![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 20:56:08
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 20:40:53
Ahhh, you did the one thing I asked you not to do, so I'm afraid I can't converse with you further on this topic.
I think better of both of us than that.
After all, I didn't put a single smiley in my post to you, and I'm rather fond of smileys. And I made a genuine effort in discourse, without hidden agendas or meanings.
I did you the honor of speaking freely of Dr. Bob's strengths and weaknesses, as I perceive them. And you used my post in a way that it wasn't intended, and in a meaning contrary to its meaning.
If you don't wish to have that level of honest open discourse with me, just tell me next time.
And if you ever wish to have that type of discourse with me, in earnest, let me know and we can try again.
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 20:59:29
In reply to Re: team effort » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:51:07
It's nothing I haven't said openly to him before. And he knows I hold him in the highest esteem, despite my occasional intense frustration. If he took it in any other way than the way I meant it, I'd be astonished.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:17:18
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 20:40:53
I didn't get the sense that anyone was especially keen on exploring the direct meaning of my side of the discussion, either. I just don't share that much faith in him. It doesn't mean he doesn't have good intentions, or that a few people don't benefit from his efforts.
I wonder if it's not a feeling vs. thinking thing. Maybe this site favors people who value their feelings, but a person like me who will die feeling bad if it means I can reach a deeper understanding on my way out is bound to be depreciated. There are historic, well-developed systems of thought that don't place that much value on feelings.
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:30:15
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:17:18
I don't think you'll find that I tried to depreciate you. I tried to discuss with you what seemed to be of concern to you, within the parameters that you said you found comfortable.
I just didn't appreciate my post being used as ammo against Dr. Bob, when we both knew it wasn't intended that way.
I'd be happy to continue talking to you, if we do so on an open and honest level. I'm not trying to put you down. I'm trying to understand you, and to give you the opportunity to understand me if you wish to do so.
Alexandra also highly values thought. It's a shame the two of you can't discourse about that.
I'm sort of in between. I see the evolutionary benefit of both rational thought and feeling. I don't believe in discounting either. But I have a feeling I value intuition more than you do...
Posted by Phillipa on May 22, 2005, at 21:36:11
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:30:15
Having worked in psych and been nationally certified I know the value of feelings and what and how they affect a person's level of functioning. Feelings are neither right or wrong. They are individual as we are all individuals. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:49:29
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:30:15
Dinah, if you are going to publish your criticisms or your praise, its fair that i or anyone else reflect them in a way that might tease more meaning out of it than you have confronted.
I think what you're referring to isn't how I paraphrased anything you wrote, but that I excerpted it in a pure form. That seems fair to me. Can't we get some mutuality going here -- you're not keen on affirming my point of view and I'm not feeling the need to affirm your viewpoint. We're removed by distance and by anonymity, it really doesn't need to be a threatening thing.
I'm critical of what's going on here, and maybe have some of the same those stubborn, difficult-to-engage traits you site in the administration. Maybe that's the most I have to contribute here - a head as hard as his. You'll probably get more prose out of me than you will him.
I'm overjoyed Alexander_K sees the same value I do in him finding peers to share the mental workload. Mostly it's just that I have some other community projects going here on my computer -- way outside this community -- and the arguments weren't really getting anywhere. I tend to want to pull a real load and I'm not all that keen on comparing viewpoints on theoretical matters, but as I've stated and as you can see, I don't easily disengage. At least I've not taken measures to tickle the admin into giving me a month off.
Now, I'm going to the store, and I'm tyring to learn some programing languages, but I'm interested. Let that count for something.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:54:43
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 21:30:15
Here's an overture --
How about I ask alexander_K not to post to me anymore in those two threads. Then I've acknowledged your concern about that, I've backed off a bit, and if the idea of a limited do-not-post-to-me rule seems plausible, Bob Hsiung can add it to his code, then I can *feel* like I've accomplished something by proposing a more limited way for people to disengage here without putting each other all the way off.
Reasonable?
I still think he needs professional help *running the site* and alexander_K can be a useful allie for me in that cause.
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:54:43
Fair enough.
But I don't think even the formidable Alexandra (she's a she) will be enough of an ally to wear down Dr. Bob.
Perhaps it would be more productive to think of outcomes, and brainstorm ways to get there.
For example, is it the continued existence of the board that worries you?
The harm caused to individual posters by blocks? While I've never been blocked, so perhaps have no real frame of reference, the main harm that has been caused to me here has been from fellow posters. Although Dr. Bob has been granted the power to hurt me, and has, as is inevitable in all relationships, he hasn't caused me any real damage. While other posters have, on occasion.
