![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 70 to 94 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 12:46:44
In reply to One more option, please?, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:34:31
FB,
You are right. I find that we all signed a statement of consent when we joined but not to the current changes initiated. Dr Bob needs to get a new consent from each of us if he changes the means of this forum to interact with two other forums that aren't the same in terms of mental health versus social function. Facebook and even more so, Twitter have absolutely no civility guidelines. I found so much foul language without * going on within Twitter that I have no reason to want to join it. Dr Bob hangs onto his guidelines quite stringently and so how can he ask us to be ok with this exchange without a rejoining of Babble participants with a new consent to all of this or the option of dropping out entirely with all that person's posts dropping out with them. This is a fair question. And I don't think it is fair of Dr Bob to say is this because you have anxiety issues coming up, it implies that you are mental health issue person and your concerns are not valid. That is what I get when dr Bob posed that question. No it is not anxiety Dr Bob it is a change in our implied consent without any input. This has nothing to do with each other. It is only that Twitter and Facebook I could choose to join and place anything I ever posted on Babble there, but I don't for reasons that I feel are obvious. I felt bullied when you, Dr Bob, implied it was anxiety on my part that isn't warranted. Is this what you are implying that I am anxious only because I have health issues?Please answer that.
rsk
Posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:09:59
One thing that saddens me is the extent to which people here are unconsciously showing such possibly hurtful attitudes about the 'rest of the world"-- as if we --and "they"--as human beings didn't share a lot of the same pain, and as if these "other" people were likely to be rubberneckers, voyeurs, somehow not worthy of being aware of our thoughts, or part of "our" community.
We all share even a distrust and anxiety about others-- but I hope that we all can find it in ourselves to remember that we share with these others a lot of the same human experiences, hopes, fears, and losses.
. Bob isn't suggesting that anyone's most private revelations be pasted on their housefront. Who here thinks that we are going to do that to one another? And why is it that we can't feel that this unknown "they" really are "us"--rather than people somehow unable to receive what we have to offer in the spirit in which it was given?
Nadezda
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 14:30:10
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
Oh dear, Nadezda, I am the one that brought up rubberneckers. Yes, I do not trust 'everyone' w/ the same information. I am sorry that you read into my comments that I've divided the world into 'us' and 'them'. That was not my intentions, and I can see how exegesis lead you to that. As I question myself now as I write, I find that I do not believe the world is divided as such. However, as a person w/ my own experiences, I have learned how to take care of myself in a world that can be, at times, quite insensitive.
As a person who has had to learn allot about intimacy and sharing, I have found, for myself, that somethings are best not shared with everyone the same way or with the same intensity. One aspect of babble that I like and haven't found anywhere else to date online is the amount of care and trustworthiness of the posters. I am concerned that that may become eroded by the plan as is. I don't see any reason why a discussion about modifying the plan to suit some people's comfort levels (and to honor past agreements) might be objectionable or need become contentious.
fb
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
FWIW, I think this will have about as much effect as a firecracker in the rain. I just don't see a lot of random people tweeting babble or old posts. Nor do I have a problem with anyone reading Babble.
My issue is with posts that I made with the understanding that they were Babble posts. Googleable yes, to be used in Dr. Bob's research yes. To be used outside of those parameters by third parties with Dr. Bob's facilitation, no. My issue is with Dr. Bob and expecting from him a certain level of respect and honor. My issue is feeling very very disappointed in someone I thought I could, to a certain extent, trust.
It may well be that no one on earth ever tweets my posts. I see no reason why anyone would have any desire to do so.
That makes no difference to what Dr. Bob has done. In fact, it may make it worse. Because eroding my trust in Babble and him for absolutely nothing is a bit insulting.
What is the big deal about limiting it to future posts. To allowing people to choose what to post if there's going to be a linking icon on the bottom of each post. If Babble remains viable, then he'll have plenty of posts to tweet. If Babble picks up in numbers because of this then he'll have even more. And he won't lose Daisy, and he won't lose rsk, and he won't lose others who may be on the cusp of leaving over having our innermost thoughts handed over so cavalierly for third parties to use.
Maybe it's different on the meds board. Perhaps there isn't the same sort of emotional engagement when talking about medications.
This has nothing to do with Twitter people or Facebook people versus Babble people. This has to do with Babble people and our relationship with Dr. Bob. Which could be different for different Babblers.
