![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:49:05
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 14:15:36
>And I still own the copyright to my posts, too.
Um... Nope. You retain copyright to posts to the writing board - but thats all folks.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 16:54:03
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » Jen Star, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:49:05
I thought so too. But the latest FAQ seems to read differently.
That Dr. Bob has fair use, but the copyright belongs to the writer of the post.
Although I'm no genius and may have read it wrong.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:54:53
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2005, at 1:13:31
> In order for research using posts to be acceptable under APA guidelines, I believe there would have to be a specific informed consent.
APA being...
American Psychological Association???
American Psychiatric Association???
American Philosophical Association???
Australasian Philosophical Association???I'm thinking you mean the first...
But doesn't that only apply to psychologists who are members of the association? I mean, the guidelines of other associations might be similar, but they might be a bit different...> It's been ages since I read the information here before I registered, but I would suspect that a blanket consent would not hold up.
Maybe the psychiatric association is okay with that.
To the best of my knowledge the Australasian Philosophical Association (and probably the American one too) wouldn't have a problem with fair use of posts so long as they are referenced with URL and time of access.Hmm.
Posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 17:02:25
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2005, at 1:13:31
hi gg,
thanks for responding! Yes, the informed consent sounds reasonable, just to prevent issues later on. But I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to say for sure what is and isn't needed. In any case, I'm OK with Dr. Bob doing research here. I do remember checking or signing something when registering saying that I'm OK with it.JenStar
Posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 17:30:22
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » Jen Star, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:49:05
hi Alexandra,
unless you sign away complete rights, you still own copyright to your posts. Dr. Bob has copyright to your posts, too, which means he may use them in part or whole in a publication without further permission. But you can use your own posts, too.Here's a statement I cut/pasted from Dr. Bob's FAQ. Check it out - looks like acknowledges the copyright stuff. Good news, right? :)
---below copied from Dr. Bob's FAQ ---"How do copyrights work here?
My understanding is that when you write something, you (usually) get the copyright to it. It doesn't even have to include a copyright statement. There's a process by which you can register that copyright, but that's a somewhat separate issue. However, I want to be able to use these posts elsewhere. For example, on my Book Ideas page or in articles.You may therefore submit a message only if you agree to allow me unrestricted use of it. Submitting a message constitutes acceptance of that condition. But you retain the copyright.
At the same time, nobody should post anything they don't have the right to. When exactly one has that right, however, can be complicated. Even if the issue is the reposting here, without explicit permission, of the full text of an article copyrighted by someone else:
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:56:37 -0700
From: Lawrence LessigThis turns out to be a hard question. In my view, it is or should be fair use, but there is some authority to the contrary. Is there a reason you can't simply publish links?
Acceptable options include summarizing or paraphrasing, simply posting a link, as suggested above, fair use of a portion, or, of course, obtaining permission. If material you hold the copyright to has been reproduced here and you object, please contact me.
Posting a site password that's intended for only your use is prohibited. If I become aware of such a post, I'll delete some or all of it."
Posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 18:01:31
In reply to You know what I find even more interesting... » Jen Star, posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 15:24:24
hi Racer,
I'm a geek too! :) It's nice that there are more out there.I agree with you - it is interesting to look at group dynamics and cycles. I've noticed that in RL groups, too.
Another thing I'm becoming curious about -- does the "2 second" rule for first impressions have a counterpart for # of posts it takes to "get" someone's personality online? It's harder, b/c you don't have body language, expressions, etc. But can we form accurate impressions from reading someone's posts?
Obviously research on this could ONLY be conducted by someone who had access to the real people and their posts. And you'd have to design the experiment carefully. But I'd be quite interested to see results if someone did an exp. on this.
Just from work experiences (reading lots of emails and interacting with real people), I'd say there are SOME writing tags that identify character traits, but that it's a harder and more nebulous comparison that using body language and expressions to get to character traits.
What do you think about this?
JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:32:13
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 17:30:22
Yeah, we retain copyright to our own posts.
But my understanding is that Dr Bob gets to hold copyright to them too.
I would guess that means that 'fair use' doesn't apply.
'Fair use' is about how much of a thread, or how much of someones post you are allowed to use.
It gets a little ambiguous here... Copyright restrictions mean that... I think this is roughly correct... You can't reproduce more than 10% of a book or more than however many chapters... Or whatever. I can't really remember. But the point is that 'fair use' places restrictions depending on how you make the analogy between threads / posts and books / chapters / articles. If you use a whole thread in a publication that might be like using a whole chapter of someones book - which might be a bit on the hefty side with respect to the amount of information you are allowed to reproduce.If Dr Bob has copyright then he doesn't have to worry about how much from a thread / post he can use in one article / chapter / whatever.
