![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 10:18:19
In reply to Please be civil » ace, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on December 25, 2007, at 1:31:35
>
> >> Most psychiatrists are quite unstable themselves- this is a known fact.
> >>and psychiatrists have the tendency to cause more harm than good.... especially younger ones.
>
> Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize, or post anything that might lead others - such as psychiatrists - to feel accused or put down.Exaggerate??!! Overgeneralize??!! I did not. Do you want me to post about the psychiatric fraternity suicide rate? Or the many lawsuits against psychiatrists in the regeion of NSW due to malpractice? The percentages are VERY high...I have the data. I have personally met some lovely, warm and responsible psychiatrists. But I feel they are far and few in bewteen. That is more personal opinion gleaned from many resources. Am I allowed to state my view? I don't think I breeched any code of civility.
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Admin and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action.
>
> -- 10derHeart, acting as deputy for Dr. BobWhat is this deputy status? I am unclear of who I am talking to here.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2007, at 10:19:44
In reply to Re: Please be civil » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 10:18:19
> > > Most psychiatrists are quite unstable themselves- this is a known fact.
> >
> > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize
>
> The percentages are VERY high...I have the data. I have personally met some lovely, warm and responsible psychiatrists. But I feel they are far and few in bewteen. That is more personal opinion gleaned from many resources. Am I allowed to state my view?Does the data show that the percentage is over 50? Personal opinions are fine, and in fact encouraged, but it can be important to distinguish between personal opinions and facts. And even then your freedom of speech is limited here.
> What is this deputy status?
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#Deputy
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 10:23:03
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Phillipa, posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2007, at 9:53:33
> > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
>
> Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
Regards, Ace.
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 16:46:46
In reply to Re: blocked for week » Dr. Bob, posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 10:23:03
> > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> >
> > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
>
> Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
>
>
> > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
>
> This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
>
>
>
> Regards, Ace.
>
>
>
> > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
>
>
Friends,
Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
more...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 16:55:35
In reply to Lou's defense of Phillipa-test fo exag-1a, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 16:46:46
> > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > >
> > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> >
> > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> >
> >
> > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> >
> > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards, Ace.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> Friends,
> Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> more...
> LouFriends,
There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
more...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 17:11:31
In reply to Lou's defense of Phillipa-rezon-1b, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 16:55:35
> > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > >
> > > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> > >
> > > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> > >
> > > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, Ace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > >
> > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > Friends,
> > Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> > The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> > When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> > In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> > For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> > Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> > Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> > Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> > more...
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
> There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
> more...
> LouFriends,
Anothe raspect of {reasonableness} is to see if there are collateral statements that could indicate an opinion based on experiance verses a statemnt of fact. Looking at Phillipa's post in toto, we see:
A. Ace, {I do not agree}
B. {Seems} nursing
C. {What I've seen}
D. {my favorite}
E. {gives me the bility to >suggest<
F. Things {I do not especially like}
G. >I also do not like< the automatic ones
H. you actually hear the blood pressure.
In {H}, there is a qulifier as IMO reasonable that it is an opinion based on experiance.
In the overiding atmosphere that I concieve after reading Phillipa's post, I see her as recounting her experiances as a nurse to Ace. She may be wrong about which device is better, if there was a national study done, but I see that it is plainly visible to me that she is recounting her experiance as a nurse.
Lou
Posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 22:02:28
In reply to Re: exaggerating, posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2007, at 10:19:44
> > > > Most psychiatrists are quite unstable themselves- this is a known fact.
> > >
> > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize
> >
> > The percentages are VERY high...I have the data. I have personally met some lovely, warm and responsible psychiatrists. But I feel they are far and few in bewteen. That is more personal opinion gleaned from many resources. Am I allowed to state my view?
>
> Does the data show that the percentage is over 50?The data, using reliable statistical methodology (NO statitic methodology is free from bias and certain uncontrolled variables obviously- I'm sure you agree) did not find the rate exceeded 50%. However, I feel that the percentage, which was still high (I can say the figure if you want), represents a problem. The very doctors, people are seeing to ward off suicide, have a high % in suiciding. I just feel personally that this is troubling. My statistics only pertain to NSW, Australia also.
Personal opinions are fine, and in fact encouraged,
I applaud this. I personally feel you know as well as me about the qouta of psychiatrists who have not overcome their (pathological) demons BEFORE practicing. And I know you can not offer a comment in response to this!
