![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 9:24:08
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
I hesitate to jump in here after your response to Nikki, but what the heck.
When I am at work, I act a certain way which is dictated by the norms in that environment. My interactions fall within particular boundaries which are appropriate to that situation.
When I am at a volunteer site, the boundaries, relationships, etc. are much different, so I am able to act differently.
Of course, at home or when socializing, yet again - I woudl be perceived differently.
I assume that Dr. Bob is also different at work, at Babble, and at home. So, I think that Bob the webmaster is VERY different from Dr. Bob the psychiatrist. I'm sure the relationships he has with his college patients is different than the ones he has with Dinah, or 64Bowtie, for instance. So, to assume that seeing a psychiatrist in his office would be the same as dealing with Bob online, imo, is inaccurate.
More importantly - to assume that Dr Bob the webmaster is the same as all psychiatrists is, imo, dangerous. Bob has very strict rules here - and has needed to act as "the enforcer" in order to keep this site going in the manner he wants - as webmaster.
On the other hand, my psychiatrist is a laid back hippy with long hair and a silly grin. He is sweet, and caring and emotional. He has also kept me alive.
I hope you will reconsider your idea that all psychiatrists are like Dr Bob is here. I know for a fact, by my own many years of experience that this is just not true.
To save/improve your own life, I hope you will reconsider. There are some wonderful therapists and pdocs out there. You just need to find the ones who work for you.
This was all written with good intentions - I hope it is taken that way.
emmy
Posted by gardenergirl on May 18, 2005, at 11:26:05
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
And I appreciate it.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 18, 2005, at 11:28:47
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
So to clarify, this is your third screen name on Babble?
gg
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 13:05:17
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 9:24:08
> When I am at a volunteer site, the boundaries, relationships, etc. are much different, so I am able to act differently.
A difference for me would be that, at work, I am required to think critically and to state my criticisms in venues where they may be tested -- including my critiques of ideas, and of the credibility of individuals.
>
> More importantly - to assume that Dr Bob the webmaster is the same as all psychiatrists is, imo, dangerous.My findings involve a very specific area, that being the extent to which authoritative rhetoric comports with any authority to be found in scientific knowledge. The idea that "I'm in charge, so I know best whether I tell you what I think I know or not" does not always or even often, in my experience, comport with any actual scientific knowledge specific to my symptoms.
>Bob has very strict rules here - and has needed >to act as "the enforcer" in order to keep this >site going in the manner he wants - as webmaster.
And I am saying the things he has chosen to do, to satisfy his desires as a web enthusiast, have been harmful to me. His rules might be strict, but they are not well defined, so the rule is strict compliance with his notion of civility, which he will define when he sees it, or make up as he goes along.
> On the other hand, my psychiatrist is a laid back hippy with long hair and a silly grin. He is sweet, and caring and emotional. He has also kept me alive.The hippies I know sacrificed. They lived shorter lives because the chose to forego generous incomes in favor of participating in a lifestyle they hoped would avoid mental diseases. Pursuit of a medical degree is not consistent with the hippie lifestyle as I know it. For that matter, neither is being a rock-n-roll star living in a beach-front mansion.
Since speculation based on personal perceptions of other's sincerety is among the growing list of censored topics at this site, I can't offer much about the social dynamic that developed around the "hippie" ideal, except to say that for the most part, it was more of a political ideal of affluent youth than a practical lifestyle pursued by social reformers. For that reason, many poor and working class youths were misled into a non-existent social movement by marketeers who found profit in mass-producing symbolic "hippie" culture. I'm sure any further discussion of this matter should be pigeon-holed to the "phsychobabble hippie" board.
> I hope you will reconsider your idea that all psychiatrists are like Dr Bob is here. I know for a fact, by my own many years of experience that this is just not true.
My findings do not just include review of other psychiatrists, but of most top-level healthcare-givers I have encountered, including those of mundane fields whose practice could save my life if I could find enough faith in their inconsistent opinions. It appears to me these well-paid individuals style their opinions to satisfy an audience of their well-paid peers and will so interpret clinical evidence regardless scientific evidence that suggests other interpretations.> To save/improve your own life, I hope you will reconsider.
And how long should I spend my money, at $100 a whack, guessing on which healthcare-giver will be able to silence in their own mind the din of medical school, peer-bonding conferences and industry-funded junkets so as to attend to my specific circumstances.