But when Bob makes this about a fear of change, I feel hurt. And when you make this about tribal feelings of one group versus another, I have to admit I feel hurt. This is about respect and integrity. And to do the administrator the honor of feeling safe enough to express ourselves here. And having him *not* tell us, oh well, this will be a good reminder of how foolish you were to feel that safe here. A nice after the fact reminder. Goodness, you shouldn't have been so silly as to give and receive help through making yourself vulnerable, because you never know when those things will be taken out of context and used elsewhere, and here, I'll just make it easy for others to do that so that you'll have this great benefit of knowing you were never safe to begin with.
Posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 15:25:39
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
Posted by 10derHeart on October 27, 2009, at 16:03:44
In reply to Re: well said Dinah, and thanks (nm) » Dinah, posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 15:25:39
Posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
I may not be paying enough attention, Dinah-- but I simply don't see it the way you do.
I actually don't know what Bob has done. It's not clear to me what it means that he's put these notations at the bottom of posts. Maybe he's explained it and I missed it-- and his explanation was abysmal. In which case, I'd appreciate a link to his explanation.
I don't want to put words in Bob's mouth, but maybe he's worried that Babble may cease to exist precisely because he doesn't make it accessible on and visible to people on facebook and twitter. Maybe he thinks the shape and structure of connection on the internet has changed and without making babble part of these new, dominant forms of communication, he's depriving it of new life. And maybe he believes that this is important enough to the survival and renewal of babble that he's willing to risk some of what he's created to create it in a better, more forward=looking way. Maybe he has some totally different motive-- of course.
I don't know. My sense , though, is that as much as it's about Bob, it's about a deep distrust and even devaluing of those who are not us-- it's about "us" as somehow special and different from those others on debased vehicles like twitter and facebook.
I don't think you can cabin off one from the other-- if people were empathic, and available to be touched and even affected by-- and drawn into-- our community, what Bob did wouldn't be so awful.
I agree maybe he did it without enough thought about people's feelings-- and fears-- and without taking time to introduce it in a careful way. But I happen to think that we should give Bob the benefit of the doubt. Even if it wasn't the best way-- I wonder that there isn't room to let him make some further response.
It may very well be that it should be about future posts, or that his ideas are open to revision. It bothers me greatly to see us as a group being so closed and so prone to give things the least favorable interpretations. Yes, this is a sensitive issue-- but the tone toward Bob recently has been disturbing, and while this may give everyone a sense of moral righteousness, it's not really that Bob betrayed us. That seems to me to be some sort of meme, or phantasy, that's being played out here-- without really being examined.
I'm very sorry if my way of thinking hurts you-- but it's not about you personally, or anyone here personally-- it's just that a group dynamic seems to have been set into motion, and to have a life of its own.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 19:12:55
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
But we are persons. There is no other way to take it but personally.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/922966.html
If I'm understanding this correctly, someone has already used this twice even though Daisy specifically requested that it not be done.
I do not see how this in any way promotes a supportive Babble community.
Posted by Phillipa on October 27, 2009, at 20:06:22
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 19:12:55
Speaking from the med board perspective with still so much unacceptance of medications for psych issues by neighbors and family have no interest in this topic and have actually threatedned and they do mean it as they have influential jobs that if any of my posts end up there I'm disowned. Facebook is for fun. In my experience not one post has ever been about meds it's about lighter topics and having fun. The real world not medication. Which brings up another topic for me insurance companies, Jobs, etc. certainly can use this against you. And meanwhile a suicidal poster has never been addressed to the best of my knowledge by Dr. Bob. Posting doesn't reflect it. Just read a facebook page and people are joking and having fun. And know personally that those on my page are not there to talk psych issues. Some left babble to find a fun place. And we have fun. Intelligence silly test, Mafia wars, build a farm. Anyway that's my opinion on the topic.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 22:43:01
In reply to One more option, please?, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:34:31
but here's a link to NPR's story on Facebook:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114187478&ft=1&f=2
Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2009, at 1:45:01
In reply to we already know this, » floatingbridge, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 22:43:01
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 2:45:14
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
There is a 1 in front of the facebook icon on the previous post.
This might be because someone clicked the icon but did not confirm.
But if someone actually linked to my post on Facebook, I have asked that no one do that. I didn't include my request in this particular post, but given the content of the post, I had hoped it was obvious.
