![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 23:56:34
In reply to Re: Again, the ridiculous.... :( W T F ?????? » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:31:02
>And thing is - CE handled it all with a lot of decorum. He could have reacted as if he felt picked on, but he didn't. He could have acted offended and spouted off about the extraordinarily low threshhold in this situation, but he didn't.
But CE did express in later in the thread that what Bob was doing did make him uncomfortable. So, I believe that CE did feel picked on, despite handling the situation with such grace. You can see how this would not be a good thing-one for a member to be made to feel uncomfortable and possibly picked on, and two, to not feel like it may be worth expressing they felt this way.
I feel like you make many excuses for Dr. Bob.
I like Bob, from what I know of him, I just think he's making some mistakes in the way he is running his site. And for someone like Scott to come on here and express his concern of the way things are being run, there must be something to it.
Posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 23:45:21
>Muffled - I understand why it feels to you like Bob is telling Christempowered that he's 'bad.'
That's not it. It's the unrelenting "schooling" that was going on that I felt(and I believe others did as well) was disrespectful and unnecessary, whether Crist_Empowered felt bad during it or not.
>Just give it some thought. Try to read through the dialogue between CE and Bob.and try to 'hear' Bob saying "CE, you're a great guy, but this thing you said about anti-psychiatry and hogwash might make someone who is very anti-psychiatry feel like he's not welcome. I'm worried about them feeling bad. Can you rephrase your opinion in a way that wouldn't make an anti-psychiatry person feel bad about themselves?" Maybe if you can say that in your head as you read it, you'll be able to see it from a perspective that doesn't feel so threatening to you.
But that isn't how Bob said it. Is this how you think it should have been approached? If it is, then you must disagree with how Bob approached it.
Posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:30:29
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
Technically to me, this thread was an example of patronizing. The way Dr. Bob communicates is not always done with any warmth. It's hard to communicate with warmth anyway on the internet when we are just dealing with written text. I also don't think Dr. Bob wants to communicate and probably should not communicate with a certain warmth, friendliness or emotion as he is in charge of running babble and enforcing the rules. I compare this to a police officer that is on the job or a therapist or psychiatrist. There is a line that has to be drawn, a distance that has to be maintained. So, it would make sense that Bob's way of communicating things to a member when trying to get them to rephrase something in a more civil way would sound more like patronizing, as opposed to two friends sitting side by side having a conversation about the same matter. Since Bob is seen as a sort of superior here, and there is a feeling of distance between he and the members, I had no other way of describing his actions as being patronizing.
I simply trying to explain why when I felt the need to jump in and defend Christ_Empowered, I used the word "patronize" and could not think of another word to use. I know I could have left the word patronize out, but I would have still essentially said the same thing. Has it reached a point where we can't use the best word to describe what we saw because someone may be offended by the use of that word?
I'm kinda feeling a 1984 vibe here. I'm sure others have already expressed their concerns over having to watch out for big brother.
Posted by muffled on December 20, 2010, at 1:23:48
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 14:04:07
> Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
>
>"One of those view points I know have to assess as a believer is psychiatry. Before I knew Christ, I either accepted everything my shrinks told me, or I rejected it all b/c of some sort of Thomas Szasz+Goffman+Foucault-inspired "anti-psychiatry" hogwash."
This is the offending paragraph...
I still absolutely do not get the problem here? He was just expressing his opposing WITHIN HIMSELF views.
"I" either accepted vs "I" rejected-and he explained the why of the rejection.
Again....WHERE is this negative to anyone in any strong way worthy of intervention????
He was talking bout he felt about stuff.
If nayone wanted to counter it, judging by his response to Bob, chances are he(CE) would have handled it with grace.I think stuff like this is SO trivial and so triggering here. because yeah, it IS frightening, its un-undertandable.
IMHO, nothing should have been said at all about it unless someone had a prob, and then they could have addressed it. Then perhaps a thoughtful and enlightening communication could have occured.(and if it went bad, THEN consider stepping in....but it wasn't even a PROBLEM as far as I can tell...)
As it stands now.....manoman, what CAN we say???
Its SO restrictive here.
And confusing.
Cuz truly, I just DO NOT understand.I tend to figger people got good intentions unless proven otherwise.
Give people a chance to rise above, then maybe they will.
But you keep batting them down, often inexplicably....well what chance do they have? They just gonna not say as much or go away.
And I know Bob doesn't care if people go away, he has stated that repeately.
But at what result.....a rather stagnant babble....
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 6:51:15
In reply to Re: Again, the ridiculous.... :( W T F ??????, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 23:56:34
> >And thing is - CE handled it all with a lot of decorum. He could have reacted as if he felt picked on, but he didn't. He could have acted offended and spouted off about the extraordinarily low threshhold in this situation, but he didn't.
>
> But CE did express in later in the thread that what Bob was doing did make him uncomfortable. So, I believe that CE did feel picked on, despite handling the situation with such grace.Yes - and that's my whole point. CE's graceful response is not a sign that what he was being graceful about was justified. CE's grace despite the questionable legitimacy of the request to rephrase is what makes him 10 feet tall.
