![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 52. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by sigismund on December 24, 2010, at 15:58:53
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 19:53:08
Yes. The prole board of a penal system. Well, it is a US website so that is the cultural background, but still, he does seem to be trying. I think so. Sort of. Within limits.
Posted by muffled on December 24, 2010, at 16:05:41
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous +raquo; violette, posted by sigismund on December 24, 2010, at 15:58:53
> Yes. The prole board of a penal system. Well, it is a US website so that is the cultural background, but still, he does seem to be trying. I think so. Sort of. Within limits.
*rofl! yep...I'm w/you on that :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 17:36:26
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by morgan miller on December 24, 2010, at 1:55:33
> 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.
"I feel that I was disrespected" is an improvement, but an even better I-statement would be "I feel disrespected, put down, and uncomfortable."
Even better than that might be sticking to "feelings in the strictest sense", but I'm not as strict as 10derheart. :-)
> 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.
True, but if, like you, they do want to make it right, they're welcome back after their block.
> 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.
Thanks for your apology, and for working this through.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 18:41:34
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 19:53:08
> See, its like the dog park....
>
> muffledMaybe so!
> 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'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
>
> violetteMaybe Solstice exhibited behavior similar to mine, so she was seen as a member of my pack (a minion).
Bob
Posted by Solstice on December 25, 2010, at 13:45:49
In reply to Re: its like the dog park, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 18:41:34
> > 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'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
> >
> > violette
>
> Maybe Solstice exhibited behavior similar to mine, so she was seen as a member of my pack (a minion).
>
> Bobjeesh.. that's *just* what I need, Bob... reinforcing notions that I might be a minion :-)
I'm not. And I'm not a member of Bob's pack. Although I may share various values with many, and my experiences may have led me to develop some similar (and dissimilar) understandings of how to make things work, I am my own pack.
Solstice
Posted by morgan miller on December 25, 2010, at 14:05:48
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2010, at 17:36:26
>> 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.
>True, but if, like you, they do want to make it right, they're welcome back after their block.
I guess I'm just thinking that people may be in a fragile state that makes them more vulnerable to taking being blocked personally, and as a result, choosing not to come back. I also think that babblers' vulnerability and unstable state of mind may be one reason for people being uncivil(under your interpretation). But I also realize that this vulnerability factor is a reason why you have such strict guidelines, as you want to protect the members here. Maybe there is a bit of a "catch 22" going on here. It makes sense that protecting the majority of members that are civil takes priority here. Still, I feel there could be some measures taken to at least change the way the civility guidelines are enforced here, but I think you are considering this already.
Morgan
Posted by morgan miller on December 25, 2010, at 14:09:50
In reply to Re: its like the dog park, posted by Solstice on December 25, 2010, at 13:45:49
>I'm not. And I'm not a member of Bob's pack. Although I may share various values with many, and my experiences may have led me to develop some similar (and dissimilar) understandings of how to make things work, I am my own pack.
I think we all understood this : ) And Dr. Bob didn't say anything that would make me think you were a minion in his pack. I thought the use of minion was pretty funny actually, made me think of the minions in Lord of the Rings.
Posted by violette on December 26, 2010, at 8:19:30
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous, posted by violette on December 22, 2010, at 22:16:09
When i see this a pattern:
I say/do ___ insert socially acceptable behavior)
I don't say/do ___insert socially unacceptable behavior)
but instead see someone say/do the opposite, it reminds me of my mother, who has narcissistic personality disorder. One of the major signs of NPD, is someone who regularly lies to themself (which ultimately transfers to lying to others) but is unaware of it.
Denial is common to other mental disorders as well, but i think of how my mother used it around other people, ie to convince the neighbors, family,...of her 'goodness' (which is the opposite of how she feels about herself deep down inside) but especially when pointing out the behavior in others while denying it as her own, is common to NPD.
(BTW-the diagnosis of NPD is being dropped from DSM, and i'm not sure what the object relational patterns or behavioral traits of someone who has NPD will be associated with. I think psychologists will still use the context of the dx NPD in practice, but for research purpsoes, i wonder how its going to work)
I think because im hypervigilant, i sense patterns like that before i realize it cognitivity..so i get emotionally triggered before the facts arise in my consciousness, regardless of whether or not someone is actually like my mother. When you don't fully know people, as with this setting, its true you cant make assumptions.