Thats why I'm careful to put work I have done over on writing. Don't mind if people make fair use of it - but wouldn't want them reproducing too much of a chunk of it at a time.
But my understanding could be way off...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:34:45
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » Racer, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 18:01:31
If people did one of those personality inventories and saved it to the server...
(Like you can already do with some different tests)And their posts were analysed...
You might be able to work that out.
There might be some fairly reliable indicators of personality type that are apparant fairly early on from peoples posts...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:35:58
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » Jen Star, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:49:05
> >And I still own the copyright to my posts, too.
>
> Um... Nope. You retain copyright to posts to the writing board - but thats all folks.
Sorry - I get you now.
You Do retain copyright - sorry bout that.
But Dr Bob gets to have copyright too (I think).
Posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 19:00:11
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » Racer, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 18:01:31
I think you're definitely on to something, although I've no idea how it could be investigated. I know that some people just have something in the very first thing of theirs I read that grabs me, you know? Those people will always be on my radar, and I'll always look for their posts first. (I think SLS has been on my radar like that for many years...)
I also think that there are characteristics that you can see from the first post, that would be upheld by personality indices.
And I wonder, too, how many posts it takes to form that opinion? My guess -- based on what I remember of my own reading of posts here -- is "not many..."
Fascinating... Hey! Dr Bob! We got some ideas for you here!
Posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 19:05:14
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » Jen Star, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:34:45
> If people did one of those personality inventories and saved it to the server...
> (Like you can already do with some different tests)
>
> And their posts were analysed...
>
> You might be able to work that out.
>
> There might be some fairly reliable indicators of personality type that are apparant fairly early on from peoples posts...You know, I think that's a brilliant idea! I could see a couple of ways of doing it, too...
Let's see, have volunteers from the audience (Babblers, that is) take a couple of different personality indices, grab a few posts from each of them -- preferably in context, meaning whole threads -- and have someone else, someone unfamiliar with the boards, see if they can form an opinion based on those posts. Then take those opinions, and check them against the personality profiles. Finally, give those readers the opinions formed by all the readers, with three personality profiles for each, and ask them to work out which opinion they think most closely matches the profile. Or something like that...
By the way, in case anyone cares, I was thinking that out as I typed. I don't think about these things much before I start typing, so you're pretty much getting how I talk when you read my posts... Only the spelling is better when I type... ;-)
Anyway, I'm really diggin' this thread. I think it's a great idea, and would love to see the results if anyone came up with a real version of what Alexandra suggested.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 19:32:24
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » alexandra_k, posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 19:05:14
And see how many posts it takes them to reach a conclusion?
I find I not infrequently change my first opinion of a poster when I learn more information. Usually in an upward direction. Not sure what that says about me.
How many posts it takes me to conclude something varies widely with how distinctive the posts may be. But I generally try to keep in mind how often my conclusions have been incorrect.
On the other hand, I rarely change my IRL conclusions. That may be because of the intimacy of what we disclose here?
Posted by Deneb on July 23, 2005, at 20:19:11
In reply to I think you're definitely on to something... » Jen Star, posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 19:00:11
I wanna be a guinea pig! (They are sooo cute.)
I would much rather be the one doing the researching, but I wouldn't mind being the object of research! It might be interesting. I don't think posters are allowed to do research on other posters here though...I think I read something about that in a thread very very long ago.
Deneb
Posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 20:49:23
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:35:58
Yes, I think we're in agreement now! And what you said before makes sense -- to be careful what you post on the writing board, here or other sites. If you've put a lot of time and effort into a poem or story or other creative work, it's nice to have sole copyright ownership of it! :)
JenStar
Posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 20:52:04
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » Jen Star, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 18:34:45
very interesting idea, alexandra! I think it could work. Of course, I'm not sure that many people would be willing to be guinea pigs, and there would still be some subjectivity. But isn't there subjectivity in any kind of topic like this anyway?
This is cool stuff! I'm glad that you guys are interested in this too.
JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:05:48
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 20:49:23
> And what you said before makes sense -- to be careful what you post on the writing board, here or other sites. If you've put a lot of time and effort into a poem or story or other creative work, it's nice to have sole copyright ownership of it!
Yes. But what I didn't think of was that our posts are linked to google. That means that if I put a paper on the writing board people will get a hit to Babble for typing a bit of my paper (or the title) into google.
That means I don't want to have another copy of that same paper on the internet that has my irl name on it.
Otherwise by googling my paper people could make the link between my irl name and by babble posting name.
I didn't really think of that...
But I'm aware of it now.
I just need to be careful about what I do post on the boards.
And think a bit about what else I might want to do with those papers.
And about how much my confidentiality means to me...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:08:55
In reply to Re: I think you're definitely on to something..., posted by Deneb on July 23, 2005, at 20:19:11
> I don't think posters are allowed to do research on other posters here though...