> You can see how this would not be a good thing-one for a member to be made to feel uncomfortable and possibly picked on,I agree - and we probably all harbor a secret hope for a utopia where no one ever feels uncomfortable. Unfortunately, the reality is that until we breathe our last breath, discomfort, inequity, pain, injustice... it's all part of the human condition and I don't think there's a person alive who hasn't felt each of those. I wondered for a minute if living on an island alone would relive discomfort, but loneliness isn't a particularly good way to feel either. I don't know that Bob can be held responsible for the human condition. Anyway - I don't think Bob intended to pick on CE or make him feel picked on or uncomfortable. And I don't think my saying so is making an excuse for Bob, anymore than my saying I personally would not have tagged CE's statement as in need of rephrasing means that I'm making excuse for CE. I'm just sharing my view.
> and two, to not feel like it may be worth expressing they felt this way.I really can see that one could be left feeling exactly that. But if we really look at the whole discourse - I still don't see Bob trying to get CE to express no opinion, or a different opinion. What CE was expressing was fine - and Bob didn't indicate otherwise. He just wanted that opinion expressed in a way that didn't imply that it was 'hogwash' to be in the anti-psychiatry camp.
> I feel like you make many excuses for Dr. Bob.:-) Sometimes I worry about it looking like that - but I give Bob enough of a hard time that I doubt *he* thinks excuses are being made for him (by me anyway).
> I like Bob, from what I know of him, I just think he's making some mistakes in the way he is running his site.And I really don't think even Bob would argue with that. There's no way for him to run this site without making mistakes. Anyone running a site like this would make mistakes, including me.. and including you. That's where we have to understand that it might be our expectation that needs to be reviewed. It does not matter who is running the site, or what their 'rules' for it are. It is not possible to satisfy everyone's idea of the best way to run it. Utopia is.. well.. it's utopia. It doesn't exist. So a more satisfying way to take in the human factor is to just let it be imperfect. It's imperfect because it's full of a bunch of imperfect people, and run by an imperfect administrator. It's probably not realistic to expect it to be anything other than... imperfect.
> And for someone like Scott to come on here and express his concern of the way things are being run, there must be something to it.Let me tell you - Scott is probably one of the smartest and most balanced people I've ever encountered. He's a rare bird, that's for sure. His concerns are on-point and fair - and are a genuine wake up call. However, I'd be surprised if Scott expects a perfectly run site. I think the reason the post you're referring to is such an aberration for Scott is because I'm guessing he knows perfection is not realistic. However - his powerful post is certainly a call for improvement - and I think that's what Bob is trying to achieve... imperfectly perhaps.. but I do think Bob cares about this site and wants it to be as civil, welcoming, and member-friendly as possible.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 7:47:31
In reply to Re: can you supply links to the things you refer to?, posted by muffled on December 20, 2010, at 1:23:48
> > Yeah I meant to do that, my bad. Here's the entire thread:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20100403/msgs/967761.html
> >
> >
>
> "One of those view points I know have to assess as a believer is psychiatry. Before I knew Christ, I either accepted everything my shrinks told me, or I rejected it all b/c of some sort of Thomas Szasz+Goffman+Foucault-inspired "anti-psychiatry" hogwash."
>
> This is the offending paragraph...
> I still absolutely do not get the problem here? He was just expressing his opposing WITHIN HIMSELF views.
> "I" either accepted vs "I" rejected-and he explained the why of the rejection.
> Again....WHERE is this negative to anyone in any strong way worthy of intervention????
> He was talking bout he felt about stuff.
> If nayone wanted to counter it, judging by his response to Bob, chances are he(CE) would have handled it with grace.No argument from me, Muff. I perceived CE's post just like you did.
> I think stuff like this is SO trivial and so triggering here. because yeah, it IS frightening, its un-undertandable.
> IMHO, nothing should have been said at all about it unless someone had a prob, and then they could have addressed it.You make a very insightful and legitimate point. Again - no argument from me.
> Then perhaps a thoughtful and enlightening communication could have occured.(and if it went bad, THEN consider stepping in....but it wasn't even a PROBLEM as far as I can tell...)Another very insightful point, Muff.
> As it stands now.....manoman, what CAN we say???I think you can say pretty much anything - as long as in your saying it, you are civil toward other people and groups of people. Let's look for a minute at your posts, Muff. Every once in a while you cut Bob a (tiny) little slack :-), but for the most part - in your exquisitely endearing Muff-sort of way, you give Bobb a lot of grief! Whether you realize it or not - you have managed to express some pretty heavy criticisms, but you've done it without calling (or implying) Bob a jerk, an idiot, you-get-my-point. You talk about it being triggering here - without calling Bob an insuferable abuser. You talk about feeling unsafe here, without accusing Bob of trying to harm you. You talk about it being restrictive, and confusing - and about Bob being impossible for you to understand - and you do all of that without characterizing him in an uncivil way. Do you see that? How did you figure it out? Whether you realize it or not, though - you really do say a lot. How you feel about the current stateof the site is crystal clear - and also very civil. Now if you had a part that elbowed its way to the front and blurted out a string of incivilities - then you might find yourself being asked to rephrase. But it is very clear to me that Muffled is allowed to express her colossal dismay and upset at the mysterios and frustrating workings of Bob - very freely - as long as it's civil. He hasn't gotten in your way, Muff. As long as you keep doing it like you're doing it - I don't believe he will get in your way.