IMO-anyone's true character is really marked by what they do/feel/act when no one is around, so there's no way for me or anyone else to know a person except for what that person chooses to reveal to others....but
I think for me, the issue is, at a mental health forum, it's odd in my experience to interact with people who say they have nothing wrong with them or that they have little faults-whether it's done directly or by ommission, implying, or pointing out others' faults--especially when shortcomings are pointed out in others. So i get emotionally triggered more here than in real life...this is at least the second time its happened here for me...so i think i will just go back to avoiding-go run and hide from places like this-as i have enough emotional stuff to deal with already.
Posted by violette on December 26, 2010, at 10:27:29
In reply to Re: Assumptions are presumptuous » violette, posted by Willful on December 21, 2010, at 23:41:51
You seem not to like internet communication except if you're stressed out-- "
Willful, there is some truth in this - but it is more complex than liking or not liking and like dosesn't describe the way i feel about internet communications at all.
To lay it out in black and white - i end up needing social support and don't feel comfortable talking on public forums due to some recent experiences - so, I avoid them..then from time to time, visit and tell myself i'll just stay a little while. But instead, I noticed recently, i let myself get sucked into conversations here that i really don't want to be a part of (like a communication between Alexandra and Soltice). it's just not important to me to think about such things.
While other people have said they tend to post on this admin part of the forum because they are uncomfortable with blocks (or whatever reason makes them uncomfortable), i am uncomfortabel not being able to delete posts later if i write things when I am not emotionally well.
I have posted here while experiencing extreme affect states - psychosis, mania, and dissociative states, to name a few. And later, came back-sometimes horrified-to see what i had written. So i asked Bob to delete the posts, but he would not.
Then, I started using psych central because you can delete posts within 24 hrs, but recently cancelled my membership there as 24 hours didn't work for me. Lots of supportive people there. I used another forum, had similar problems in writing during affect states, and people are so sensitive there, despite being very nice, it's like walking on eggshells, which is a bit too much for me. Well it takes some effort to reinstate your membership at psych central; here, you cant cancel and uncancel your membership. it never goes away.
I have been doing better and quit using internet communications for the most part, but find myself once in a while now reaching out when feeling more distress. So, i do come around when i am feeling like i need to talk, but at the same time, am afraid to write about what brings me here in the first place, for the reasons i stated. So sometimes Ill write about medications or other things, then i just realized, even though i had tried to stick to topics where i can interact without disclosing personal stuff, i end up doing it anyway like i just did on this post.
Most of the time though, i don't feel a need to talk on internet forums any more as i can usually wait till me next therapy session. I can only go to therapy twice a week at the most; sometimes it's difficult to wait till my next session. My friends don't have mental heatlh problems, its hard to find people to talk to. but if i could stay way from forums as long as i did, i am thinking i can find another outlet for social support that works better for me. Just haven't been motivated to do that.
So it's not that i like internet communciations during certain times only, its juts that im in intense therapy which has side affects that don't go well with some of the aspects of internet communications.
Obviously everyone has reasons to come here. I don't think mine are unique. I wonder why some other people hang out here, like people who rarely talk about their own mental health. Who knows why they are here and choose to interact with people here.
Hope you have a happy new year.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2010, at 1:46:08
In reply to Re: saying the right thing, posted by morgan miller on December 25, 2010, at 14:05:48
> I guess I'm just thinking that people may be in a fragile state that makes them more vulnerable to taking being blocked personally, and as a result, choosing not to come back. I also think that babblers' vulnerability and unstable state of mind may be one reason for people being uncivil(under your interpretation). But I also realize that this vulnerability factor is a reason why you have such strict guidelines, as you want to protect the members here. Maybe there is a bit of a "catch 22" going on here. It makes sense that protecting the majority of members that are civil takes priority here. Still, I feel there could be some measures taken to at least change the way the civility guidelines are enforced here, but I think you are considering this already.
Exactly.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2010, at 1:46:13
In reply to Re: its like the dog park, posted by Solstice on December 25, 2010, at 13:45:49
> I am my own pack.
OK, is everyone else their own pack, too?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 31, 2010, at 19:40:18
In reply to Re: its like the dog park, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2010, at 1:46:13
I prefer to be in someone else's.
It's just finding that special person.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.