Is it the interpretation of the rules? I notice that you have a great interest in language. But isn't it possible that multiple administrators would actually increase the amount of variability in interpretation? Do you think it would be worthwhile for someone like you, with a greater interest and facility in the nuances of language than I have, try to better explain the civility rules in words that would be easily understood by all?
(Have you been to PsychCentral? I don't think Dr. Grohol has a lot of professional input does he? I know he has "mods" on the boards, but I don't think they're professionals. Perhaps that's the way these boards work...)
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:21:07
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
To no-one in particular, of course...
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:22:49
In reply to Re: Sorry... Which two threads???, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:21:07
What fun would the admin. board be without you???
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:24:21
In reply to Re: team effort » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 20:59:29
> It's nothing I haven't said openly to him before.
Yeah...
I think I've sent him an email or two to that effect myself...>And he knows I hold him in the highest esteem, despite my occasional intense frustration. If he took it in any other way than the way I meant it, I'd be astonished.
Ditto.
I hope.
I did apologise :-(
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:44:28
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
> But I don't think even the formidable Alexandra (she's a she) will be enough of an ally to wear down Dr. Bob.
:-)
Well...
Perhaps I have more hope because we managed to get the posting restriction to the students board lifted.It took a while...
But we got there in the end
:-)So...
IMO there is hope
:-)
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
In reply to Re: team effort, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 21:54:43
If the major concern is informed consent, perhaps we could all brainstorm a paragraph in the registration process.
Something along the lines of internet groups being occasionally volatile places, and there is always the possibility of conflict. Please check with your personal mental health providers about whether this board would be appropriate to you at this time. The civility guidelines of this site are explained at xxxx and you might also wish to do a search on "Please Be Civil" if the issue is of concern to you. The first violation of the site guidelines will result in a warning, and successive violations will result in "blocks" of increasing length. Please further be advised that some people find being sanctioned or blocked distressing, and if you believe it may be for you it might be advisable to consult with your personal mental health provider about whether participation on this site is right for you at this time.
I've never claimed to be good with words, but you get the general idea.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:44:52
In reply to Re: team effort » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 22:11:16
> Perhaps it would be more productive to think of outcomes, and brainstorm ways to get there.
The outcome I would like to see is a better-rested administration. There is this notion in the medical profession that people can work any hour of the day, seven days a week, and whatever they put out is some gift of mercy to the clients. But you wouldn't trust your life to a pilot flying under those conditions. This isn't a surgical ward, but people come here with problems just as critical. I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept as sound psychiatric advice that anyone can work a job -- an after-midnight-shift -- 365 days a year, without ever a break, and always provide the best service for the customer.
My perspective is when a person makes a mistake in judgement under those conditions, they often write rules to codify their mistaken judgement because they have the authority to do so, and they dare not admit that they made a specific mistake. Then they go about justifying their mistaken rules, and start to engage others in supporting their mistake as if it were the best possible outcome.
And the fact that it is free isn't justification. If people need this sort of service, they need quality service. That it is a volunteer effort is not a reason to comprimise service. Quality service involves administrative planning and that is probably not what happens when someone occasionally presents a talk to peers about their web project, or seeks feedback from peers in a casual setting. Planning occurs when peers with the power to veto each other intentionally sit around the table and think through difficult scenarios before confronting it in a clinical situation.
> For example, is it the continued existence of the board that worries you?Sorry, your question returns a divide by zero error. I would be slightly disappointed if the Internet ceased to exist, because there are not such good libraries by my house but this site? I'm sure you folks would find other things to do, and I wish I would already.
> The harm caused to individual posters by blocks?More by the inconsistent application of ambiguous arbitrary rules, backed by a chorus of explanations by Bob's supporters, which some people just don't comprehend.
>
> Is it the interpretation of the rules?>I notice that you have a great interest in language. But isn't it possible that multiple administrators would actually increase the amount of variability in interpretation?
Could. Unless they started taking time to plan, and articulated their interpretations in writing, that we could read. And I'm not talking about essays that say "I don't know it till I see it." I wonder how many hours he has spent explaining to peers, in some way other than justifying, what are his rules, compared to the time he spends imposing them. This is what I'm saying -- once people get to the top tier of the medical trade, they have a broad license to do as they please, and often submit to no other authority than their own judgement.
> Do you think it would be worthwhile for someone like you, with a greater interest and facility in the nuances of language than I have, try to better explain the civility rules in words that would be easily understood by all?Probably a web cam would do me more good, so I could see what side of bed he gets up on after his five hours of sleep. Unless he doesn't work mornings, that is.