> I tend to figger people got good intentions unless proven otherwise.
> Give people a chance to rise above, then maybe they will.I admire that. A lot.
> But you keep batting them down, often inexplicably....well what chance do they have? They just gonna not say as much or go away.And Muff - here's where we run into the impact of your life experience. Bob is not batting them down. If you really look closely at it, I think you'll see that he's not telling them they can't express their opinion. He's not telling them that they can't express controversial opinions either. But he is demanding that when we express an opinion - or react to someone else's misbehavior - that we do it in a way that sometimes feels like walking a tightrope - in that it has to be very, very civil. I think the interesting thing about it is that when we have to work really hard at crafting it in a civil way, sometimes the side effect is that we end up 'feeling' more civil toward the people or group of people involved, ya know?
> And I know Bob doesn't care if people go away, he has stated that repeately.hmmmm.. I don't remember him saying he doesn't care if people go away. In fact, his rephrase requests, PBC's, blocks - all pretty much include his statement that he hopes they don't go away. I think what he's said is that he realizes that some people will go away as a result of civility guidelline enforcement. That's not the same as him not caring if people go away.
> But at what result.....a rather stagnant babble....
I dunno. That can be a matter of perception. I do think that a lot of Babble energy is eaten up by the legitimate outrage the community feels about unreasonably long blocks. And I think it is imperative that Bob address it. I also think things evolve. The community used to be much smaller and more intimate - and back in the day there was more of a feeling of privacy (even if there was no reason to feel that way). With the development of crisis issues like facebook/twitter and the upheaval it caused, there was marked shifts in the feeling members had about this place - especially the (perhaps unjustified) feeling of privacy here. So I don't know that it's stagnant - as much as it's first of all currently preooccupied with resolving the blocking issue, and secondly it's undergone an evolution of self-belief in that Babble used to see itself as small and relatively private, but now sees itself as accessible to huge numbers of people and very much NOT private.Just my tho'ts on the matter...
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 11:30:29
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by morgan miller on December 20, 2010, at 0:05:45
Hi Morgan -
I'm a little worried about how my response might be interpreted, so please let me just say that I am not directing this at *you* - as much as I'm trying to tease apart the myriad ways we understand things.
> >Muffled - I understand why it feels to you like Bob is telling Christempowered that he's 'bad.'
>
> That's not it.Here, I was speaking specifically to Muffled 'hearing' Bob's request that CE rephrase as a statement about CE being 'bad.' Muffled had some understandable righteous indignation at the idea of Bob implying CE was 'bad' because of CE's description of one end of the pendulum of his thinking as being to wholly subscribe to 'anti-psychiatry hogwash.' If Bob had told CE that he was 'bad' because of his way of describing his inner struggle - then I'd have probably pounced on Bob myself! Thing is - Bob did not say CE was 'bad.' He didn't even say that being in opposition to anti-psychiatry is 'bad.' He didn't even say that exactly what CE said was 'bad.' He just asked that CE rephrase it, because there could be someone reading the post who is a member here - or some random unsubscribed reader - who is anti-psychiatry, and using 'hogwash' to characterize their belief system might make them feel put down. So please know that in this case, I was only attempting to speak to how Bob's low-threshhold request to rephrase felt to Muffled. And Muffled's life experience plays a large role in why it felt this way to her. My goal was to give her another set of spectacles to see it through.
> It's the unrelenting "schooling" that was going onOk.. so the unrlenting schooling is offensive to you. I remember the word patronizing being used as well. I understand why it might feel like Bob is 'schooling' people. He's an administrator - so he has all the power. He also has a high level of education that only a relatively small percentage of the US population achieves. With that, he's got one of the most timeless and honored titles (Doctor) that one can carry in this country. In thr US we don't have English nobility titles to dilute the effect of someone being addressed as "Doctor so-&-so." Add on top of all that, the component that Bob is very directly instructing someone to take what they originally said, and say it again in a more acceptable manner. It is perfectly natural for an adult to feel diminished by this all-powerful (in Babbledom) Doctor Bob telling them to say something 'better.' I have had my own very long struggle with how to perceive authority-type figures. But I think it's important to remember that Bob has only a few words he uses to describe his intent for the site he created. One of them is 'education.' So in light of that, maybe those of us who choose to participate in the community should expect Bob to 'school' us somewhat. And another angle of it would be to recognize that if he didn't 'school' us - and just without-a-word slammed down the guillotine of a block, I think I would prefer to suffer thru a little 'schooling' :-)
> that I felt(and I believe others did as well) was disrespectful and unnecessary,You are the one who makes the call for yourself about whether it was disrespectful - and I think it feeling 'disrespectful' might be part-and-parcel of it feeling like being 'schooled' - but Bob's request - even if it is low-threshold - it wasn't disrespectful.