>
> This was all written with good intentions - I hope it is taken that way.Your intentions might be good, but you lack enough knowledge of my experience to support effective involvment in the course of my life.
> emmy
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
Nikki,
Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:20
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
In reply to Was I deceived?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 0:04:20
You say that your participation was "not at all helpful and has probably been harmful."
I'm not doubting your perception - babble isn't one-size-fits-all - nor am I doubting your feelings about your experience.
So why is it important to you to be unblocked?
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:10:26
> So why is it important to you to be unblocked?Did I say it was important? My concern centers more around trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers.
Apparently, I am willing to suffer further harm to resolve my curiosity.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by Nikkit2 on May 18, 2005, at 5:37:48
I didn't recognize your post as an attempt to help, which is why I couched me reply as an "I-statement" about my perception as something that might not represent your actual motives. To me, the post seemed like a XXX XXXX, or XXXXXXX, which I might not enjoy enough preference from the administrator to be allowed to complain about.
The irony in your advice, to me, was that you suggested I erase memories of this site by remembering to include the name of the site as an exclusion string each time I conducted a search for topics that might return links to this site. Hence, you seem to recommend that I avoid a triggered memory by reinforcing a recalled memory. Ironic advice is sometimes seen as XXXXXXX.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:54:10
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by Miss Honeychurch on May 18, 2005, at 13:40:38
> Nikki,
>
> Thank you for posting that! I am apparently stupid enough NOT to know how to clear my history and have been trying to figure out how. I appreciate your advice.A person doesn't have to be stupid not to know how to clear history lists. Unless you delete the index.dat files in Internet Explorer, your history is erased only from view by those lacking the technical savy to explore the .dat file. Erasure of the .dat files can only be done from the command line or with a utility software. That is why your visited links still appear in the visited link color in IE, even after you have deleted history, cookies and temporary internet files.
Posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » Nikkit2, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:46:02
I'm sorry. I was, truly, trying to help.
I posted to Dinah on social that I find "fluffy" words hard to come by.. I said it is much ezsier for me to give practical advice, but I was worried that people would misconstrue this as me not caring. If I didn't care, believe me, I wouldn't have posted at all.
I didn't post about index.dat as its not the sort of the thing the average pay person wants to mess about with, even knows exists, and isn't going to accidently come across to be triggered by.
I work in IT support, and that kind of answer is one I can give, and one that comes naturally.But it seems my thoughts on how my offers for help might be perceived were correct. I guess thats that experiment over.
Do not worry, I won't post to you again, and I ask that you also not post to me again.
Posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » so, posted by NikkiT2 on May 18, 2005, at 15:59:13
Nikki, don't you dare conclude your experiment!
Try it on a few others. Several people on this thread alone (and you can add me to it) have stated that they appreciate your input.
Posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
In reply to Re: I am so curious, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 15:31:18
I understand now that I cannot offer you any support because I don't know your life well enough. Okey doke. I won't do that again. So I guess you didn't come to Babble for support or help from posters? OK. So you are here again in order to...what? I keep reading this:
"trying to discover if any senior-level healthcare-giver anywhere uses words to lay people for any reason other than to momentarily acheive a desired effect. I seem to suffer under a delusion that trained professionals will be as specific and accurate in dialogue with me as they are among their peers."
and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?
You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic? and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us? do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??
Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
emmy
Posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
In reply to Re: Was I deceived? » NikkiT2, posted by Dinah on May 18, 2005, at 18:38:09
...I'd be honored to have you "experiment" on me in that way!
Keep the IT stuff coming - it's great!
Posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
In reply to Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by 10derHeart on May 18, 2005, at 23:10:38
So, Why are you here? I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards. If we disagree at times that's okay. i think we usually try and work it out amongst ourselves. If that doesn't happen we take it to the Administrator of this site Dr. Bob whom I have the utter most respect. There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all". And what was wrong with the hippies. I consider myself a "Flower Child" even though I was married and had 2 children at the time. John Lennon was an inspiration to me. I didn't use illegal drugs or march in rallies. And our generation is running the World now. Maybe not to everyone's liking but then noone is perfect. Just my 2 cents. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Posted by Phillipa on May 19, 2005, at 0:30:33
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
Sorry I didn't! I never look at the subject line. I guess I should. My deepest apologies. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 1:41:08
In reply to Re: I am so curious » so, posted by TofuEmmy on May 18, 2005, at 19:14:50
> and I can NOT understand what you are saying. Could you please try to explain in some way which Dumb Emmy can understand?I believe you that you don't understand what you read, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that you "can't" understand.
