![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 16:36:26
In reply to Re: please be civil » violette, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:34:28
Did you cross post with Violette's apology to Emily? I thought if a poster apologized, they didn't get pbc'd?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:57:51
In reply to Dr Bob?, posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 16:36:26
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 18:33:39
In reply to Re: For what it's worth » violette, posted by Dinah on July 4, 2010, at 15:58:43
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » violette, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2010, at 16:34:28
Dr. Bob,
Maybe what's deemed civil or uncivil by you could be related to personality characteristics or defense mechanisms you possibly identify more with as opposed to those you might understand less?
Weaker personality characteristics, like fearfulness (me), or for example, introversion or sensitivity, are sometimes viewed as more negative by our culture than, for example, extroversion or narcissitic traits.
That's all I can think of to possibly explain this confusion I have with moderation here-civil vs. uncivil determinations.
Posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 22:29:55
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
Never mind my question in my last post Dr. Bob.
I had seen someone write on another thread that posters here write hysterical threads, but no one seemed to mind that. I can go be fearful or hypervigilant or hysterical or anxious or whatever in a safer place with likeminded people until I meet with my doctor.
But please disregard the question-I think I already have a sense of the answer. I seem to have a habit of answering my own questions after I ask them so i probably just spoke too soon.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2010, at 11:36:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 4, 2010, at 19:02:35
> Maybe what's deemed civil or uncivil by you could be related to personality characteristics or defense mechanisms you possibly identify more with as opposed to those you might understand less?
It could be. I don't claim to have any special gift for discerning the "true" degree of civility (let alone helpfulness) of anyone's comments.
> Weaker personality characteristics, like fearfulness (me), or for example, introversion or sensitivity, are sometimes viewed as more negative by our culture than, for example, extroversion or narcissitic traits.
I'd agree with that. Would you say the civility guidelines here favor the the narcissistic over the fearful and the extroverted over the introverted?
Bob
Posted by violette on July 7, 2010, at 2:16:57
In reply to Re: what's deemed civil or uncivil, posted by Dr. Bob on July 6, 2010, at 11:36:21
I'm glad you have the integrity to state you may have potential bias (who doesn't?).
Without going into specific 'traits' - it seems you tend to be a bit dismissive of more covert uncivility. I had seen it quite a few times on this forum, yet, it seems to me that you may be unaware of it or its implications.
While attributing negative traits to 'objects' is considered uncivil, (Effexor is poison) your perception of uncivility does not encompass covert uncivility that hurts actual 'people. The Effexor was not 'hurt'. Yet, when a person is directly hurt, you overlook it because you do not 'see' why. I think some of us over-perceiving, sensitives sense this; while someone who may have not had the background to develop that sense might not see it (or understand its implications).
I also think if a poster's intent is to be helpful, generally you would not have to worry about linguistical ideosyncracities of syntax as they will be more naturally interlaced with your words and thus, will be well taken whether or not the recipient agrees with what you said.
This is from some random place, but after experiencing this and 10 plus years of reading about it, it's a good synthesis which provides examples of covert uncivilty:
http://www.dailystrength.org/c/Physical_Emotional_Abuse/forum/3724789-covert-emotional-abuser-long
also
http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_psychological_abuse_is_called_gaslighting
http://www.heart-2-heart.ca/sensitivity/
I wouldn't call anyone here an 'abuser'; however, the patterns of emotional abuse-laden language is very easy to detect if you have been exposed to it enough. It is common and predictable; but difficult to detect for those who have not had the experience.
This does not neceassirly mean that those who write a certain way are abusers; but when others react in certain ways, such as feeling belittled, that could indicate that the writer was using that tone-perhaps unknowingly. And, from my experience, if a sensitive someone's reaction ends up being evidently hurt, they are probably reacting to uncivil intent--or language written that way-rather than being 'too sensitive'.
You do not notice this--and this is not a safe place for those who do. I have been thru every type of abuse, and this kind-by far-is the most damaging when it comes to personal relationships. Relationships on a forum don't capture that damage, but allowing it to happen here can hurt people when it is overlooked or dismissed by adminstration.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
In reply to Re: what's deemed civil or uncivil » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on July 7, 2010, at 2:16:57
> your perception of uncivility does not encompass covert uncivility that hurts actual 'people. ... when a person is directly hurt, you overlook it because you do not 'see' why.
Are you saying I should consider more posts uncivil?
> when others react in certain ways, such as feeling belittled, that could indicate that the writer was using that tone-perhaps unknowingly. And, from my experience, if a sensitive someone's reaction ends up being evidently hurt, they are probably reacting to uncivil intent--or language written that way-rather than being 'too sensitive'.
>
> You do not notice this--and this is not a safe place for those who do.No system can prevent all hurt. How might a community respond when members inevitably feel hurt?