> (Have you been to PsychCentral? I don't think Dr. Grohol has a lot of professional input does he? I know he has "mods" on the boards, but I don't think they're professionals. Perhaps that's the way these boards work...)I don't remember these boards by name as much as by appearance and feel of the posts. This one doesn't have boxes around the messages -- it's powered by Matt's BB and the atmosphere is unique -- the harder he pushes for civility, it seems the less reasonable people become, and I believe it is because he overemphasizes feelings -- and his speculations about hypothetical feelings -- rather than leading toward an exchange of information. I think I recall reading that he and Grohol were both influenced by some late-90's Internet fad that involved some psuedo-virtual reality rooms, icons, avatars, pins and blocks. It was all the rage until whatever came the next summer. And without directly saying so, I think that fad might be much of the basis for their individually different styles.
I seem to recall a Harvard or Mass General board that was very reasonable. I didn't closely examine the administration, because the role of administraton didn't seem that evident. Hsiungs philosophy seems to be that people learn from seeing other's publicly chastized. Well, that's only regular members of the group, but members come and go, and they stumble into things he hasn't regulated, so they get the idea that's okay. Or they read old posts from before he made up the latest rule.
I don't know exactly where professional involvement would lead him, but if it wasnt' about presenting his accomplishments as "research" in a publish-or-perish academic enviornment, but instead about providing an actual service, they might go beyond the "whatever we can afford is good enough for you" budget. If people really need this service, he should be able to articulate the need to a funding agency. I'm not talking research funding, either. I think we probably all agree on one thing - that there is wealth available to provide health care that is not beign spent on health care, and whatever means we recognize, we agree people are suffering and dying as a result. This board can be seen as a service people use becuase other services simply arent' available -- not from local spiritual centers, not from local medical centers, not from local or federal budgets -- nowhere.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:55:47
In reply to or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
I don't think padding the room is going to resolve any of my concerns. I want him to get at least as much sleep as is required of an over-the-road trucker, I want him to justify his rules to peers with the authority to say "i don't think so" in the same way he would justify a procedure to a insurance company or hospital administrator, and I want him to lead by example of taking regular time away from critical duty to restore his own mental health before involving himself in the lives of anonymous strangers seeking sometimes critical care. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Sorry... Which two threads???, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 22:21:07
> To no-one in particular, of course...
> ;-)
We were debating carnivoury, moral absolutism and other topics on the politics board, and got into some exchange below on this board about god knows what - - the rules, which is what we're on about in this thread too. I seem to recall a thread about London, too.Can I ask you to address your comments about those things to the group in general? Then if I get caught up in it it's my problem. Mabye I'll want to ask the same thing of you again, about someting else. I can write in third person around a "not-to-me" request so easily they hardly seem real anyway -- it's the cut and paste back and forth that gets addictive. Linking back from somebody else's post -- or your own -- makes it less about me, too. so if you won't cite my posts or answer me on those threads, I could more easily devote my time to something else. I really do spend a lot of time on each post.
Posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
In reply to or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2005, at 23:06:23
Hi Dinah...
you wrote:
> If the major concern is informed consent, perhaps we could all brainstorm a paragraph in the registration process.
>
> Something along the lines of internet groups being occasionally volatile places, and there is always the possibility of conflict. Please check with your personal mental health providers about whether this board would be appropriate to you at this time. The civility guidelines of this site are explained at xxxx and you might also wish to do a search on "Please Be Civil" if the issue is of concern to you. The first violation of the site guidelines will result in a warning, and successive violations will result in "blocks" of increasing length. Please further be advised that some people find being sanctioned or blocked distressing, and if you believe it may be for you it might be advisable to consult with your personal mental health provider about whether participation on this site is right for you at this time.I think this is *very* good idea. Hope it is added. :-)
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:25:32
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
> Hi Dinah...
>
> you wrote:>
> I think this is *very* good idea. Hope it is added. :-)
>
>
Sorry, not to step on Shy_Girl's recomend, but if she advocates such verbage, I want to help refine it. Thing is, not everyone here has a personal mental health provider. Maybe the majority do, but that might be where I differ -- I subscribe to a school of self-care that includes mental health self care. I'll be neutral about whether people should rely on systematic caregivers, but I suggest the site should to -- unless the purpose is to promote clinical mental health care, it would do best to recognize the range of approaches people use to care for their mental health. Claiming clinics are the sole or even usual source of care is not appreciative of the vast majority of people who find help elsewhere -- it tends to minimize the problems of those who don't seek clinical care, or suggest there is no other remedy. It tends to categorize mental health problems as seeking a clinical diagnosis. Everyone but everyone has mental health problems, some severe and never clinically diagnosed. Many find help outside clinical approaches.
