![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 52. Go back in thread:
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....
Posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 22:16:09
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 21:41:51
I wouldn't consider one thought to be a high level of suspiciousness-that certainly is an interesting perspective. As i had just written, i never gave it much thought until after you pointed out that my thought was actually "crazy".
Here's another thought that crossed my mind - about posts from people who post one, long story -but never return to the forum. Sometimes people will come back and post a word of 'thanks', but that's it. The story is often long and usually contains a considerable amount of common search terms for people with persistent mental health problems. i wondered if those posts serve to bring this site to google/search engines. Yes, i do think alot.
I have 100s if not thousands of thoughts a day. I do get tired sometimes. Somestimes I paint my thoughts on canvas. Sometimes I make photography collages. Other times I write screenplays. I think about the arts, political systems, science, psychology, health care, business. Lots of thoughts as I'm more of a creative thinker rather than a more serious person who might go around with a self-righteous attitude. I'm pretty open about myself and have written here about my shortcomings time and time again.
I share and use most of my thoughts offline. They've been very useful in making things, art, and in solving problems, time and time again. They can be neurotic often enough as well. Maybe that serves a purpose too. My therapist told me most of his clients are more restricted in their thoughts/feelings than I am, that I can be too revealing and open. People aren't usually used to that, more reserved. I've made mistakes in telling too much too soon when it comes to social relationships. It's something i work on in therapy. At the same time, I wouldn't want to have to worry about 'controlling' what i say all the time. Of all the pros and cons, I still prefer free spiritedness over restriction, just tweaked i suppose.
Some of that INTJ description seems to match what you show of yourself here. It's sort of like astrology too, something I haven't thought much about since I was about 13. Actually, i've never read the other descriptions before. I just picked the opposite letters of what i had tested for, to see what profile you'd say you were.
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 22:21:47
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by 10derheart on December 22, 2010, at 22:04:56
> 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."
I love it! 10der - you soumd like my 16 y/o daughter. She's a little bitty wisp of a thing - and is passionate about what striks a cord with her. Nobody intimidates her. Because of her severly special-ed older sister, she really has a heart for what you're talking about. In high school - she runs across some boy who picks on a quieter boy - picks on them - refers to him as 'mental,' etc. She puts these stinging philosophical short lectures on her facebook page saying she'd better not ever hear anyone saying such a thing around her because she will let them *have* it. She belongs to 'Best Buddies' - a program at the school that pairs a regular ed kid with a special ed kid for the year for inclusion in school events and to spend time with them outside of school. It's very, very cool. Anyway - you and my daughter seem to share the same intensity about this pet peeve of yours. Wish there were a bunch of people who would take on the same cause :-)
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 22, 2010, at 23:11:01
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 22:16:09
Violette -
I really enjoyed reading your self-descriptions..
> I wouldn't consider one thought to be a high level of suspiciousness-that certainly is an interesting perspective. As i had just written, i never gave it much thought until after you pointed out that my thought was actually "crazy".My question about your suspiciousness wasn't as much about your wondering if I was Bob in disguise, as about your seeming to be suspicious of my motives because of my high level of interest in the Community Council. We all tend gravitate toward what interests us - and I didn't understand why my interest in it seemed to provoke suspiciousness in you.
> Here's another thought that crossed my mind - about posts from people who post one, long story -but never return to the forum. Sometimes people will come back and post a word of 'thanks', but that's it. The story is often long and usually contains a considerable amount of common search terms for people with persistent mental health problems. i wondered if those posts serve to bring this site to google/search engines. Yes, i do think alot.Me too.
> I have 100s if not thousands of thoughts a day. I do get tired sometimes.ok.. I think you're in the lead on that one then :-)
> Somestimes I paint my thoughts on canvas. Sometimes I make photography collages. Other times I write screenplays.An artist! I cannot paint or draw at all. I can do stick figures :-) I am a photographer, though. Photographic artistry runs in the family kinda. My brother is a commercial photographer in CA. I wouldn't even know where to start writing a screenplay - but it's probably apparent that I'm a writer. The technical kind of writing I've had to do professionally was always a boring chore to me. (I like finding the problems, the troubleshooting and creating the solutions - but not the confines of putting it in technical report). But I absolutely LOVE writing... writing about thoughts, concepts, abstract reasoning, and journaling. I like public speaking, but not debate. I'm also a musician. Wind, brass, low brass and keyboards. I've got two kids who are musicians, one is string and keyboard without the ability to carry a tune in a bucket - and the other is an accomplished vocalist and keyboards.
