![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 56. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
Hi, everyone,
I read something by a group therapist the other day:
> Rare is the established group that actually wants new members. Quite the contrary: groups often have uncanny, covert, and thinly veiled strategies for getting rid of new members. Feelings of competition for parental love and attention, terror about one's place and where one fits, murderous feelings towards the new sibling, can all be reactivated in the group that is coping with new additions to the group family.
I wonder if that sometimes applies here, too.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 15, 2010, at 22:33:05
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
You think that babblers don't welcome new babblers?
What makes you think that?
Posted by Dinah on August 15, 2010, at 22:45:52
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
I went back and checked the newbie thread, just to make sure. It looked to me like any newcomer who started a new thread received several replies, and for the most part from many different posters. And that new posters who posted on an existing thread received at least one reply.
I didn't notice anyone trying to get rid of the new members, or expressing murderous feelings.
Could you say more about how you see this applying to Babble?
Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
Posted by Deneb on August 16, 2010, at 0:43:42
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
Dr. Bob, I haven't been welcoming newbies, I don't know why. I'm very bad at doing something consistently over time. I don't think I'm jealous of the attention you give to newbies though.
Posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 1:50:30
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 15, 2010, at 22:45:52
> groups often have uncanny, covert, and thinly veiled strategies for getting rid of new members. Feelings of competition for parental love and attention, terror about one's place and where one fits, murderous feelings towards the new sibling, can all be reactivated in the group that is coping with new additions to the group family.
That's quite a reasonable view of things but it's not the whole truth.
People are certainly welcomed.
Perhaps if they fail their probation (so to speak) then they're on notice?
Certainly I have been on the receiving end of friendliness (expressed with beauty and grace) from people here I will always remember fondly.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 16, 2010, at 8:25:23
In reply to Re: new members, posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 1:50:30
> > groups often have uncanny, covert, and thinly veiled strategies for getting rid of new members. Feelings of competition for parental love and attention, terror about one's place and where one fits, murderous feelings towards the new sibling, can all be reactivated in the group that is coping with new additions to the group family.
>
> That's quite a reasonable view of things but it's not the whole truth.
> People are certainly welcomed.
> Perhaps if they fail their probation (so to speak) then they're on notice?Hmm. I wonder about this too. What about a period of grace for new members until they're familiar with the natives' practices?
> Certainly I have been on the receiving end of friendliness (expressed with beauty and grace) from people here I will always remember fondly.
That's been my experience as well, Sig.
Posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 12:48:51
In reply to Re: new members, posted by PartlyCloudy on August 16, 2010, at 8:25:23
I try and welcome new members and if see no one has responded to their question at least say hi so they know they are not being ignored. Phillipa
Posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 13:46:19
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 12:48:51
>at least say hi so they know they are not being ignored
Which you did for me.
Posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 19:50:56
In reply to Re: new members » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 13:46:19
You were here after me???? Phillipa
Posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 20:10:02
In reply to Re: new members » sigismund, posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 19:50:56
>You were here after me????
Yes, and you were the first person to contact me
Posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 21:27:13
In reply to Re: new members » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on August 16, 2010, at 20:10:02
I guess I was your official greeter. PJ
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2010, at 16:25:45
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2010, at 12:48:51
> Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
>
> DinahI did think this might have been part of that, yes.
> I try and welcome new members and if see no one has responded to their question at least say hi so they know they are not being ignored.
>
> PhillipaThanks for doing that!
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 16:57:09
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2010, at 16:25:45
> > Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I did think this might have been part of that, yes.That wasn't my understanding of the Twitter/Facebook controversy. I thought that had everything to do with where our posts went, not who came to Babble.
Posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2010, at 16:25:45
>> Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
>>
>> Dinah>I did think this might have been part of that, yes.
Many people are saddened by the fact that so many people no longer post for whatever reason. I certainly am. The opposition to the Facebook/Twitter thing may have been a part of a conflict with Bob about the reasons for the decline of participation. Some people wanted Bob to acknowledge that the implementation of the civility rules had driven people away. If that had been given, one reason for opposition to Facebook and Twitter links would have fallen away, leaving the worries about privacy and concerns about the content of Twitter.
That's how I recall it, anyway.
Posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2010, at 21:11:09
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
Sigi me also a great deal of posters opted for the out to twitter/facebook I did. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
Did the twitter/facebook contretemps involve the civility guidelines? I thought it was the concerns about privacy and safety.
I suppose it goes to show that we all remember things a bit differently.
But I'm not sure I'd put a reluctance to have new members on the list.
Hmmm... I think there was some feeling that Dr. Bob cared more about getting new people on Twitter and wasn't as concerned with addressing the needs of older posters.