While it is clear that it isn't uncivil under Babble policy to do so against my expressed wishes and when it clearly causes me distress, it is something I take rather seriously. I don't know why anyone on earth would wish to link my posts to anything, or tweet my posts, but I find it extremely upsetting should anyone do so against my wishes and without asking first.
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:07:59
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Dinah, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 2:45:14
Of course, this could also be enormous fun for anyone who wanted to torment me in a bob-approved manner. Like my baby brother did. If that's anyone's motivation now or in future, and I'm not saying it is, then I hope Dr. Bob's providing of such a plaything is heartily appreciated. To offset how I feel about it.
If people are just playing with the buttons, perhaps it would be thoughtful to experiment on the experimenter's own posts?
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:20:33
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:07:59
Perhaps Babble should be left to those who don't mind this.
I know I can't tolerate living in this environment.
Yeah, yeah, I know Dr. Bob. I have to do what's best for me, and don't let the door hit me on the way out. Please don't say it. I've said it for you.
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
There may be as many different reasons for objecting to Face/Twit links as there are people objecting to it. I would never presume to have divined a simple explanation for the responses of a large group of complicated individuals.
Do you lock your car? I do, when I remember, even though I know 99.9% of the people who walk by my car have no intention of stealing it, and even though I know that one determined skillful person can drive it off even though I have locked it. Would I leave it unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, and paste a banner on it saying "Take Me"? No. All safety is an illusion, but prudent precautions can reduce the likelihood of misfortune.
You may not understand the feelings being expressed here, but please do not reduce them to some formula that may be comforting to you, but may be perceived as disrespectful by others.
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:17:45
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
Posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
I wasn't characterizing everyone's response, but rather a general sense I had of a group dynamic. Each individual comes as it differently, and there are many individuals who have quite separate concerns.
Perhaps Babble is no longer safe for certain people. I think Bob should reconsider his changes in light of the feelings people have expressed of unsafety. However, I do detect a tone in the discussion that I find unsettling.
I hope those who read my posts will interpret the motives as benevolently as possible,, since I mean no disrespect to people who are fearful and see dangers where there may not be as many as they imagine. The fears of others is very common-- and yes-- there may be one person who will steal your car. Does that justify the rampant fear and many locking-up and gating measures that people take to protect themselves? And the atmosphere of vulnerability and suspicion that it involves? That, I suppose, is a question one could debate and consider more deeply-- but there are costs to locking up everything..
Nadezda
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 14:26:40
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » henrietta, posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
Perhaps you're experiencing a bit of unwarranted fear,too---the fear of rampant fear!
A couple of years ago the police in my town recommended that people not store all their Christmas presents in their unlocked cars in the mall parking lot. Turns out people were doing just that, and lo and behold, some people's presents were stolen.
Prudent precaution does not indicate rampant fear. It's merely prudent.
Posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » henrietta, posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
>I hope those who read my posts will interpret the motives as benevolently as possible,, since I mean no disrespect to people who are fearful and see dangers where there may not be as many as they imagine.
Of course, Nadezda.
You are part of a community and a decent community will care for all its members.For myself, I'm made nervous by mobile phones (gave up) and remote controls for TVs (mastered it!) so I fear Twtter and Facebook will remain unvisited by me.
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:25:21
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
> I don't want to put words in Bob's mouth, but maybe he's worried that Babble may cease to exist precisely because he doesn't make it accessible on and visible to people on facebook and twitter. Maybe he thinks the shape and structure of connection on the internet has changed and without making babble part of these new, dominant forms of communication, he's depriving it of new life. And maybe he believes that this is important enough to the survival and renewal of babble that he's willing to risk some of what he's created to create it in a better, more forward=looking way. Maybe he has some totally different motive-- of course.
>
> NadezdaMaybe some people liked the way this community was because it was untouched by social networking. Lot's of heavy discussion going on here. People may have also felt some sense of safety here w/o it being connected to the social networks?
Facebook and Twitter are tools for superficial communications. I see a lot of deep, personal dialogue here, but not on those sites. Yes, they are new methods of communication, but are they adding utility to anything at all? And they may be just a fad and go out of style just as quickly as they appeared...I can see the technology being useful for many things..but for social relationships, support--no, just don't see it.
This is meant to be a supportive community, and many members have expressed that this change is NOT supportive and has the potential to decrease safety or feelings of safety. Using that logic alone, I don't see why the change would be implemented.