> whether Crist_Empowered felt bad during it or not.Well - I think we're in an area of really fuzzy edges here. Perceptions really are everything. And it helps a lot to be flexible enough to view Bob's administrative work as charitably as possible. And the really significant thing here is that it very likely did feel like 'schooling' (or worse) to CE - but he never missed a step in being gracious in his responsiveness. As a result - we got to watch a young man who struggles with uncertainties about his self-perception because of the judgmental small-town environment he grew up in - and he behaved like a prince in responding to something that was potentially a huge trigger. I hope Christempowered sees that about himself... sees himself as the 10-foot tall gracious young man that he was during that discourse.
> >Just give it some thought. Try to read through the dialogue between CE and Bob.and try to 'hear' Bob saying "CE, you're a great guy, but this thing you said about anti-psychiatry and hogwash might make someone who is very anti-psychiatry feel like he's not welcome. I'm worried about them feeling bad. Can you rephrase your opinion in a way that wouldn't make an anti-psychiatry person feel bad about themselves?" Maybe if you can say that in your head as you read it, you'll be able to see it from a perspective that doesn't feel so threatening to you.
>
> But that isn't how Bob said it.I intentionally did not use Bob's words. What I was providing there, was how *I* heard Bob's words. And that's my point - that when we get into the very fuzzy area of perceptions - we are each influenced by our very different life experiences - and we also have the ability to choose how we perceive things.
> Is this how you think it should have been approached? If it is, then you must disagree with how Bob approached it.I think this is one way it can be perceived. Bob is Bob, and he has his style of communicating. He tends to be brief, non-explanatory, and is often direct. His style can be annoying at times to some people. My style is quite opposite. I'm anything but brief :-) I tend to explain and re-explain. Sometimes I'm direct, but usually I take a long and winding road when I want to lead someone to an understanding of a concept I have in my head. I am well aware that my style can also be very annoying at times to some people. I think Bob approaches things as best as he can within his natural style of doing so. As long as he's not being uncivil, those of us on the receiving end are responsible for how we choose to 'hear' what he says. Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry. I was recently intrigued by Dinah pointing out that she has little trouble with authority figures because she suffered more at the hands of peers than authority figures. My experience is opposite that. I have found a good place of healing with regard to my trauma - and it has been a very long and painful road. But because I have the memory of the past and my journey of healing is embedded in my marrow, it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories. I also know that crucial to the process of my own healing, was my therapist being able to gently keep leading me to other bins of water to drink from. I was suspicious of drinking - and I frequently refused to drink... at least while T was looking. But alone at night, my mind would replay the sights and sounds of those different bins of water, and I experimented - taking a sip here from this one - and a sip there from another one. Over time, I became comfortable - almost not even realizing that I was willingly accepting alternative ways of perceiving things. Before I knew it - I ended up with a reperatoire of perception options that were so helpful to me, that it became easier and easier to discard the perceptions that were borne of my trauma history. I'm not a therapist - but have had a spectacular one - and having internalized my therapist and my therapy - maybe it comes very natural to me to talk about the water bins I was led to that were cool, refershing, 'clean.' There's an endless supply of it - and I enjoy sharing it.
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 20, 2010, at 21:59:58
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope » morgan miller, posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 11:30:29
It is interesting how the significant majority of his peers (since 'Dr' means so much to you) view his 'schooling'... Also interesting how the significant majority of professionals who used to be here have decided to move on.
If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
Posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 23:18:00
In reply to Re: Solstice :( I lose hope, posted by alexandra_k on December 20, 2010, at 21:59:58
Alex -
> It is interesting how the significant majority of his peers (since 'Dr' means so much to you) view his 'schooling'...And you know his peers well enough that they have discussed with you their views of his 'schooling?' (And it appears you are certain this 'significant majority' all have the same view?)
And you know me well enough to be certain what 'Dr' means to me? It's something I've discussed with you?
> Also interesting how the significant majority of professionals who used to be here have decided to move on.And these 'significant majority of professionals who used to be here' have personally discussed with you their reasons for moving on? And I suppose they all have the same reason?
> If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?
I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are. If you want to know my motives, or what I'm trying to do - just ask me. No one appreciates being 'told' by a relative stranger what their motives are - especially when it's erroneous and negative. And although you are free to represent yourself, I don't know that you are qualified to represent others as having made the same erroenous assumptions you've made, and as having the same negative sentiment about me based on those erroneous assumptions.
And I'd like to ask you Alex - in your last clip there, how did you hope I would take it?
Solstice
*Tonight is the Winter Solstice*
Posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 0:04:29
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » alexandra_k, posted by Solstice on December 20, 2010, at 23:18:00
"Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are."
I can't be sure Soltice, but it sounds like what you said above about Alex's post, is what you said below about others' posts. Did it occur to you that some people here might view Bob as a forum administrator, rather than an 'authority figure' through childhood trauma lenses? And those who had no traumas...?