I just feel that the psychiatrist should be screened more before practice begins. And regularly too. Goodness knows the amount of stress a psychiatrist goes through- it is not easy , I feel, to sheild oneself all the time, and thus, be immune, from the sorrow/fear/depression that a patient can permeate.
Finally, you might find this interesting. The statistical results also showed that psychiatrists (NSW, Australia) did not screen in the MSE enough for possible suicidal behaviour.
but it can be important to distinguish between personal opinions and facts.And even then your freedom of speech is limited here.
Why do you mention this? Have people stated that their is not enough freedom of speach allowed for on this site? Freedom of speech is limited everywhere. We are not 'free', by any means.
Actually I encourage your stance on swear words on this site- even though I have transgressed your 'rules' on these myself.
I personally do find the use of swear words, in certain contexts, offensive.
I hope this feedback is helpful. I very much like this site- I just wish I had more time to be on it!
Regards,
Ace:)
> > What is this deputy status?
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#Deputy
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 8:07:56
In reply to Re: Lou's defense of Phillipa-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 17:11:31
> > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> > > >
> > > > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Ace.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > >
> > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> > > The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> > > When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> > > In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> > > For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> > > Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> > > Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> > > Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> > > more...
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
> > There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
> > more...
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> Anothe raspect of {reasonableness} is to see if there are collateral statements that could indicate an opinion based on experiance verses a statemnt of fact. Looking at Phillipa's post in toto, we see:
> A. Ace, {I do not agree}
> B. {Seems} nursing
> C. {What I've seen}
> D. {my favorite}
> E. {gives me the bility to >suggest<
> F. Things {I do not especially like}
> G. >I also do not like< the automatic ones
> H. you actually hear the blood pressure.
> In {H}, there is a qulifier as IMO reasonable that it is an opinion based on experiance.
> In the overiding atmosphere that I concieve after reading Phillipa's post, I see her as recounting her experiances as a nurse to Ace. She may be wrong about which device is better, if there was a national study done, but I see that it is plainly visible to me that she is recounting her experiance as a nurse.
> LouFriends,
One of the parts of a test to determine as to if exaggeration is intended or even can be seen in a statement, is to see if a {preference} is being brought out by the writer for them and them alone without bringing in other's experiances with in this case the two devices. A preference is indicated when an {advantage}or reason given for the choice is written about and a {choice} is made by the writer from the writer's own perspective for a reason that the writer has first-hand to know.
Let us look at Phillip's statement in question:
She writes,[...{I do not like} the automatic ones. A? real old-fashioned cuff and..is best as you actually hear the blood pressure...]. Here we see;
A. There is a {preference} stated as {she does not like} the one verses the other. She is talking from her own perspective and it is plainly visible that there is her experiance with both the devices and other user's experiances are not brought into her statement.
B. There is a {choice} by the writer as she writes as the reason given,[...old fashioned one is best because you hear the blood pressure...].
As to if a reasonable person would conclude from Phillip'a experiances useing the two devices that she is making a universal claim that one device is better than the others, she is just one user of the two devices and has not brought in other users in her statement. She writes of her {preference} and her preference alone. It is her liking or disliking that is the subject of her statement here, not a conclusion involving other's useage of the devices.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 8:59:26
In reply to Lou's defense of Phillipa-pref, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 8:07:56
> > > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> > > > >
> > > > > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Ace.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> > > > The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> > > > When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> > > > In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> > > > For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> > > > Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> > > > Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> > > > Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> > > > more...
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
> > > There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
> > > more...
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > Anothe raspect of {reasonableness} is to see if there are collateral statements that could indicate an opinion based on experiance verses a statemnt of fact. Looking at Phillipa's post in toto, we see:
> > A. Ace, {I do not agree}
> > B. {Seems} nursing
> > C. {What I've seen}
> > D. {my favorite}
> > E. {gives me the bility to >suggest<
> > F. Things {I do not especially like}
> > G. >I also do not like< the automatic ones
> > H. you actually hear the blood pressure.
> > In {H}, there is a qulifier as IMO reasonable that it is an opinion based on experiance.
> > In the overiding atmosphere that I concieve after reading Phillipa's post, I see her as recounting her experiances as a nurse to Ace. She may be wrong about which device is better, if there was a national study done, but I see that it is plainly visible to me that she is recounting her experiance as a nurse.