I suppose that could loosely be considered sibling rivalry. Though I'd consider it more about the perception of whether or not Dr. Bob was respecting us. The possibility of hordes of new members were tangential to the real interpersonal issue. The issue was between Bob and posters, not between posters and potential posters.
Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
It's between you and the posters, Dr. Bob. Not between current posters and potential posters.
Of course that's aside from the less interpersonal concerns of safety and privacy and the indiscriminate excerpting of our private and personal thoughts.
And of course, that's just how I remember it.
Posted by sigismund on August 18, 2010, at 0:10:29
In reply to Re: new members » sigismund, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
>Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
That's how I remember it too (now that you mention it).
(But you might recall how often when the question of participation is raised, the question of blocks is never far behind.)
I am not sure if I can recall an episode of obvious scapegoating here. I don't think so. Singling them out, destroying them cleverly, that's what I'd be looking for.
Groups can be like that.
But too many people at Babble have had experience with that and will defend anyone who is on the receiving end of it.
So maybe there hasn't been any.
Not a lot, anyway.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2010, at 15:38:43
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by sigismund on August 18, 2010, at 0:10:29
Yes, I do remember blocks being brought up.
I think you're right about Babblers.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2010, at 6:56:40
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I read something by a group therapist the other day:
>
> > Rare is the established group that actually wants new members. Quite the contrary: groups often have uncanny, covert, and thinly veiled strategies for getting rid of new members. Feelings of competition for parental love and attention, terror about one's place and where one fits, murderous feelings towards the new sibling, can all be reactivated in the group that is coping with new additions to the group family.
>
> I wonder if that sometimes applies here, too.
>
> BobYou mean to say that this is why you block people?????
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
In reply to Re: new members » sigismund, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
> Some people wanted Bob to acknowledge that the implementation of the civility rules had driven people away. If that had been given, one reason for opposition to Facebook and Twitter links would have fallen away
>
> sigismundI don't think there's any question that some people leave because of the civility rules and their implementation.
--
> Hmmm... I think there was some feeling that Dr. Bob cared more about getting new people on Twitter and wasn't as concerned with addressing the needs of older posters.
>
> I suppose that could loosely be considered sibling rivalry. Though I'd consider it more about the perception of whether or not Dr. Bob was respecting us.
>
> Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
>
> Of course that's aside from the less interpersonal concerns of safety and privacy and the indiscriminate excerpting of our private and personal thoughts.
>
> DinahI know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that. At the same time, not feeling respected, heard, and valued by me could be consistent with feelings of competition for my love and attention and terror about one's place and where one fits. And concerns of safety and privacy could be consistent with (seeing new posters as having) murderous feelings.
Just to be clear, I didn't bring this up to be critical, I just thought it might help us understand some of the dynamics here.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2010, at 9:02:39
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
> And concerns of safety and privacy could be consistent with (seeing new posters as having) murderous feelings.
>
> Just to be clear, I didn't bring this up to be critical, I just thought it might help us understand some of the dynamics here.
>
> BobWell, crediting the possibility of murderous feelings to the newcomers *does* feel a bit less critical.
I can't imagine why I would fear murderous intent from anonymous newcomers. Unless you start advertising Babble on "Trolls Unlimited" (and I'm sure you wouldn't), why would any new poster have a murderous intent to people they don't even know? Nor would the newcomers have a relationship with you that would inspire murderous feelings, I'd assume. Newcomers to me are nothing sinister. They are potential friends.
I think I'm totally missing the point. Is this Freudian perhaps? I never did understand Freudian psychology...
Posted by Phillipa on August 20, 2010, at 19:51:36
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2010, at 9:02:39
Dinah I also welcome newcomers as all are unique and bring diffent topics to babble. I don't get the murdurous either? It does not make sense to me. And Love? I do not get love here. Phillipa
Posted by vwoolf on August 21, 2010, at 0:46:31
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
> I know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that.
This feels to me like a really important shift in perspective on which much could be built.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 21, 2010, at 8:13:39
In reply to Re: new members, posted by vwoolf on August 21, 2010, at 0:46:31
> > I know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that.
>
> This feels to me like a really important shift in perspective on which much could be built.
>
>
>Yes, I thought this was a significant statement.
pc
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2010, at 15:48:05
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
I was just perusing and I noticed that this is Bob's thread. He responded in two subsequent posts twice to Dinah, once to sig and once to Phillipa. So in the proposed rating system does Dinah get 2 points, sig - 1 point, Phillipa - 1 point and everyone else who responded - no points? Just curious, how does everyone feel about Bob not responding to your post? Would it be even worse if he gave others a point and not you?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.