Not meant in a negative way, i just think sometimes you are my cognitive opposite, and i think it's interesting. Much of your stated thoughts - are the opposite of mine .I mean this in enteraining way (holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes)..Did you ever take Meyers Briggs? I'd guess ESTP...you describe things very concretely.
"Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry....it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories."
P.S, as you might guess, I interpreted Alex's statement totalllllyyyy different that you did. I thought she was referring to a suggestion made by you that some will respond more positively to peer criticism about posts as opposed to Bob critisim about posts (rather than saying YOU were doing something) (?):
> If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
"Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?"
Posted by Solstice on December 21, 2010, at 4:14:14
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » Solstice, posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 0:04:29
> "Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... I'd like to suggest that it might work better for you to make a bunch fewer assumptions about me, about where my heart is, and about what my motives are."
>
> I can't be sure Soltice, but it sounds like what you said above about Alex's post, is what you said below about others' posts. Did it occur to you that some people here might view Bob as a forum administrator, rather than an 'authority figure' through childhood trauma lenses? And those who had no traumas...?I think the variety among people is enormous. I have great respect for it. It's been in my responses to Muffled that I've referred to authority figures and trauma. Muffled has described how things here that others might consider minor here tend to be intensely triggering for her. I didn't realize the potential for people to read something I write that is specifically directed at a specific individual's pain, and assumes that I am writing to everyone - or assumes that I believe that what may be true for one person is true for everyone.
> Not meant in a negative way, i just think sometimes you are my cognitive opposite, and i think it's interesting. Much of your stated thoughts - are the opposite of mine .I mean this in enteraining way (holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes)..Did you ever take Meyers Briggs? I'd guess ESTP...you describe things very concretely.INTJ, actually. Twice. Perhaps that proves my point that it's a mistake to make assumptions about others. I describe things concretely when that is going to serve my purpose, but I am actually much more abstract than concrete. Perhaps you have missed my heavy use of analogies. That said, I'm glad to know that you are entertained :-)
I'm not sure what you mean by "holiday stress can cause odd behavior sometimes." If my behavior appears odd to you, then it must just be a characteristic of mine, because I am not under any holiday stress. My way of celebrating the holidays is very simple. I'm not much into commercialism.
> "Those of us who still carry throbbing wounds of trauma will have a more difficult time 'hearing' Bob charitably because what he says gets filtered through the pain of the particular trauma we carry....it is very, very easy for me to see and relate to the difficulties I see here in how Bob is perceived through the wounding experiences of our trauma histories."
>
> P.S, as you might guess, I interpreted Alex's statement totalllllyyyy different that you did.The quote above is mine - so I'm not sure what we're talking about here.
> I thought she was referring to a suggestion made by you that some will respond more positively to peer criticism about posts as opposed to Bob critisim about posts (rather than saying YOU were doing something) (?):No.. Alex would be the one who needs to clarify - but I don't think you caught what she was referring to. It was not the dialogue between Muffled and I about something Dinah said that you have extracted here. Alex was referring to a post from someone else about what took place between Bob and Christempowered where many objected to Bob requiring CE to rephrase. So your interpretation does not appear to be based on the context of what Alex's comments were based on.
In her comment below, I believe Alex is referring in general to her belief that I am trying to do what Bob does - specifically when he makes comments referring to transferrence issues between posters and him. That has been offensive to a lot of people here - which in my opinion is understandable. I have tried to offer possible reasons for Bob doing that - i.e. he's a psychiatrist and has been immersed in thinking along those lines, etc. Alex's comment below indicates that she has taken my attempt to provide reasons for his transference references to mean that I am also suggesting that a lotta transference is going on here. And I happen to be of the opinion that transference goes on all the time - everywhere. I think our life experiences influence us continually - and transference in relationships is the norm. But that doesn't mean that I think what Alex believes I think.
> > If people don't appreciate it when Bob encourages them to consider their issues instead of considering his behavior I'm not sure why they would appreciate it any more when someone else attempts to do this for him...
>
> "Is that what I'm doing? You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... and you are satisfied that your impression is fact?"So Violette - it can be hard to accurately interpret something if you haven't been able to stay involved in the various threads that were involved. A lot of misunderstandings are created when we make assumptions and jump to conclusions - rather than just asking in a curious sort of way - to get clarification.
Solstice
Posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 12:45:02
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by Solstice on December 21, 2010, at 4:14:14
"You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... "
You did say that Alex was referring to you-its your words above...I was saying-I thought she was referring to the forum in general-not you. She never said your name. You tell everyone to not make assumptions about others, but that is what I see you doing, often.
Anyway, I never could get through your message....but I noticed one thing you said and you're right - no guesses. When I read your very first post here, I actually thought maybe you were Dr. Bob posing as a new person to 'save' his forum! Crazy? If you go back to your first post, maybe you'd see how that was possible...or maybe it is crazy.
But none of us really know if what anyone says here is fact or fiction, or if they are even who they say they are. There's really no way to discern if someone is telling the truth or not. In real life, it's easier...and I usually stick to real life; internet life is more of a distraction for me-when stress levels are high.
