss for words - but it's probably something along the lines of how people viewed coral reefs before it became known just what a coral reef was).
Which again, I don't mean as a comment on Dr. Bob relating to individuals. It's meant as a comment on Dr. Bob relating to Babble. But I'm at a loss for words there too.
Darn words. Totally inadequate.
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 11:18:33
In reply to Re: Coral colony » AuntieMel, posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 9:12:53
My metaphor extended only as far as the coral itself. :)
We'll have to figure out who the fish represent. Researchers?
Posted by partlycloudy on February 18, 2005, at 11:42:55
In reply to Re: Coral colony » Toph, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 11:18:33
It took a while for me to realize this thread wasn't about Australia. So I'm a slow growing coral :)
So if we think about Babble as a coral reef, there are all the collaborative elements that keep the colony thriving and growing. And when we run out of room, we evolve, or branch out, or stop, whither, and die.
And I would further elaborate on the coral colony as the life form itself, and not the creatures who live amongst the corals. Because then you'd be getting into bottom feeders, predators, and all the other nasties that we try to keep Babble safe from.
This is a strange aside, but I have often thought that when I die, I want my ashes to be incorporated into an artificial reef - something they are doing now in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico side. I think you get mixed in with a bunch of concrete and make you into a geodesic dome thingy that creates an artificial reef for critters to live in and on.
Posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 12:03:07
In reply to Re: Coral colony » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 10:14:03
>
> --------------- start of humor ------------------------
>
> a proponant of separate sub-colonies can say whatever he wants, right? but I haven't seen any swimming coral.....
>Boy could my aunt Coral swim! Actually, I mistakenly thought there was a symbiotic (is that the right word or co-dependent?) relationship between coral and fish, like some parasites and their hosts. So I guess in your model researchers would be parasites.
Toph
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2005, at 12:06:40
In reply to Re: Coral colony, posted by Toph on February 18, 2005, at 12:03:07
Well, I would of course never say so. :)
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.