I don't know... that it would be possible to stop someone.
I haven't done anything.
I don't imagine that I will.
There is just the point that I really do think that if I (and therefore if someone else) decided to do that...
There may well be nothing that anybody can do.
People may get into trouble with the American Psychological Association but that only applies to members of the American Psychological Association and there are other associations out there that don't seem to have anything other than 'fair use' to say about that.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:15:13
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » alexandra_k, posted by Jen Star on July 23, 2005, at 20:52:04
Its hard work to come up with a good research design... Everything needs to be operationalised along the way...
It would be a good Masters level project or something like that...
> I'm not sure that many people would be willing to be guinea pigs,
Yeah. I find it interesting to hear peoples views on being a research subject.
>and there would still be some subjectivity.
Could be eliminated. Have different people trawling the posts and hope they reach consensus. Also get them to specify the lines in the posts that made them classify the person the way they did. That way you might find that there are types of reliable indicators as to personality type.
Once you have a hypothesis about the types of reliable indicators then you could look to see whether these can be used as a reliable heuristic to personality assessment...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:16:12
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting..., posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:15:13
I still like the idea of an automated civility checker :-)
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2005, at 21:17:27
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting..., posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 21:16:12
I don't.
Now. Deadline friday.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2005, at 21:23:31
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on July 23, 2005, at 16:54:53
> APA being...
> American Psychological Association???
> American Psychiatric Association???
> American Philosophical Association???
> Australasian Philosophical Association???
>
I was referring to the American Psychological Association, as that is what I am most familiar with. Although duh, Dr. Bob would be responsible to the American Psychiatric Association. I do not know their specific ethical standards for conducting research, but I do know that whether a person is a member of a professional organization or not, the ethical standards are set forth for the entire profession. The APA and the ApA do not have jurisdiction to enforce these standards. State licensing boards do. And state licensing boards enforce state laws, which are often based at least in part on professional standards as set forth by the national professional organization.> > It's been ages since I read the information here before I registered, but I would suspect that a blanket consent would not hold up.
>
> Maybe the psychiatric association is okay with that.They could be, but it's such a standard in research with human participants in all fields to have a specific informed consent in place, that I would be surprised. It also depends on whether the research is conducted as part of an institution, which would have an institution review board in place with their own requirements for research.
> To the best of my knowledge the Australasian Philosophical Association (and probably the American one too) wouldn't have a problem with fair use of posts so long as they are referenced with URL and time of access.
You'd be a better resource for this. I have no idea about professional philosophical organizations.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 1:22:40
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2005, at 21:23:31
> I do know that whether a person is a member of a professional organization or not, the ethical standards are set forth for the entire profession.
Okay
>The APA and the ApA do not have jurisdiction to enforce these standards. State licensing boards do. And state licensing boards enforce state laws, which are often based at least in part on professional standards as set forth by the national professional organization.
Right. So if one had a lisence to practice then one could lose ones lisence to practice if one got into trouble with the state lisencing board.
But if one didn't have / didn't want a lisence to practice anyway....
>it's such a standard in research with human participants in all fields to have a specific informed consent in place, that I would be surprised.Yeah. I bet there is a difference between recruiting subjects to participate in an experiment vs making observations too... I mean... I can see why there are strict ethical guidelines around running experiments. But what about recording observations? Does that run differently or are they as strict about that too???
>It also depends on whether the research is conducted as part of an institution, which would have an institution review board in place with their own requirements for research.
yup.
> > To the best of my knowledge the Australasian Philosophical Association (and probably the American one too) wouldn't have a problem with fair use of posts so long as they are referenced with URL and time of access.
> You'd be a better resource for this. I have no idea about professional philosophical organizations.Well... There isn't a lisencing board to start with. You don't need a lisence to practice philosophy! Philosophers don't run experiments though we do typically study scientific methodology. Philosophers don't typically make observations of the world / people in the world either... Well... Some do. Some are more naturalistically inclined... But philosophers don't typically conduct surveys or anything like that.
If I wanted to run an experiment I would need to get ethical approval for that.
If I wanted to conduct a survey... I'm not sure. I'm not so sure. I said (rather jokingly) to my supervisor that I would be interested to do a survey on what the 'common man' believed (Austin is fond of making claims about what the 'common man' believes about knowledge, reality, language etc). I thought that we could use 1st years as the 'common men' and maybe give them course credit ;-) My supervisor said that he didn't think I'd get ethical approval for that. I'm not sure why. Maybe he was worried about Austins use of the term 'common man'. Maybe he was kidding. I've mentioned it to others in the dept. and they couldn't figure why he would say that. They didn't think I'd need ethical approval.And so...
Best I can figure all that is there in philosophy is the copyright restriction on reproducing other peoples words. To properly reference for the most part...