But I have noticed its getting so structured and formal here, it's difficult to have a casual conversation with anyone. Sometiems you have to read a S.O.P....some have to take grammar classes..still some have to be educated in political science!!!
Posted by Willful on December 21, 2010, at 23:41:51
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 12:45:02
Just to add another view, I thought Alex was suggesting that Solstice had condoned if not herself done what Bob did-- or that she thought it was reasonable if peers started to act that way on his behalf.
I read Alex's post with an impression somewhat like Solstices'-- so her interpretation is not so strange.
I don't know what you mean by saying you "never could get through" Solstice's message--- or why you would respond to it if you hadn't. The idea that Solstice is Bob is to me utterly incredible. Nothing in their style or approach to writing posts is the least similar. What in Solstice's first post could have lead you to this idea?
I personally think Solstice has gone out of her way to show how involved and caring she is. So what is so opposite from you? And what is that about needing to take a grammar course? You seem not to like internet communication except if you're stressed out-- but this may be when one is more likely to misread what others write.
Willful
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2010, at 0:43:46
In reply to Re: To Dr. Bob, posted by morgan miller on December 19, 2010, at 21:15:46
> I'm curious as to why you did not give me a bit more time to say "the right thing" and properly rephrase what I originally said where you blocked me on the Faith board. I did respond and I do not believe my last response was a defiant one. I simply stated why I said what I said.
Right, you didn't rephrase or apologize. Or say you wanted more time.
> What I am not sure I understand fully is why the use of the word patronize was thought of as uncivil. I mean, I think I do understand it, but I don't see why it was really that out of line
I'm glad you understand why I considered it uncivil. I didn't mean to imply that it was that out of line, just that it was out of line.
> everything he said was pretty much a personal attack on specific ways that you are running this site.
1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Disagreements aren't necessarily uncivil. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged here.
> So, was it the uncivil wording I used that got me blocked, or was it the content of what I said that could lead you to feel accused or put down? I hope it was primarily the uncivil wording.
Would you say the difference between an I-statement and a you-statement is the wording or the content? Would you like to give rephrasing a try now?
> There must be more flexibility used in the enforcement of the rules here. Or there needs to be a change in the rules. Whatever it is, some type of adjustment should be made in my opinion.
How about some kind of community council that could lift blocks? :-)
> being a doctor, you would think he understood that it can take people a very long time to learn to communicate their feelings in the best most productive manner.
I do understand that. For example, it took CE three weeks in the thread that's being discussed.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:46:26
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Willful on December 21, 2010, at 23:41:51
Interesting...
I wonder what Bob's interpretation of my post is / will be...
And if he will block me for it...
(P.S., I've been blocked for 'directed' posts before (it is in the archives - so I s'pose people know) and think I understand how to successfully negotiate the civility rules on that. So I guess what is left (from Bob's point of view) is 'taking things personally').
Posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:47:31
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2010, at 4:46:26
is this what we have come to / are reduced to?
yes.
that is what people have been saying:
yes.
(a statement of 'support', if you will)
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 16:40:20
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 21, 2010, at 12:45:02
> "You live inside my head and have personal knowledge of what I'm 'attempting to do'... "
>
> You did say that Alex was referring to you-its your words above...I was saying-I thought she was referring to the forum in general-not you. She never said your name. You tell everyone to not make assumptions about others, but that is what I see you doing, often.We all have to make some assumptions, but it's important to KNOW they are assumptions, and to not make judgments about someone based on our assumptions.
Problems develop when we treat our assumptions as if they are fact or 'truth,' and then react toward the other person based on the judgments we've made about them that are based on assumptions we've made about them, their motives, etc. I am certainly not immune from stepping off track, but it is high priority of mine to remain conscious and aware at all times that the assumptions I have to make due to lack of certainty are just assumptions, and when confirmation or clarification is provided, I am the first one to adjust my impressions.
This is an important reason why that it works best to interpret things as charitably as possible. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is not likely to make anything worse - and if a more negative interpretation turns out to be more accurate, it will show itself again - probably sooner rather than later. As Muff said, it's about giving the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.
> Anyway, I never could get through your message....but I noticed one thing you said and you're right - no guesses.? I'm not sure what that means.
> When I read your very first post here, I actually thought maybe you were Dr. Bob posing as a new person to 'save' his forum! Crazy? If you go back to your first post, maybe you'd see how that was possible...or maybe it is crazy.Yeah, it's crazy. I am not Bob. I've never met him, have never spoken to him, and probably know less than you do about him. And further, I really cannot imagine Bob creating an alter to walk amongst us as one of us. There's just too much that he's done and said that tells me that he'd be more likely to just pull the plug than to create an alter.