I just don't spend time reading FAQ's before posting to every site I visit. I agree the method of enforcement would do well to appear prominently on a page one can't register without seeing, but the "your healthcare provider" would be lost on me.Slant wise, I would accept the rules more readily in that format if they were presented as Hsiung's unique rules for this site -- not as a standard of what is "civil" -- because when asks me to be civil that is what I aspire too --- standards I have encountered in real life for longer than Hsiung has been alive. I don't consider his rules of writing to define civility -- in his forum or anywhere else. To the contrary, his claim to own the concept of civility confounds my understanding. I simply don't appreciate being called uncivilized should I not meet his standard of owning my emotions and those of everyone who might potentially feel something upon reading what I write.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:29:13
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:25:32
Well, as you may have read elsewhere, I actually prefer "Please abide by site guidelines." since there is less general judgement involved. It seems more... civil.
But I'd miss the old PBC's. Now that's part of board culture. Sigh. I wish you didn't hate smilies.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:38:38
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 23:55:47
so let me see if I can summarize your concerns.
You don't think Dr. Bob gets enough sleep, and that he may make errors on the board because of it, and later justify them. You're worried about his personal wellbeing, and the wellbeing of us Babblers. Have you perchance had experience with doctors or interns who try to function on too little sleep?
(You don't happen to be Mrs. Bob, do you? In which case I concede to your greater knowledge.)
You don't think this is a problem particularly of Dr. Bob's site, but of PsychCentral and similar sites as well. But it appears to you to be more evident at Babble because Dr. Bob does his administrating up front rather than behind the scenes.
You want Dr. Bob to get funding for Babble. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this one. If Dr. Bob wants funding, I certainly understand. But I don't see what huge difference it would make. I sort of like the credit card idea better (yes, yes, I know others don't). But perhaps I'm missing something?
You think Babble decisions should be a committee view, with a committee composed of mental health providers.
I won't comment on anything you've said until I make sure I understand correctly what you are saying. If I'm missing the point, could you please point it out, so that the possibility of meaningful discourse is increased?
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:03
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:29:13
> I wish you didn't hate smilies.
I don't hate them. But I am reluctant to compose an explanation of how I parse them vis-a-vis historic languages or face-to-face expressions, because in the past I've had bad experiences with a person who disagreed with the propriety of my comments about how I see them.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:07
In reply to Re: or.... » Dinah, posted by Shy_Girl on May 23, 2005, at 0:45:57
There have been concerns mentioned from time to time on this subject, and I'm aware of it from personal experience.
I sort of landed in Babble over my head. I wasn't familiar with interpersonal communications and it took me some time to be able to withstand what was to this sheltered soul the somewhat hurly burly world of interaction with others (even with the civility rules). Fortunately, I had a therapist who kept me a bit grounded, and who advised Babble breaks from time to time.
Part of my trust in Dr. Bob, and my loyalty to him, comes from that rough period in my own Babble participation. Not that he said much (of course) but what he did say was reassuring and to the point. He too helped ground me. With his customary spare style, I might add. :) And without leaving his administrative role.
So my troubles were not as much with Admin as with interaction.
I'm not actually advocating such a warning, or necessarily think it's needed, but I thought I'd suggest it and see what others thought.
As far as so's concern, writing is not something I claim expertise in, and I wasn't proposing that exact wording. Just putting out an idea to see if it would resonate with those who have had trouble at Babble for one reason or another.
Posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:51:29
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 1:48:03
You don't need to explain. I respect the rights of others with regards to preferences in conversational styles, once I know them.
My comment was more an expression of how much I've come to rely on them to convey tone, and what a challenge I was finding it to refrain.
It wasn't a complaint.
I hope you'll forgive me if I forget now and then, though. If you look through my other posts, you'll find them littered with emoticons.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
In reply to Re: or.... » so, posted by Dinah on May 23, 2005, at 1:51:29
at least they're not enabled as animations in the script
Anyway, smileys are so 20th century. Emotive animations now have real faces, real voices, they can follow the cursor with their eyes, they can be programed to express facial emotions and some can even say whatever you type into a text field. You can manipulate their age, clothing, hair color --or even create talking animations from your own photos, or one you download from this page ... yeh, this page ... that guy up there in the corner, you can make him say anything you want...
Go here and click the "try it" link:
http://www.oddcast.com/sitepal/?&affId=36318&bannerId=0&promotionId=2270
imagine this hooked up to one of those phsycotherapy scripts -- been a while since I used one -- I think it's called alica or elisa or something?http://vhost.oddcast.com/vhost_minisite/products/sitepaltts.php
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:55:58
In reply to Re: or...., posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 3:29:14
here's a better link
http://www.oddcast.com/sitepal/products/sitepaltts.php
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.