I'm saying that I would hope doctors during a decade of post-secondary academic training would develop the ability to communicate clearly and consistently, and in such a way that their words conform with their actions.
I'm saying I'm trying to sort out whether, when a doctor speaks to me, he or she is trying to convey useful information upon which I can make an informed decision or instead is trying to get me to perform a certain action.
> You are calling Dr Bob a senior level healthcare giver...because he's a pdoc at a college clinic?I'm saying a medical license is about the highest tier in the medical profession, short of public health positions such as surgeon general. I am clasifying all licensed physicians as senior level health care givers, as opposed to the majority of care givers who are PA's, nurses, technicians, aides and orderlies.
> and it bothers you that he is not specific enough in his posts to us?Specifically, it concerned me that his statement that he would block a username for two or three weeks did not cohere with his behavior, which apparently was to block a username indefinately.
> do I have that right? so this is about admin rules being vague in your opinion? is that accurate?
This is a specific incident that seems to reflect a pattern, at least in as much as my perception has discerned, in which physicians don't especially care whether their discourse with less prestigious individuals is coherent. The pattern seems to involve both this particular doctor and his peers. In the context of that pattern, this particular doctor administers a set of self-styled rules he will tell us about some time in the future, in addition to those he has already made up. It was running afoul of those ill-defined rules that led to my interest in his concern for performing as he stated he would. i.e. systematically unblocking people when he said.
>
> That's your sole purpose for being here? To get clarification from Dr Bob on admin rules? But if you don't care to get any support from Babblers, why do you care about the rules??The purpose of the site is support and uh .... uhm ... education? Is it okay that I better educate myself regarding the coherence of dialogue offered by medical professionals?
> Are you here to save us from ourselves? (I ask cuz we've had this happen before.....)
>
> emmyCan I presume "us" and "ourselves" describes the subset of this group that doesn't share my concern about coherence of professional discourse?
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too...., posted by Phillipa on May 18, 2005, at 23:36:24
> So, Why are you here?
I was invited. I was honest and I was sanctioned for my honesty. Now I am inquiring about the coherence of the stated sanction. Other dialogue in this thread developed secondarily to my inquiry about why a username is still blocked six weeks after a stated two or three week sanction. The admin said he might have forgotten, or might have intentionally left a username blocked regardless his published statement to the contrary. In response to his request that I resend an e-mail asking him to do what he said he would do, I invited him to better explain here what is his reasoning.
>I personally appreciate everything and everybody on this and the other Boards.Including me?
>There have to be "rules" or life would be a "free for all".
I have not carved out a position in opposition to rules. I am inquiring why the administrator rules one way (two or three week block) then acts otherwise. Like a poorly placed stop-light or any other capricious law, vague or inconsistently enforced rules can tend to erode confidence in authority.
> And what was wrong with the hippies.
I presume you are referencing my comment that holding a medical license is not consistent with the hippie lifestyle. The hippies around which a cultural mythology was constructed sacrificed. Let me say that again ... on it's own line.
THEY SACRIFICED.
They gave up stable homes, rewarding careers and substantion incomes in an to attempt to establish a less harmful way of life. They attempted to establish communities, with prevention-based healthcare systems. And for their efforts, a bunch of people got rich selling songs about their movement, while those who were really trying to establish a better way of life suffered ridicule and local persecution until for the most part, their alternative communities eroded. I often visit some of the crumbling homesites, now 20 or 30 years later. I look at the left-behind bedframes and child's toys. I talk to the toothless old survivors. I didn't say anything was wrong with the hippies. I said people who work in offices are not hippies.