Probably... The laws aren't all caught up with the technology yet.
And philosophy might be a bit lax with observations / quotations.
I do have sympathy with the thought that it is unethical to quote parts of peoples posts without their permission. Especially given the point that they post here to give / receive support - and not to be quoted in doing so. I do get that. My point is just that if someone felt differently... I don't know that there would be anything to stop them.
Maybe some professionals
But not all.
Not all.
So my thought is that it is better to be explicit about that than to make promises that one might well be unable to keep...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 5:56:10
In reply to Re: You know what I find even more interesting... » alexandra_k, posted by Racer on July 23, 2005, at 19:05:14
But...
You would need some kind of personality typing test or whatever to get the 'definitive' classification of people into their personality types. So the whole thing would only be as good as the test you use to start with. If the test turns out to be chucked as a good test of typing peoples personalities then the results wouldn't be worth very much.
And personality assessment is controversial / problematic...
Then you would need to be careful about how you select the posts for the person to attempt to type people on the basis of their posts. You would want to rule out posts of the kind 'I was dx'd as having xxx personality disorder' because that would basically give the type away...
Then you would want whatever you have discovered to be reliable indicators of personality type to be a more useful heuristic than getting people to sit the test that you used to type them to start with...
I dunno...
Posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 13:42:23
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 1:22:40
>
> But if one didn't have / didn't want a lisence to practice anyway....Hmmm, but psychologists who are not clinical are not licensed, and they still have to deal with APA ethics and with IRB's etc.
>
> >it's such a standard in research with human participants in all fields to have a specific informed consent in place, that I would be surprised.
>
> Yeah. I bet there is a difference between recruiting subjects to participate in an experiment vs making observations too... I mean... I can see why there are strict ethical guidelines around running experiments. But what about recording observations? Does that run differently or are they as strict about that too???I know at my school there are different levels of IRB approval. I am using archival data, and I essentially need to just get a "sign-off". Surveys require a bit more scrutiny, but are also fairly easy to get approved. Experiments or some other type of data collection from human participants are the hardest to get approved. You have to jump through lots of hoops. I suspect observation would fall somewhere between surveys and experiments, but then again, you could go to the mall and count backpacks and do no harm. Hmmmm.
>
> If I wanted to conduct a survey... I'm not sure. I'm not so sure. I said (rather jokingly) to my supervisor that I would be interested to do a survey on what the 'common man' believed (Austin is fond of making claims about what the 'common man' believes about knowledge, reality, language etc). I thought that we could use 1st years as the 'common men' and maybe give them course credit ;-) My supervisor said that he didn't think I'd get ethical approval for that. I'm not sure why. Maybe he was worried about Austins use of the term 'common man'. Maybe he was kidding. I've mentioned it to others in the dept. and they couldn't figure why he would say that. They didn't think I'd need ethical approval.Interesting. I'm lucky in that one of the people on my committee is also on the IRB.
>
> And so...
>
> Best I can figure all that is there in philosophy is the copyright restriction on reproducing other peoples words. To properly reference for the most part...
>
> Probably... The laws aren't all caught up with the technology yet.Probably so, I don't follow this at all.
>
> And philosophy might be a bit lax with observations / quotations.
>
> I do have sympathy with the thought that it is unethical to quote parts of peoples posts without their permission. Especially given the point that they post here to give / receive support - and not to be quoted in doing so. I do get that. My point is just that if someone felt differently... I don't know that there would be anything to stop them.
>
> Maybe some professionals
> But not all.
> Not all.
> So my thought is that it is better to be explicit about that than to make promises that one might well be unable to keep...
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 18:07:50
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on July 24, 2005, at 13:42:23
> Hmmm, but psychologists who are not clinical are not licensed, and they still have to deal with APA ethics and with IRB's etc.
IRB?? Yeah. I guess they come under the ethics board at the uni.
> I know at my school there are different levels of IRB approval. I am using archival data, and I essentially need to just get a "sign-off". Surveys require a bit more scrutiny, but are also fairly easy to get approved. Experiments or some other type of data collection from human participants are the hardest to get approved. You have to jump through lots of hoops.That makes sense.
>I suspect observation would fall somewhere between surveys and experiments, but then again, you could go to the mall and count backpacks and do no harm. Hmmmm.
Yeah. And the observations that philosophers typically make are such observations as 'there are material objects' and 'sometimes people communicate by using language'.
I guess I have been thinking of it as simply quoting something that someone has said. Like you would quote an article or whatever. Thinking that you could quote peoples posts like that. But maybe I am wrong on that. I haven't really looked into it too much. Just asked officemate and he seemed to see it the same way and tried to hunt out the copyright / fair use guidelines.
> Probably so, I don't follow this at all.Nor do I really.
:-)
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.