Bob
Posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
Willful
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 11:51:59
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2010, at 4:31:50
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 12:19:51
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
Posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 8, 2010, at 17:25:56
> Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
>
> I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
>
> Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
>
> Willful
>
>
>
>
I applaud your insight and logic. I have noticed that there seem to be folks who are not only hurt easily, but have a way of actually finding hurt in otherwise innocuous exchanges, they seem to have hurt RADAR. And while it may seem reasonable and compassionate to set the bar for the most sensitive, it dumbs things down to an absurd point. Do the tough get softer? Do the soft get tougher? Ah - perhaps BOTH.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 19:20:41
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
> > Using violette;s reasoning, the most easily hurt person is the standard for civility--- and easily hurt people are somehow more capable of discerning "covert" -- ie not obvious-- abuse or incivility in other people.
> >
> > I don't see why this would be so. They might just as likely see hurtfulness where it isn't-- because they have a tendency to feel hurt. In most cases, there's some standard of reasonableness, not hyper-sensitivity, when you're trying to analyze a transaction. That seems more reliable and flexible for us too.
> >
> > Bob doesn't have any special reasonableness maybe-- but it seems like a better thing to aim for in defining civility.
> >
> > Willful
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I applaud your insight and logic. I have noticed that there seem to be folks who are not only hurt easily, but have a way of actually finding hurt in otherwise innocuous exchanges, they seem to have hurt RADAR. And while it may seem reasonable and compassionate to set the bar for the most sensitive, it dumbs things down to an absurd point. Do the tough get softer? Do the soft get tougher? Ah - perhaps BOTH.Er, is RADAR like spidey sense, Ron? Just curious; because I don't consider myself someone to be easily hurt. I do though, consider myself a good lay student of people. And when I follow my intuition, it does not lead me in the wrong direction.
Posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 10, 2010, at 17:37:26
Ron,
Partly Cloudy reinforced my point (though perhaps unknowingly).
Similar to PC, I also don't necessarily get hurt more easily than another. In many ways, less so than others.
Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040820/msgs/382165.html
That's where the radar comes in. Some people pick up on this difference while others don't see it.
If someone seemingly insults my belief about science, for example, I'm usually ok with that because I feel it represents the other person's beliefs rather than me as a person, but if someone were to seemingly insult my character, it would be more personal and cruel in some way.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 20:05:15
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
> Ron,
>
> Partly Cloudy reinforced my point (though perhaps unknowingly).
>
> Similar to PC, I also don't necessarily get hurt more easily than another. In many ways, less so than others.
>
> Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040820/msgs/382165.html
>Wow, that was some thread. Almost 6 years ago and still fresh reading - as pungent as a fresh pile of doggy doo.
> That's where the radar comes in. Some people pick up on this difference while others don't see it.
>
> If someone seemingly insults my belief about science, for example, I'm usually ok with that because I feel it represents the other person's beliefs rather than me as a person, but if someone were to seemingly insult my character, it would be more personal and cruel in some way.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 0:46:58
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by violette on July 10, 2010, at 19:46:10
> Imo, there is a big difference with being hurt in terms of an apostrophe vs being hurt when someone says something directly about one's character. While its understandable that someone may feel offended or if their beliefs or opinions were knocked down somehow--and this isn't necessarily the case for me--I just see a difference between personal insults/criticism about a PERSON and pesonal insults/criticism about an OBJECT or CONCEPT, such as a medication or how one feels about an apostrophy
I agree, there can be a big difference, but there can be overlap, too. Misuse of apostrophes may be an object/concept, for example, but criticizing it may lead someone who misuses them to feel insulted.
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 11, 2010, at 4:35:50
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2010, at 0:46:58
'
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 11:50:06
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » violette, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 20:05:15
If you're a good lay student of people, let me ask you a question. Do you think most people deserve to be, or appreciate being discredited in the present for something they did or said six years ago? I think not. While I applaud your memory, I disdain your use of the mainstream media "gotcha" technique.
FYI, at the time, I was going throuh a devastating divorce after a 27-year marriage, struggling with severe depression, and poorly prescribed medication which ultimately led to a 7-year roller coaster ride Benzo addiction.
And thank you for your support.
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:34:13
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 10, 2010, at 19:20:41
By the way, PC, I feel your deliberate dredging up the ancient past could easily be perceived as uncivil, as it served only one purpose: to discredit my integrity, and was not a response to my current comments.
Posted by Willful on July 11, 2010, at 12:48:49
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:34:13
I do have to wonder about why that particular thread was brought out of the distant past, when it seems relevant to nothing in the discussion and the analogy seems strained at best.
However, violette is the one who originally cited it directly after ron1953 disagreed with her. Was that a coincidence?