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> One of the parts of a test to determine as to if exaggeration is intended or even can be seen in a statement, is to see if a {preference} is being brought out by the writer for them and them alone without bringing in other's experiances with in this case the two devices. A preference is indicated when an {advantage}or reason given for the choice is written about and a {choice} is made by the writer from the writer's own perspective for a reason that the writer has first-hand to know.
> Let us look at Phillip's statement in question:
> She writes,[...{I do not like} the automatic ones. A? real old-fashioned cuff and..is best as you actually hear the blood pressure...]. Here we see;
> A. There is a {preference} stated as {she does not like} the one verses the other. She is talking from her own perspective and it is plainly visible that there is her experiance with both the devices and other user's experiances are not brought into her statement.
> B. There is a {choice} by the writer as she writes as the reason given,[...old fashioned one is best because you hear the blood pressure...].
> As to if a reasonable person would conclude from Phillip'a experiances useing the two devices that she is making a universal claim that one device is better than the others, she is just one user of the two devices and has not brought in other users in her statement. She writes of her {preference} and her preference alone. It is her liking or disliking that is the subject of her statement here, not a conclusion involving other's useage of the devices.
> LouFriends,
Another part of a test for exaggeration in to look at the {degree} that could be seen involving what is in question. The degree involves,
A. The audiance
B. The claim
C. The intended import of the claim
Let us look at the claim:[..more often or not are not accurate...]. What meaning is the writer here wanting to convey?
The audiance is Ace, for the statement is made in a dialog with just Ace as an experiance by the writer.
The claim involves the grammatical structure, {more often then not}. What people has the writer wanting to know of her experiances with the two devices? Is it Ace or Ace and others? The post is directed to Ace, for the first sentece is,[...>Ace< I do not agree...]. What does {more often than not} import in the context of the grammatical structure of the post? Is it Phillipa's own observation? It is her own observation because she writes,[...I do not like}. Here it is written that it is a personal observation as to the likeing by the poster or not of one device over the other. She also uses the grammatical structure ,{ what I've seen} in the post. The post is about what she has seen. When Philippa wrote of the {automatic ones}, it was from {what she has seen}. She may by wrong or she maybe right if a study was done by let's say a company that tests hospital devices and gets opinions from 1000s of nurses about their preference for one or the other devices based on accuracy. The post is to Ace for Phillipa signs the post;
My Ace The NARDIL Champ!!!!!!!Phillipa.
The degree of the audiance is Ace. Ace knows now the {prefrence} that Phillipa has for the two devices. So?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 10:06:56
In reply to Lou's defense of Phillipa-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 8:59:26
> > > > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, Ace.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Friends,
> > > > > Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> > > > > The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> > > > > When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> > > > > In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> > > > > For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> > > > > Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> > > > > Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> > > > > Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> > > > > more...
> > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
> > > > There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
> > > > more...
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Anothe raspect of {reasonableness} is to see if there are collateral statements that could indicate an opinion based on experiance verses a statemnt of fact. Looking at Phillipa's post in toto, we see:
> > > A. Ace, {I do not agree}
> > > B. {Seems} nursing
> > > C. {What I've seen}
> > > D. {my favorite}
> > > E. {gives me the bility to >suggest<
> > > F. Things {I do not especially like}
> > > G. >I also do not like< the automatic ones
> > > H. you actually hear the blood pressure.
> > > In {H}, there is a qulifier as IMO reasonable that it is an opinion based on experiance.
> > > In the overiding atmosphere that I concieve after reading Phillipa's post, I see her as recounting her experiances as a nurse to Ace. She may be wrong about which device is better, if there was a national study done, but I see that it is plainly visible to me that she is recounting her experiance as a nurse.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > One of the parts of a test to determine as to if exaggeration is intended or even can be seen in a statement, is to see if a {preference} is being brought out by the writer for them and them alone without bringing in other's experiances with in this case the two devices. A preference is indicated when an {advantage}or reason given for the choice is written about and a {choice} is made by the writer from the writer's own perspective for a reason that the writer has first-hand to know.