> But I have noticed its getting so structured and formal here, it's difficult to have a casual conversation with anyone. Sometiems you have to read a S.O.P....some have to take grammar classes..still some have to be educated in political science!!!I don't agree. I think the conversatios that take place her are immensely varied. Some are highly intellectual and leave me dizzy! (i.e. Scott explaining the chemical actions in medications). I'm definitely out of my league with some of that - but I am often intrigued to look into the ones that interest me. And then there is every sort of casual conversation immaginable on here - people talking about grandbabies, travels, the impact of their pets on their wellbeing, job hunting, and Deneb's occassional posts about how much she enjoys her affection for Dr. Bob. So I really can't relate to the way it feels to you there - and although your perception is every bit as valid as mine, I don't think yours is 'fact' and mine is not.
Solstice
Posted by muffled on December 22, 2010, at 19:03:01
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 16:40:20
Well, just to throw my exalted thots in(least they exalted to ME!!!).
Solstice, I think you perplexed.
But see, I think what it is, is that your pespective is diff than others here.
You been here awhile, but no posting. So you kinda 'know' people and the place by observation.
This place is not new to you, the people are not new to you.
But see, for the rest of us, YOU ARE NEW. Cuz mebbe you could see us, but we couldn't see you.
So to people here, it appears that this 'person', just kinda drops in here and seems to know it all.
Its kinda freaky.
NOT to say thats what it is! But see, I am thinking that that is the 'feeling' people get because of the circumstances.
Don't mean they are wrong, don't mean you are wrong.
Just the way it is.
See, its like the dog park....
There's 'rules' that dogs are supposed to adhere to.
So eg, when they arrrive at the park, there's The Approach, The Initial Assessment, The circling Sniff, then hopefully, signs of interest in play.
So in your case Soltice, your kinda like the dog that comes flying into the park all exited saying 'lets GO!!!'. Which gets the other dogs upset, and can cause agression!!! Whagh!!!
So, I hope I not making you feel bad, cuz you got good ideas.
But ya, I kinda been feeling a bit that way myself, kinda overwhelmed. Cuz I not even had a chance to sniff you yet!!! ROFL!!!
So, I only posted this cuz you seemed a little perplexed.
And this IMHO may be part of the reason your getting what you get from people.
Like I say, not right or wrongs here,just people being people, or dogs being dogs lol!
My thots.
Posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 19:53:08
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 16:40:20
"Yeah, it's crazy. I am not Bob. I've never met him, have never spoken to him, and probably know less than you do about him. And further, I really cannot imagine Bob creating an alter to walk amongst us as one of us. There's just too much that he's done and said that tells me that he'd be more likely to just pull the plug than to create an alter."
No, I don't think you are Dr. Bob. It was a thought that popped in my head before I even finished reading your initial post here. I wouldn't know your real identity one way or another.
But now that I really think about - i'm not sure if my one little thought was crazier than the prolonged behavior of devoting hours of time to invent rules for a casual internet forum in an effort to craft a system similar to the parole board of a penal system. A person might wonder why someone would go through so much trouble, that's all.
Posted by 10derheart on December 22, 2010, at 20:40:32
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 19:53:08
FWIW, I don't view anyone's ideas posted on any of these topics here as "crazy" and I find myself feeling a little dismayed at the use of the word. Sometimes people feel having their behaviors, ideas, speculations, etc. labeled with a term like "crazy" to be a put down, though, of course, that likely is not the intention at all. Especially on a MH board.
Maybe it's just an easy, casually used word in our society; I'm just not much of a fan of it.
Maybe another adjective could express the thoughts without dancing (possibly) close to uncivil? Unusual? Different? Unexpected? Odd in my experience?
my 1..5 cents....off the personal soapbox now...
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 21:36:42
In reply to re: jumping in-Solstice, posted by muffled on December 22, 2010, at 19:03:01
I just adore you, Muff!
You're exactly right about much of what you said, of course. And I'm pretty sure I've made at least one post somewhere that pretty much says the same thing. I know I'm new to everyone - and it is always present in my mind that my one-sided relationship with everyone here means I'm very comfortable here, but the community has no reason to be comfortable with me. Although I'm fully aware that there are a few who might not enjoy me much - overall I have felt welcomed and included. I think it would be unrealistic for me to think I could show up anywhere and be universally liked, no matter how I do it. But I'm happy here. I'm really not perplexed :-) - although I might express myself in ways that could be interpreted as my looking perplexed if I'm responding to a post where I've been characterized in a negative way, or I'm responding to erroneous negative conclusions about me and my motives. To me, it (perplexed) just helps diffuse it some.
And I don't have much (if any) experience in online forums or groups. So there likely are, like a dog park, certain social rituals that I'm simply ignorant of because of my lack of experience. I don't know whatever it is that I don't know. I just always do my best, and my heart is in the right place. In my experience, that usually eventually proves itself. There have been plenty of posters who have been very generous in their charitable interpretations of me.. and I think it's reasonable for others to want to hold me at an arm's length while they figure out what to make of me. There have only been a handlful of reactions that might fit your analogy of 'aggression' - and although I will usually directly confront it, the moment it subsides, I am in restoration mode.