> I think about the arts, political systems, science, psychology, health care, business. Lots of thoughts as I'm more of a creative thinker
My thought-life dabbles in the same kinds of things - and tends to be most into conceptual ideas, systems, and relationship dynamics.
> rather than a more serious person who might go around with a self-righteous attitude.So if someone is serious, then that means they have a self-righteous attitude? I don't think so. I am generally abstract, but I have worked in conjunction with concrete thinkers - and I think it takes both to make the world go 'round. I don't think it's fair to tag people who are 'serious' as having a self-righteous attitude.
> Some of that INTJ description seems to match what you show of yourself here.I don't think I have the pronounced IRL relationship problems it describes for INTJ, but the rest of it is a very close fit.
> It's sort of like astrology tooI don't see the connection there.. astrology is way different in my view.
> Actually, i've never read the other descriptions before. I just picked the opposite letters of what i had tested for, to see what profile you'd say you were.:-) Interesting approach to deciding how to categorize someone.
Solstice
Posted by morgan miller on December 23, 2010, at 23:21:32
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2010, at 0:43:46
>> 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?
Are you asking me if I would like to rephrase this?
>I hope it was primarily the uncivil wording.
Or are you asking me to rephrase the original statement that lead to me being blocked for 2 weeks?
>Would you say the difference between an I-statement and a you-statement is the wording or the content?
The difference in an I-statement and a you-statement is wording, not content. It does not matter whether you use an I or you statement, the content is the same. The use of an I or you statement changes the how the statement is perceived and received by the individual reading it. For example, if you say "I feel that I was disrespected," instead of "You were disrespectful", you are not changing the content, just the way the person the message was made for might perceive/receive it. That's just my take on this subject.
Morgan
Posted by morgan miller on December 24, 2010, at 1:55:33
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2010, at 0:43:46
>Right, you didn't rephrase or apologize. Or say you wanted more time.
I believe that you should give people more time. Instead, someone may get blocked and never want to revisit the issue and try to make it right or apologize. Or, someone might not want to come back to Babble at all.
I may have been stubborn about apologizing, but given a bit more time, I may have come around. I guess it's never too late. Sorry for using words that were uncivil. I should have tried to say the same thing and maintained the content through wording my thoughts differently.
>1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
That was not my intention when using Scott or others as examples.
>> 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.
I'm going to assume the word patronize should not be used here in most cases. I still believe it was the best word to describe what was taking place in the thread with CE(I have at least one reasonable member here that agrees). I'm sure you already know that. I'm going to assume that because patronize is usually used in a negative manner it is not a word that will be received well here. What if I were to say to a member here, "Please do not patronize me in this way", or, "I feel that you are patronizing me, which makes me feel disrespected, put down, and uncomfortable"?
Morgan
Posted by 10derheart on December 24, 2010, at 1:59:26
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by morgan miller on December 23, 2010, at 23:21:32
It is interesting to check out the civility examples in the FAQ.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Particularly this portion:
"And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an I-statement like "I feel put down by what you said" instead of a you-statement like "you're so arrogant". But don't just word the latter as the former, as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard". :-)"
And the Gold Standard, IMO, is Dinah's post here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>>For example, if you say "I feel that I was disrespected," instead of "You were disrespectful", you are not changing the content, just the way the person the message was made for might perceive/receive it.
I think Dr. Bob will agree that your I-statement is fine here. (We'll find out if he posts again, I suppose :-)) I myself tend to go just a bit further to be sure on the civility front, and to see that I'm dealing with my emotional "stuff" and mine alone, and not even partially sounding like I am labeling another or their behavior negatively, or blaming them or it for my reactions.
For example, something like, "I felt hurt/upset/angry/confused/accused by/put down by...." seems the very best way to keep the focus squarely on *yourself* and *your* feelings and not engage in a negative characterization of what the other poster did or you think s/he "is" e.g., "disrespectful." Your I-statement is, I definitely agree, far better than the you-statement, but can still be read as, "I feel that I was disrespected (by you)," since the words in parentheses are unspoken (unwritten, here) but plainly implied. So it's pretty easy to 'hear': "You disrespected me," even when the sentence begins with, "I feel..." "I feel" does *not* really place the focus on you if it's immediately followed by naming the other person and what they did (to you).
Now this is not Dr. Bob's policy and he does not require it, but I also try to stick to use of words that actually name a feeling I had when reacting to the post. It's safer for me. So technically "disrespected" or even "accused" are not feelings in the strictest sense, where "hurt" and "angry" are feelings. Works really well for me that way
Hope I'm not hopelessly muddying the waters. If so, please disregard all I wrote and read Dinah's linked post. It really says it all.
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.