Willful
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:52:29
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 11, 2010, at 12:48:49
> I do have to wonder about why that particular thread was brought out of the distant past, when it seems relevant to nothing in the discussion and the analogy seems strained at best.
>
> However, violette is the one who originally cited it directly after ron1953 disagreed with her. Was that a coincidence?
>
> WillfulThanks! If I was mistaken as to PC being the one who did the dredging, I apologize to her. The rest of that post stands.
BTW, in couples therapy, that is known as "kitchen sinking" - dragging unrelated garbage into an argument.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on July 11, 2010, at 13:13:10
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 11:50:06
> If you're a good lay student of people, let me ask you a question. Do you think most people deserve to be, or appreciate being discredited in the present for something they did or said six years ago? I think not. While I applaud your memory, I disdain your use of the mainstream media "gotcha" technique.
>
> FYI, at the time, I was going throuh a devastating divorce after a 27-year marriage, struggling with severe depression, and poorly prescribed medication which ultimately led to a 7-year roller coaster ride Benzo addiction.
>
> And thank you for your support.I was in a very bad place myself. That's no excuse for my horrible behavior, and I am sincerely sorry.
I did not link to that thread; another person did.
I choose not to address the rest of your post.
pc
Posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 13:38:36
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt » ron1953, posted by PartlyCloudy on July 11, 2010, at 13:13:10
Posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 13:52:04
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by ron1953 on July 11, 2010, at 12:34:13
Ron,
"I feel your deliberate dredging up the ancient past could easily be perceived as uncivil, as it served only one purpose: to discredit my integrity, and was not a response to my current comments."
I had no intentions to 'discredit' anyone's integrity. I felt misunderstood and as if I was put on the defensive to justify my reasoning after reading some of the comments in reply to my thoughts.
In order to understand where you were coming from (possible reasons you seem to be feel strongly about others' sensitivity levels) - I googled your user name. The post about the apostrophe was the 2nd thread that came up. Instead of trying to gain a better understanding of your position - after seeing that thread - I thought: this is a good example of what I've been trying to say all along-being sensitive to personal criticism vs being sensitive to criticism of an object or belief. I did not even read all the posts and am truly sorry if you and Partly Cloudy were upset about my referring to that post.
And after reading your recent posts about going through a hard time when you wrote certain things, I can certainly understand why you might be sensitive to my bringing that up. I did not even look at the date-my intentions were not to 'dredge up the past'. Instead, it looked like it would support my argument since as I said, I felt misunderstood and put on the defense:
"I have noticed that there seem to be folks who are not only hurt easily, but have a way of actually finding hurt in otherwise innocuous exchanges, they seem to have hurt RADAR. And while it may seem reasonable and compassionate to set the bar for the most sensitive, it dumbs things down to an absurd point."
Because my whole point was not about getting hurt easily-as you are talking to someone who has never_once_clicked the 'notify administrator' button as a result of 'being easily hurt'. I also never implied nor stated to raise the sensitivity bar. I feel very misunderstood.
The original point was what could seem like personal attacks-such as repeatedly telling others they are not adult enough--seems more harmful than criticizing an object such as attributing Effexor to a poison or strong opinions about an apostrophe. I understand people can be hurt by others knocking down opinions-but it seems to me the former would cause one to feel more put down that the lattter. And I posted some links to parallels of emotional abuse to try to back up my point as well. People IRL who are abusive often perceive or claim the person who is hurt is "too sensitive"-to justify emotional abuse-so yes, I'm sensitive to this issue-being referred to as 'too sensitive'.
I feel like I am beating a dead horse at this point. People have different levels of empathy and see things differently. I appreciate the diversity, but also wished to be understood. Instead, I felt criticized.
Take care, Ron.
Posted by violette on July 11, 2010, at 14:10:02
In reply to Re: when a person is hurt, posted by Willful on July 11, 2010, at 12:48:49
"dragging unrelated garbage into an argument." Ron1953
"I do have to wonder about why that particular thread was brought out of the distant past, when it seems relevant to nothing in the discussion and the analogy seems strained at best" Willful
I felt the analogy was very relevant to my point I've been stating all along--criticising a person's character vs an object or opinion. Again, beating a dead horse I suppose....
I have instead realized that overall this place might be too crazy for me. Dr. Bob encouraged me to work on whatever issues I have here, and I had thought about it and it seemed like a good idea, and I have tried it out. (such as being triggered by others stating I may be 'too sensitive')
But I have found a place where others would easily grasp my opinions with understanding insted of channeling anger my way. There are a lot of differences in opinions there as well, but a different level of psychologically mindfulness enables me to fit in better. Much like my relationship with my therapist-where he does not always agree with my perceptions, but instead of criticizing me for them, understands my reasoning and helps me learn more about myself by recognizing and discussing both my positive traits and possible distortions in perceptions.
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.