> > Let us look at Phillip's statement in question:
> > She writes,[...{I do not like} the automatic ones. A? real old-fashioned cuff and..is best as you actually hear the blood pressure...]. Here we see;
> > A. There is a {preference} stated as {she does not like} the one verses the other. She is talking from her own perspective and it is plainly visible that there is her experiance with both the devices and other user's experiances are not brought into her statement.
> > B. There is a {choice} by the writer as she writes as the reason given,[...old fashioned one is best because you hear the blood pressure...].
> > As to if a reasonable person would conclude from Phillip'a experiances useing the two devices that she is making a universal claim that one device is better than the others, she is just one user of the two devices and has not brought in other users in her statement. She writes of her {preference} and her preference alone. It is her liking or disliking that is the subject of her statement here, not a conclusion involving other's useage of the devices.
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> Another part of a test for exaggeration in to look at the {degree} that could be seen involving what is in question. The degree involves,
> A. The audiance
> B. The claim
> C. The intended import of the claim
> Let us look at the claim:[..more often or not are not accurate...]. What meaning is the writer here wanting to convey?
> The audiance is Ace, for the statement is made in a dialog with just Ace as an experiance by the writer.
> The claim involves the grammatical structure, {more often then not}. What people has the writer wanting to know of her experiances with the two devices? Is it Ace or Ace and others? The post is directed to Ace, for the first sentece is,[...>Ace< I do not agree...]. What does {more often than not} import in the context of the grammatical structure of the post? Is it Phillipa's own observation? It is her own observation because she writes,[...I do not like}. Here it is written that it is a personal observation as to the likeing by the poster or not of one device over the other. She also uses the grammatical structure ,{ what I've seen} in the post. The post is about what she has seen. When Philippa wrote of the {automatic ones}, it was from {what she has seen}. She may by wrong or she maybe right if a study was done by let's say a company that tests hospital devices and gets opinions from 1000s of nurses about their preference for one or the other devices based on accuracy. The post is to Ace for Phillipa signs the post;
> My Ace The NARDIL Champ!!!!!!!Phillipa.
> The degree of the audiance is Ace. Ace knows now the {prefrence} that Phillipa has for the two devices. So?
> LouFriends,
Another aspect as to if the post contains an exaggeration is to look at what has been in the {past-practice} as to what is or is not considered to be an exaggeration by the rule-maker here. The rule-maker writes in his TOS here that he wants to be {fair} and do what in his thinking will be good for the community as a whole.
To be {fair} is generally accepted to mean to be {impartial} without self-interest or favoritism}.
One generally accepted way to determine such is to look at the past-practice here to see this. The statement in question by Phillipa here is;
[...more often or not...}
Is it not that this phrase is written by Robert Hsiung here to constitute in some way some sort of {exaggeration} by Phillipa? In the context of Phillipa's post, she writes of her {observation} by personal experiance about two types of a device that she prefers one to the other by their accuracy based on her use.
Let us look now in the past-practice as to how this phrase, {more often than not} has been written and if or if not others using the phrase have been sanctioned as per Phillipa here.
Here a member posts;
[...Untreated depression {more often than not} get better on its own without medication...]
I ask;
A. Is there a difference between Phillipa's post and her being sanctioned for such and this one? B. If so, I ask members here to post in this thread what could be the difference to allow the one and sanction the other.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060717/msgs/668783.html
Posted by Toph on January 2, 2008, at 12:43:25
In reply to Re: exaggerating, posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2007, at 10:19:44
I find this funny because my wife gave me an automatic cuff for Christmas. My doctor warned me that they tend to be inaccurate, so I take 3 readings and average the 3 invariably different readings. My automatic machine certainly appears unreliable, though it is not my intention to make Bob look foolish with this anecdote.
Someone else asked and I am also puzzled, a disparaging generalization about shrinks could offend sensitive shrinks, but must we be concerned here with offending automatic blood pressure manufacturers on PB?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2008, at 16:25:47
In reply to Re: exaggerating » Dr. Bob, posted by ace on December 26, 2007, at 22:02:28
> The data, using reliable statistical methodology ... did not find the rate exceeded 50%. However, I feel that the percentage, which was still high ... represents a problem.
Thanks for checking. It's fine to say you feel the percentage is high and represents a problem.
Bob
Posted by cumulative on January 11, 2008, at 20:33:28
In reply to Re: exaggerating, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2008, at 16:25:47
Blocking people for "overgeneralization" is stupid, and I think at this point you know it.
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.