Just because the site administrator (who by the way, doesn't post about his core issues/mental health issues) and thinks this change would be helpful....while the community supposedly being served thinks it is unhelpful, I think the administrator should give more weight to the community's wishes and not his personal wishes.
Of course, not everyone expressed their discontent with this change. A poll of members, if all active members responded to it, would determine what the community deems supportive or not.
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:36:09
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
Instead of complaining about this site, I'd actually like to create a new forum-a forum that gives the members the tools they think are most supportive.
I can't take on an endeavor like that while in school right now, but maybe someday.....
Anyone else up to the task?
Posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:43:17
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
Sigi, I like your post. And Nadezda, I'm happy that you feel safe.
Kind regards,
fb
>
> Of course, Nadezda.
> You are part of a community and a decent community will care for all its members.
>
> For myself, I'm made nervous by mobile phones (gave up) and remote controls for TVs (mastered it!) so I fear Twtter and Facebook will remain unvisited by me.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:49:08
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:25:21
Psyh Chat--well said--I agree. Thank you for your post. This site is more in depth, more personal, and more helpful (for me) than any other I have visited. Why is that? What works about this site?--great questions which I think your post sheds light on.
fb
> Maybe some people liked the way this community was because it was untouched by social networking. Lot's of heavy discussion going on here. People may have also felt some sense of safety here w/o it being connected to the social networks?
>
> Facebook and Twitter are tools for superficial communications. I see a lot of deep, personal dialogue here, but not on those sites. Yes, they are new methods of communication, but are they adding utility to anything at all? And they may be just a fad and go out of style just as quickly as they appeared...I can see the technology being useful for many things..but for social relationships, support--no, just don't see it.
>
> This is meant to be a supportive community, and many members have expressed that this change is NOT supportive and has the potential to decrease safety or feelings of safety. Using that logic alone, I don't see why the change would be implemented.
>
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:26:20
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:49:08
Thanks floatingbridge :)
You know, I'm not "against" those sites or the people who wish to use them. It's not black and white thinking as someone alluded to earlier.
I do think those applications can be a quick and easy way to let all your friends/relatives know what you are up to by sending a comment or two. It's much easier than postal mail! I can see its usefulness for organizations more than "enhancing" social relations. In fact, I think the technology has much more potential than is currently being realized. For example, I could see a twitter like application used in a hospital for the staff to follow patients....Can think of lots of other potential uses.
But that doesn't mean its good for social relations. That remains to be seen - and it is being studied by various researchers. How many people are picking up the phone or spending time with friends vs. how many are sitting behind their computer typing on facebook or twitter, abbreviating their conversations, etc. It might someday prove to be a barrier to interpersonal relations. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
The Obama campaign was very successful using the social network technology. They had a comprehensive website for it. Lot's of detail, forum conversations, and links to 'real' meetings. There was collaboration going on - not just superficial one sentence Twitter-like conversations. There is a big difference.
I think of it mostly along the lines of how Phillipa framed the concept - Facebook & Twitter are used for entertainment for the most part, and as I said, superficial social contact.
To get the best of the technology, it seems it would be more useful to link Babble with non-profit organizations, educational sources, and other mental-health related networks. It just doesn't make sense to link it to Facebook & Twitter - it even seems to minimize the supportive nature of the forum. Encourages or turns it into something to be simply "passed around" rather than USED. And as we are starting to see, it discourages people from in-depth conversations and encourages the superficial style communication already rampant among the social networks. Several people already said they would not offer as much personal support.
Also - just because something is popular, doesn't mean everyone should jump on the bandwagon. I mean, McCarthyism spread as fast as social networks, and it also was partly responsible for the Vietnam War - a war that was known to be unwinnable. Look all the death and horror popularity caused there. Of course McCarthyism died out, well not completely. But for the most part.
I think these social networks can be considered a lot of hype though. Remember how the news media gave so much attention to McCain using twitter? It was so silly. I wonder how much Twitter grew after that. There is so much hype going on - and a lot of it just fueled by advertising and consumerism. Money being the incentive. I'm not surprised at all of the content of the article you posted - about all the 'quiz' applications on Facebook, etc. inserted to convertly collect personal information. There is so much controversy going on with the internet and privacy--so much yet to be resolved. Legislation will eventually follow to somehow protect people from harm.
Of course these are just my opinions.
Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2009, at 18:33:40
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » floatingbridge, posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:26:20
Yes, and very interesting and thoughtful opinions they are, too.
You always make me think. Thanks for that :-)
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.