![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 227 to 251 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 31, 2010, at 17:09:45
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
> Because I thought that if you accepted that you couldn't help everyone, then you might not feel too hurt.
How hurt I would be would depend on how surprised I was at the poster's choices, not on how I feel about myself. If it was someone I know doesn't care overmuch for me, I'd shrug my shoulders and tell myself that at least I tried to be supportive. If it was a surprise, it would hurt a lot more.
Of course I accept that I can't help everyone. What would hurt is if someone pointed out that I wasn't helpful (by rating others helpful and excluding me) when I tried to be helpful. Maybe it's the way my mama raised me. I was taught that one showed appreciation to everyone who tried to be helpful. If I failed to do so, I'd have had to have a long discussion with her about empathy before she let me out in public again.
I dunno. Maybe other people's mamas didn't stress this point so other people would feel differently about it. Perhaps your mama taught you different mores, so you don't see it as an issue to show appreciation to only some of the people who care enough to take time out of their days to try to be helpful to you.
What did your mother teach you about showing appreciation to some but not others of the people who give you a gift, depending on whether or not the gift was to your taste? If she didn't teach you that value, what value did she teach in its place? I'd like to understand how different people come to have different standards, in the interests of mutual understanding and better communications.
Posted by BayLeaf on July 31, 2010, at 22:50:22
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2010, at 11:48:58
This is too confusing.
Instead of describing what this *isn't* going to to by replying to posts, how about you tell us about the list of requirements that will go into the design?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
In reply to Re: Appreciation » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derHeart on July 31, 2010, at 13:57:53
> >It wouldn't need to be public which posts were and weren't rewarded with points.
>
> It wouldn't"need" to be? What does that mean? Who decides? You? Each poster?
>
> Confused, as usual. If this is so, then why is there even a discussion here? If points weren't public, how would anyone know anything about them enough to feel hurt or good. etc? And if "private" (whatever that means) the why do it at all?
>
> I don't get it.It could be completely private, and posters could still feel good about having been appreciated by others:
> > Getting points would just be a bonus reward, so you feel good about helping others out and you have tangible proof of your helpfulness. You can look at all the points you have and think, wow, I've helped a lot of people! Then you feel good about yourself.
But I think there's something to be said for it not being completely private. If people can see which posts a poster appreciates, that could help them help that poster in the future. And if they can see the point totals of other posters, that would give them a context for their own point total.
The more settings there are, the more complicated it would be, but one way to do it would be to give each poster these options:
1. giving points
a. give points and show which posts receive them
b. give points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't give points2. receiving points
a. receive points and show posts which receive them
b. receive points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't receive points3. showing total
a. show total
b. show total only if in top 10
c. don't show point totalThe initial poster would have to give (1a or 1b) and the appreciated poster would have to receive (2a or 2b) for points to be awarded at all.
The initial poster would have to give and show (1a) and the appreciated poster would have to receive and show (2a) for it to show which post the initial poster appreciated.
Maybe a separate page would show the posters who agreed to be shown. 3b (only the top 10) could be the default. Even if a poster's point total weren't shown, they would still be able to find out for themselves where they stood relative to others.
How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2010, at 8:50:30
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
> But I think there's something to be said for it not being completely private. If people can see which posts a poster appreciates, that could help them help that poster in the future. And if they can see the point totals of other posters, that would give them a context for their own point total.
Those are both things that I object to, so while something can certainly be said *of* if, I'm not sure if I see anything to say *for* it.
I'm sorry you chose not to respond to my post. I hope you didn't see it as an insult. I saw it more as an effort to feel more positively about you by understanding you better. An experiment in sociology or anthropology or something. Not unlike what you do with us. And while I know that you aren't here for support and education, but for Administration, if those questions are part of Administration on one side, aren't they part of Administration on both?
I've seen you twice in person. Both times it struck me that you were both polite and very... I can't think of the word. You were interested in other people and their points of view. You were careful to phrase yourself so as to be respectful of them. You were even adept at responding to me on occasion in such a way that I understood that I had been less than tactful, without ever making me feel bad about being less than tactful. Yes, you were very polite, tactful, interested in others, and very very civil.
Which is why I really really *really* don't understand why you don't understand what I'm saying here.
Unless your proposed changes, which I confess are still a bit too complicated for me to grasp, are intended to indicate that you *do* understand how this could be hurtful to posters?
I like the opt out, of course.