>I consider myself a "Flower Child" even though I was married and had 2 children at the time. John Lennon was an inspiration to me. I didn't use illegal drugs or march in rallies. And our generation is running the World now. Maybe not to everyone's liking but then noone is perfect. Just my 2 cents. Phillipa
Once Capitol Records got hold of the movement, anyone with enough coins to buy the Woodstock album was a flower child. It might have been nobody's conscious intention, but the movement was diverted and coopted. As Steven Stills said in the '90's - the wooden ships were just a hippie dream. For the most part, we only pretended we were leaving -- we stayed behind even though "you don't need us" apparently because we needed them -- them being the capitalists. We did not get back to the land and we did not set our souls free anymore than any generation before or after. But we could have.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:26:31
In reply to Re: failed to unblock, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 3:28:08
> > I left that name blocked for another reason.
>
> A reason you declined to disclose here on the forum?Right.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
In reply to Re: Hey Nikki, me, too.... » Phillipa, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:02:38
> >
> THEY SACRIFICED.Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble? One of the administrative rules here is that posters announce here on the admin. board that they are using a new screen ID. You of course do not have to tell us who you used to be, but the rules state that a poster does have to report that he or she used to be someone other than the current iteration.
And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part? I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills. But of course you lose a percentage communication in this medium via the loss of all the non-verbal material in messages. Welll, and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
It also seems to me that deciding to trust an individual is based more on the characteristics of that individual and our own level of risk tolerance. If one uses a scientific approach; however, one must take the risk of basing the decision whether to trust on a sample and then generalizing to all members of a population. That's potentially a risky, expensive, and time consuming approach. But then again, I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.
Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
gg
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
In reply to Requesting clarification » so, posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 5:39:40
> > >
> > THEY SACRIFICED.
>
> Sounds to me like they merely had different values."Mere" is a subjective term. Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
>
> And um, would you please answer my question involving whether this is your third screen name on Babble?A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.
>
> And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question. It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication. Were I to conclude personal findings that informed a publishable study, the first step of publication would be a literature review to report what is already known about the high error rate among healthcare professionals. It is extremely unlikely I would publish any original scientific research on the topic.
>I suppose including Dr. Bob in your sample is cheaper than visiting "senior healthcare providers" in person to assess their communication skills.It might be one of the less costly sources of information. Perhaps I seek information here after having exhausted resources elsewhere.
> and Emmy already pointed out the role conflict with viewing a webmaster as holding the same role as a practicing psychiatrist. How are you planning to parse out what role is responsible for which message in the communication?
If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> I suppose like we all have our own set of values, we also have our own risk tolerance and ability to judge another individual's trust-worthiness.So my effort to learn what fits in my personal standards is worthwhile.
> Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
>
I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".
Posted by gardenergirl on May 19, 2005, at 10:08:36
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
> > > >
> > > THEY SACRIFICED.
> >
> > Sounds to me like they merely had different values.
>
> "Mere" is a subjective term.Hence the "to me".
>Many chose to forego privilage, wealth and comfort to actualize their values, only to become icons emmulated everywhere from the Hollywood comedies to corporate costume parties.
Exactly. Different values. What does emulation have to do with it?
>
>
> A. I answered the question in my second post under this name and ...
> B. Please do not pressure me to comply with your requests.Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
>
>
> >
> > And to clarify another comment you made...this is personal research on your part?
>
>
> I'm having a difficult time parsing this as something other than a rhetorical question.Hmmm, I was sincerely interested in your answer to that clarification.
>It seems plain I am talking about my personal experiences. I referred to educating myself -- not about conducting research for formal publication.
Hence the "personal" of the "personal research".
>
>
>
> If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?How many physicians?
>
>
> > Good luck with your study! (emoticon would normally go here)
> >
>
>
> I don't understand emoticons -- at least not in terms others always confirm. I tend to read them as (which is to say "To me they sometimes seem to mean") "just kidding".Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification » gardenergirl, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:50:33
Just a guess.
From references to a past "altercation" and the phraseology and now the bits about emoticons my guess is ....
drumroll .....
so used to be used2b
Am I right?
Posted by 10derHeart on May 19, 2005, at 16:01:20
In reply to Re: Aha! my guess is ....., posted by AuntieMel on May 19, 2005, at 14:38:00
Hi Mel,
Just to interject for a moment...as gg stated (and I'm pretty sure she's correct) *so* does not have to say what screen names he/she has used before.
So....perhaps we shouldn't press the question here on the board?
Trying to keep it fair for all. Hope I wasn't rude. Not intended.
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.