I don't know if you know about Myers Briggs, but Violette thought I'd be an ESTP. I took a Meyers Briggs probably 10 years ago, and was a clear INTJ. Took it again with career counseling about a year ago, and again came up as INTJ.Violette's belief that I looked like an ESTP got me curious - so I read ESTP and and was floored at how very much UNlike me it was. I then read INTJ and was equally floored at reading who I know myself to be. Here's a link if you're curious:
http://typelogic.com/intj.html
and it was of particular interest to me that it really does describe how I am here as well. But I really am harmless... and I really do care about this place and the people here.
Solstice
> Well, just to throw my exalted thots in(least they exalted to ME!!!).
> Solstice, I think you perplexed.
> But see, I think what it is, is that your pespective is diff than others here.
> You been here awhile, but no posting. So you kinda 'know' people and the place by observation.
> This place is not new to you, the people are not new to you.
> But see, for the rest of us, YOU ARE NEW. Cuz mebbe you could see us, but we couldn't see you.
> So to people here, it appears that this 'person', just kinda drops in here and seems to know it all.
> Its kinda freaky.
> NOT to say thats what it is! But see, I am thinking that that is the 'feeling' people get because of the circumstances.
> Don't mean they are wrong, don't mean you are wrong.
> Just the way it is.
> See, its like the dog park....
> There's 'rules' that dogs are supposed to adhere to.
> So eg, when they arrrive at the park, there's The Approach, The Initial Assessment, The circling Sniff, then hopefully, signs of interest in play.
> So in your case Soltice, your kinda like the dog that comes flying into the park all exited saying 'lets GO!!!'. Which gets the other dogs upset, and can cause agression!!! Whagh!!!
> So, I hope I not making you feel bad, cuz you got good ideas.
> But ya, I kinda been feeling a bit that way myself, kinda overwhelmed. Cuz I not even had a chance to sniff you yet!!! ROFL!!!
> So, I only posted this cuz you seemed a little perplexed.
> And this IMHO may be part of the reason your getting what you get from people.
> Like I say, not right or wrongs here,just people being people, or dogs being dogs lol!
> My thots.
Posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 21:38:43
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by 10derheart on December 22, 2010, at 20:40:32
I don't mind the thought of you on a soap box, 10derheart.
I suppose it would have been more appropriate to say "odd in my experience" or "interesting" instead of the word 'crazy'. I'm too tired to think of a better fitting adjective right now, so I'll borrow yours.
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 21:41:51
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 19:53:08
> But now that I really think about - i'm not sure if my one little thought was crazier than the prolonged behavior of devoting hours of time to invent rules for a casual internet forum in an effort to craft a system similar to the parole board of a penal system. A person might wonder why someone would go through so much trouble, that's all.Maybe it comes so easily to me that it really isn't as much trouble for me as it might be for others. Maybe I am reaping a benefit from it that is valuable to me. Maybe we're all very different in what we can and want to bring to the table.
Is it hard work to sustain such a high level of suspiciousness? That to me seems like it would eat up a lot more energy than what I set aside for my involvement with Babble.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 21:53:02
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by 10derheart on December 22, 2010, at 20:40:32
> FWIW, I don't view anyone's ideas posted on any of these topics here as "crazy" and I find myself feeling a little dismayed at the use of the word. Sometimes people feel having their behaviors, ideas, speculations, etc. labeled with a term like "crazy" to be a put down, though, of course, that likely is not the intention at all. Especially on a MH board.
>
> Maybe it's just an easy, casually used word in our society; I'm just not much of a fan of it.
>
> Maybe another adjective could express the thoughts without dancing (possibly) close to uncivil? Unusual? Different? Unexpected? Odd in my experience?
>
> my 1..5 cents....off the personal soapbox now...10der - I don't know if you read Violette's post that I was responding to - but just so you know - I did not view what Violette thought as 'crazy.' I was using her own twice reference to her wondering if it was crazy to think that I was Dr. Bob in disguise. My intent was to confirm for her that I am not Bob, and I don't even know him. And the truth is that Violette isn't the only one who has had that kind of thought cross their mind. It's important to me that you are clear in understanding that my use of the word was not in the context that it sounded like to you.
Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 22, 2010, at 22:04:56
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 21:38:43
> I don't mind the thought of you on a soap box, 10derheart.
Well, at least I'd be a little taller!
> I suppose it would have been more appropriate to say "odd in my experience" or "interesting" instead of the word 'crazy'. I'm too tired to think of a better fitting adjective right now, so I'll borrow yours.I didn't mean to sound picky or ridiculous. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm still astounded, with all the information and education out there, in some groups (not here, I mean IRL - church, meetings, anywhere, really...) at hearing people describe each other (or more often a third party not there) - as "psycho" "schizo" "mental" "retarded" and of course, "crazy." And I am a big hypocrite 'cause I say it, but mostly just teasingly to my family and close friends. And of all those slang expressions, "crazy "really is the most benign. I've been known to take someone aside to try and educate them about MI when I've heard remarks like, "She is SO moody. I can't take it. Get her some Prozac, she must be a schizo!" It's wrong on so many levels..... {shaking head}
Not that that has a thing to do with the occasional use of crazy here. I guess I was a little worried Dr. Bob may read through and be in a strict frame of mind re: put downs....
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.