But what I'd really like is for you never to show on any given thread which people were thanked. On the one hand, I'd like the opportunity to post *my* appreciation to anyone who wasn't appreciated by the originating poster (as long as they were civil of course). On the other hand, it might cause a lot of bad feelings among posters, which would decrease the overall civility on board. And it might give me information I'd just as well not know about the originating poster.
Especially if I don't understand what values other people were taught on the topic of appreciation, if they weren't the ones taught by my mother.
Posted by Dinah on August 1, 2010, at 9:04:19
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
Overall if you want to award points, I think I'd rather see them awarded purely for number of posts. At least there's no judgment involved in that.
And to be honest, if this were done, I'd probably opt for seeing as much information as I could. Yes, it might lead to hurt feelings for me, or angry feelings on my part towards the original poster, on my behalf or the behalf of others. But if the information is going to be there for the world to see, I just as well know the worst or best myself. Yes, it might change my feelings about other posters. But oddly enough, not in the way you seem to wish. Although I'm guessing you have some positive spin on how it can be helpful to know whether original posters share my values or have different ones altogether on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. You always seem to have positive spin on the most surprising (to me of course) things.
Posted by chujoe on August 1, 2010, at 9:17:49
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2010, at 2:43:33
>>The more settings there are, the more complicated it would be, but one way to do it would be to give each poster these options:
1. giving points
a. give points and show which posts receive them
b. give points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't give points2. receiving points
a. receive points and show posts which receive them
b. receive points, but don't show which posts receive them
c. don't receive points3. showing total
a. show total
b. show total only if in top 10
c. don't show point totalThe initial poster would have to give (1a or 1b) and the appreciated poster would have to receive (2a or 2b) for points to be awarded at all.
The initial poster would have to give and show (1a) and the appreciated poster would have to receive and show (2a) for it to show which post the initial poster appreciated.
Maybe a separate page would show the posters who agreed to be shown. 3b (only the top 10) could be the default. Even if a poster's point total weren't shown, they would still be able to find out for themselves where they stood relative to others.
How does that sound?<<
It sounds like you have been reading Kafka. I mean, invisible points? It's a stroke of genius worthy of the master!
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by chujoe on August 1, 2010, at 9:17:49
> your proposed changes ... are still a bit too complicated for me to grasp
>
> I like the opt out, of course.
>
> But what I'd really like is for you never to show on any given thread which people were thanked.With those changes, whether that were shown wouldn't be up to me.
> Overall if you want to award points, I think I'd rather see them awarded purely for number of posts. At least there's no judgment involved in that.
Thank-yous can mean more when they involve judgment. :-)
> I'm guessing you have some positive spin on how it can be helpful to know whether original posters share my values or have different ones altogether on a topic that is near and dear to my heart.
>
> DinahWould you rather not know their values?
--
> It sounds like you have been reading Kafka. I mean, invisible points? It's a stroke of genius worthy of the master!
>
> chujoeThink of it like your money in the bank. It's "invisible" to others, but not to you.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 2, 2010, at 8:49:35
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
> Would you rather not know their values?
Well I'm trying to have them explained to me, but you refuse to answer. I'd be happy to ask anyone who thanked some but not all of those who tried to be helpful to them, if you would prefer that to answering yourself.
I think it's pointless for me to continue this conversation. I bow to my feelings of impotence.
Posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
By basic notion regarding any system of points or rewards, visible or invisible, or recorded only by the hand of God in some celestial ledger, is this: Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
Posted by BayLeaf on August 2, 2010, at 22:11:03
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
Nicely put.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:45:33
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
The greatest politeness
Is free of all formality.
Perfect conduct
Is free of concern.
Perfect wisdom is unplanned.
Perfect love is without demonstrations.
Perfect sincerity offers
No guarantee.From Apologies by Chuang Tzu
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 7:58:32
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 2, 2010, at 1:33:18
I would like to voice my protest at the installation of a rating system of posts. I don't feel it's appropriate at a mental health forum, particularly on boards like Psychology and Social, no matter how they are cloaked. I have attempted to make light of the situation on the Social board with the "how can we get more babblers babbling?" thread - dancing emoticons and coupons were a joke, btw.
Just wanted to make sure this Who in Whoville was heard.
PartlyCloudy
Posted by chujoe on August 4, 2010, at 9:10:21
In reply to Re: Karma is not a vending machine » chujoe, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:45:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
In reply to Karma is not a vending machine, posted by chujoe on August 2, 2010, at 9:51:25
> Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
It's an inexact vending machine. You don't necessarily get compassion out. But the more compassion that goes around, the more likely some is to come around.
Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
Bob
Posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
I agree with that, Bob - it could be helpful. The more conscious we become of ourselves, the more able we will be to make clear ethical choices in our lives. As long as it is not invasive and unsafe, I think it could be a valid idea.
I am not sure why this discussion has become so polarised and emotional.
Posted by sigismund on August 6, 2010, at 3:09:44
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
I must have missed something.
I don't see the connection between civility and compassion.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:32:50
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
It wouldn't bother you if the original poster found other posts on the thread helpful but not yours? How about if the original poster found every other post on the thread helpful, but not yours? You wouldn't feel any different about the original poster? Would you feel as likely to respond to the original poster?
It wouldn't bother you if you had one of the lower helpfulness ratings on the board of those who posted about the same number of times?
I suppose it would be a way of people expressing their negative feelings about a poster without being "uncivil" by Bob's standards. He'd probably like not giving so many pbc's.
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 6:57:12
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Actually I suppose an administrator might see that as a positive thing. Instead of a poster asking another poster not to post to them, or telling them their post is a load of hot air, which wouldn't be civil by your standards, the poster could just choose not to mark them as helpful while marking others as helpful. The point would be made without it being uncivil by your standards.
Under the radar, so to speak.
You could even suggest it in your future pbc's. "If you don't find a poster helpful, please use the ratings system to tell them so, instead of being insensitive by saying it in words."
Although if you find it so normal and ok to tell posters they find some responses helpful and others not so helpful through a rating system, why isn't it ok to say it out loud? According to you, it's perfectly ok to indicate that some gifts are appreciated while others are not. Do you see a significant difference between telling them in a ratings system and telling them with words?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
I've never actually found the prospect of being graded or having a ledger of my good qualities all that helpful. Even if I score well, it's unpleasant to be constantly scored. And it's not like there is a guarantee of a good ledger. Are you're saying a bad ledger would help those with poor self esteem?
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 9:07:39
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
Eh, never mind.
As you say, Babble can't be right for everyone. I suppose as someone with an academic interest in group dynamics, you might find the results interesting. I care about Babble so I hope more people are attracted by the possibility of earning points (and venting frustration) with the ratings system than are hurt by it or put off by it.
And I hope the net effect on civility is positive rather than negative.
Best of luck with all this, I'm bowing out of a discussion I can't possibly hope to influence.
Posted by chujoe on August 6, 2010, at 9:12:22
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2010, at 7:08:54
I'm the one who brought up Karma & compassion because I think they make a more valid framework for interaction than civility and different grades of helpfulness. I agree with what Bob says above that the more compassion you spread around the more you're likely to have some splash back in your direction, but I think that's very unlike any sort of vending machine, exact or inexact. I'd go so far to say that expecting compassion in return for one's compassionate acts disqualifies the act as compassionate. Real compassion is unmotivated. And that's why the day that any sort of rating system appears on Psychobabble will be the last day I participate here. And please don't anyone take that as a threat or think that it means I don't like you, whatever your views on a rating system might be.
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:10:31
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 6, 2010, at 1:38:26
> > Karma is not a vending machine. You don't put compassion in hoping to get compassion out. You just spread compassion around in order to make a more compassionate world. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes not. But there is no bank, no bookkeeping, no system, no bureaucracy, no leader, no followers.
>
> It's an inexact vending machine. You don't necessarily get compassion out. But the more compassion that goes around, the more likely some is to come around.
>
> Also, some people may have difficulty seeing themselves as compassionate, and a ledger of sorts might help them.
>
> BobYou are going to rate posters as compassionate or compassionate? A ledger? What are you going to do with a ledger? Like in heaven? When St. Peter keeps a checklist of sinners and do-gooders?
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:20:57
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by vwoolf on August 6, 2010, at 2:10:40
> I agree with that, Bob - it could be helpful. The more conscious we become of ourselves, the more able we will be to make clear ethical choices in our lives. As long as it is not invasive and unsafe, I think it could be a valid idea.
>
> I am not sure why this discussion has become so polarised and emotional.I talk to my therapist in a real life setting to become more conscious of myself. I think that I work very hard to always make clear ethical choices in my life.
How can this reward system not be invasive and unsafe?
This discussion has become polarized and emotional because so many of us were judged and "graded" when we were children or maybe when we were married to someone who "kept" score.
In my opinion this system is going to hurt posters more than it helps us.
>
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:21:59
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by sigismund on August 6, 2010, at 3:09:44
Posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:33:02
In reply to Re: Karma » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:10:31
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.