![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 18:49:37
> If I were to place my words in Dinah's suggested format, it would be less of an I-statement than what I submitted. The statement would have read, "I see people being pretentious when I see huggies and smileys in Internet posts." I suspect the statement would have earned the same administrative admonishment, regardless its better coherence with the suggested guideline.
Right.
> > If you'd rather not engage, just don't reply?
>
> I didn't say I would rather not engage, but only that I would rather not engage in certain types of communication, specifically the use of keyboard symbols to indicate affection.OK, it's fine (1) to say that or (2) just not to reply to those types of communication.
> Let me ask this another way. Is it an accetable topic of dialogue here for me to represent any version of my actual condition in which I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious?
The problem there is "pretentious". When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
Bob
Posted by henrietta on April 12, 2005, at 19:30:17
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
snort oh really db!!!
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:11:08
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
>When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
>
> BobNobody makes me feel anything. I learned that in Therapy 101. Are you telling me others, and not I, am in control of my feelings?
Are you asking rhetorically or are you honestly inviting an answer because you believe there might be a valid perspective other than the one you hold? Because if you were asking rhetorically, you would only be pretending to ask.
In the event you are asking honestly, I will offer that I allow myself to feel various emotions in response to pretense. Since pretense is the foundation of all theater, it depends on the nature of the performance, and the extent to which I suspend disbelief. I am so accustomed to theatrical pretense, I usually feel nothing, unless it is supplemented by surround sound and theatrical lighting.
My habituation to theatrical pretense might influence my profound tolerance toward social pretense. As I implied in the post to which you responded hatefully, I see pretense all day, every day - usually starting with the first commercial message I see affixed to food containers on my kitchen shelves.
I often feel alienated when I witness routine social pretense, such as fashion, vocal inflection, posture and casual mock affection but I generally try to feel something else. Perhaps as a result of living in the Deep South, I have developed strong immunities to most social pretense, but maintain an ability to pretend as needed.In face-to-face relationships, people generally know by the way my eyes track and fail to dilate responsively not to approach me with pretentious behavior others might consider affectionate. As a politically informed Southerner, I know social pretense goes way beyond cultural rites that affect racism. Social pretense is used to define economic class roles and interpersonal power relationships.
Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Konrad Lorenz related the role of pretense in cultural rites, starting by explaining the role of pretend aggression in the mating rituals of tropical fish. His work informs my ability to identify the role of pretense in most social rites, and especially in displays of affection. Among other examples, Lorenz highlights the role of pretense in cultural rites of humans by a reference to the measured steps of college professors as they walk the halls of an academy.
As a Southern American, I have learned to suspect those who repress exposure of social pretense. The father of the Civil Rights Movement, Vernon Johns, reinforces my life experience with his academic work, which exposed the role of social pretense in perpetuating systematic hatred.
"... both southern and American societies have highly developed systems of social pretense that largely exclude rational consideration of the nation's racial problems. The refusal to discuss race and racism is itself a sign of racism. Not talking about racism continues the social pretense system and racism; but that is the intent, sad to say." (Vernon Johns, The Only Non-Racist History of the United States, Chapter 3)
Go ahead, call my reasonable contribution uncivil. I will call your behavior what it is.
I have no problem saying it Robert Hsiung -- you are a hate-monger in a lab coat. Your policies reveal a hatred of reason and a hatred of truth. You set up this web site where you teach others your emotional code of hatred. Just look at the behavior of your "deputies". After a few months under your tutelage, one very ethical professional considered it funny to joke about sexual assault of children, and to symbolically impose unwanted affection.
Do you think Southern racists dance around in white hoods chanting the "n" word all day? No. They are polite community leaders who take pride in their supposed "civility", all the while declaring it “uncivil” to discuss social pretense. You mask your hatred in genteel behavior even better than do most of my Southern neighbors. Your hatred is an offense against knowledge and against reason. Your enforcement of Rousseau's murderous social contract makes you and your fascist allies more dangerous than any very polite Klan member with whom I have ever shared a meal.
Now why don't you make your subservient mob cheer by symbolically lynching me for a week. I will spend the week celebrating the decline in traffic at this site. When I conceive a stronger way to rationally confront you for the mental disorders you are spreading, I will.
Don’t touch me.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2005, at 9:21:07
In reply to Your hateful opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:11:08
> > > I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious
> >
> > The problem there is "pretentious". When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
>
> Nobody makes me feel anything.Sorry, I meant "make" as in:
2 c : favor the growth or occurrence of
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?make> you responded hatefully
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> I often feel alienated when I witness routine social pretense
OK, so an I-statement would be:
> I often feel alienated when I perceive human affection toward me
> In face-to-face relationships, people generally know by the way my eyes track and fail to dilate responsively not to approach me with ... behavior others might consider affectionate.
Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
Bob
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2005, at 9:21:07
To summarize what follows, I posit that you are overtly demanding I-statements, but covertly in some instances you only accept I-statements about certain subjects, specifically those about feelings and not about perceptions.
I think you are attempting something more like psychotherapy than administration, in that you are attempting to persuade me to articulate feelings. On the other hand, you might be trying to improve your administrative skills, which is why I am donating my time and effort.
Whichever the case, the feelings you would have me articulate are rhetorical artifacts of my interaction with you, and are neither spontaneous nor consistent with what I know to be true about myself. Since this is not a psychoanalytic forum, it seems unlikely the process is arranged so as to assess my feelings safely, accurately and therapeutically. Until you say otherwise, this forum appears to be about support and education related to feelings and to perceptions.
In the first model to which you referred ("I was offended when I saw..."), the model stated a perception -- a perceived offense -- with no reference to any feeling the hypothetically perceived offense evoked.
So to me, that suggests personal perceptions are acceptable by your guidelines. That would be a useful guideline, since many cognitively disordered people more likely need support and education for their effort to develop accurate perceptions than they need support and education about whatever emotions they feel in response to confused perceptions. I know for me, I long ago learned to cope with my feelings, dark and mortal as they may be, but I still struggle with confusion about what is life and why I am in it.
RH wrote:
> OK, so an I-statement would be:
>
> > I often feel alienated when I perceive human affection toward meIt would be a first-person declaration, a.k.a. an I-statement, but it wouldn't be my I-statement. I don't often feel alienated in response to affection. I often feel alienated when I witness pretense. Symbolic affection to me is all pretense, but the times I feel alienated in response to pretense are not necessarily the times I perceive affection as pretense. I more often feel alienated by pretense when there is a cost associated with not playing along, such as pretense expressed by fashion, by graphic renderings promoting predatory cultural practices and by symbols of social status. Unless it is deep, meaningful and not mediated by electronic network technology, I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection. As you recall, I previously explained why. I felt somewhat alienated when not playing along with (((huggies))) became costly, but I easily overcame the feeling by impugning the cost, and you are apparently unwilling as yet to exact the toll.
My I-statement would be:
"I often perceive that I am witnessing pretense when I witness symbolic affection among humans."
... and another would be:
"I often perceive I am witnessing profoundly developed pretense consistent with that described by prominent animal behaviorists when I perceive symbolic affection among humans."
Now, if "I-feel" is your final answer to "what is an I-statement" then my rendering of the model might become, "I feel I am witnessing pretense when..." But I probably wouldn’t write that, since I strive to write coherently and I am influenced by accepted science that indicates feelings and perceptions are different processes arising from activity in distinct and divergent neural networks.
> Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
>
> BobWhich is why I explicitly, and in keeping with all I have learned about civility, wrote in response to an overture of symbolic affection: "To you it may be real, but to me it is all pretense."
Let's break it down again.
"To me" = "I often perceive"
"To me it is" = "I often perceive I am witnessing"
"pretense" = "pretense"Well, maybe I need four years of medical school and another couple years in specialized training, because apparently I'm still not smart enough to find any difference between your models and what I wrote. That is, unless you are saying we are not to disclose our perceptions and the only civil topic of discussion at your party is discussion of feelings evoked by now-secret perceptions.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
sigh, all those words...what an effort you donated...
Lemme splain. No wait, that would take too long. Lemme sum up.
From what I can see, it's the word "pretense" that represents the sticky wicket.
Some folks might perceive that the use of the word "pretense" about their behavior online could represent a negative judgement about said behavior.
Using emoticons or other graphical expressions of affection might also be perceived as an adaption to the limitations of this medium, and thus might represent a genuine behavior on a poster's part. To have this behavior referred to as being seen as a pretense by another poster might then be perceived by the poster using such adative aids as hurtful or upsetting.
So ends my 'splanation.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:19:51
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
You see it one way, I see it another.
Is that statement civil?
You see this as helpful, I see it as harmful.
Is that statement civil?
To you my complaint is empty, to me it is meaningful.
Is that statement civil?
You think emoticons enhance communication, I think they are an alternative to effective communication.
Is that statement civil?
Some believe in a divine spirit, others don't.
Is that statement civil?
Some scholars describe dramaturgy as genuine, other scholars describe it as pretense.
Is that statement civil?
Some scholars describe social performance as genuine, other scholars describe it as pretense.
Is that statement civil?
To you it is real, to me it is pretense.
Is that statement civil?
Posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 0:23:30
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
Or how about... "It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 0:24:45
In reply to Re: I-statements... » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:19:51
Sorry, no time to donate to help you with those.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this, posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 0:23:30
> Or how about... "It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
That would be civil. Just as civil and even more specific could be ... "I understand you might be very sincere about this, but it's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."And even more detailed explanation could read... "I understand you, whose opinions, feelings and perspectives are just as valid as mine, might be very sincere about the use of emoticons on line, but it's very difficult if not impossible for me, whose opinion is different than yours and in no way any more valid, in fact it might be completely wrong, and my perspective might be clouded by childhood trauma, engrams, mind-altering medications, the toils of my day, and the sound of the television in the background, among other things, to believe or at least to accept as real and sincere that people such as yourself, who are probably very sincere and really are expressing true affection when you use emoticons or offer symbolic affection, are expressing true affection as I appreciate affection based entirely on my unique personal background, when they post hug symbols such as those you proposed but were so kind as to wait until I answered before you imposed on me affection that you were keen and kind enough to recognize, if only intuitively, that I might for some reason known only to me and not necessarily, in fact possibly not even likely to be coherent reasons, but instead based on the personal factors, real or hypothetical, that I have tried to explain in this one rather lengthy sentence, which by the way I appreciate you taking the time to read before you sent to me the hug you were so courteous to ask before sending without knowing if I wanted it."
But then, having considered the meaning contained in the above sentence, and having been trained that courteous writers use words economically when possible, I conveyed precisely the same meaning in a dozen simple words -- "To you it might be real, to me it is all pretense."
I don't mean this sarcastically at all. It's just that I've been offered several variations of the same sentence and they all convey the same meaning. You can add more words, you can use different words, but they say the same thing. I was scolded for being a skilled writer. And I was scolded for having an accurate academic recognition of how some scholars view the role of pretense in social behavior.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 14, 2005, at 9:40:05
In reply to Re: I-statements... » Tabitha, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
"To you it might be real, to me it is all pretense."
"It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
You are correct that they mean the same thing. And you are correct that economy of words usually is a better, more readable means to communicate.
Note: following is my opinion only. Accept it if you like it, chunk it if you don't.
But the second one makes it clearer that it is *your* perception that you are talking about and it makes it clearer that there is a possiblity that it wasn't what the poster was intending.
And it is much softer, which gives the other poster a chance to reply in an equally soft manner.
And I'm not a verbose person.
Posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 14:24:17
In reply to Re: I-statements... » Tabitha, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
Well we'll have to disagree on this. I think the first version without the word 'pretense' is a much clearer communication and more likely to be understood. When you say 'it's all pretense' your listeners are more likely to hear an accusation (that they're being pretentious) and to react defensively and miss your meaning entirely.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:54:56
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
> > I was offended when I saw the movie.
>
> the model stated a perception -- a perceived offenseThe model stated a movie, not a perceived offense.
> I often feel alienated when I witness pretense. Symbolic affection to me is all pretense, but the times I feel alienated in response to pretense are not necessarily the times I perceive affection as pretense. I more often feel alienated by pretense when there is a cost associated with not playing along, such as pretense expressed by fashion, by graphic renderings promoting predatory cultural practices and by symbols of social status. Unless it is deep, meaningful and not mediated by electronic network technology, I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection.
OK, other I-statements would be:
> I often feel alienated when I witness symbolic affection.
> I often feel alienated when there is a cost associated with not playing along.
> I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection.
But not:
> My I-statement would be:
>
> "I often perceive that I am witnessing pretense when I witness symbolic affection among humans."Or if you want to consider that an I-statement about perceptions, then, like:
> I perceive that Dr. Bob has gone overboard.
it would be an I-statement that isn’t civil. Using I-statements tends to be civil:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
but isn’t necessarily.
> > Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
>
> Which is why I explicitly, and in keeping with all I have learned about civility, wrote in response to an overture of symbolic affection: "To you it may be real, but to me it is all pretense."But that wouldn’t be remaining civil. How about:
> Please don’t approach me with symbolic affection.
Bob
Posted by RH_is_a_predator on April 14, 2005, at 21:51:46
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:54:56
> > > I was offended when I saw the movie.
> >
> Former doctor Robert Hsuing wrote:
>"The model stated a movie, not a perceived offense."
Right. And frogs are trucks that dance noodles blue sandy wind."I was offended"
The model stated a perception of an offense. A medical license is not a license to turn language into gibberish.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2005, at 11:09:28
In reply to Your gibberish » Dr. Bob, posted by RH_is_a_predator on April 14, 2005, at 21:51:46
> Right. And frogs are trucks that dance noodles blue sandy wind.
When you’re blocked, you’re not supposed to post, so I’m going to double its duration, block this name, and delete these additional posts.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2005, at 11:23:55
In reply to Re: blocked » RH_is_a_predator, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2005, at 11:09:28
I'm not through reading them
Posted by partlycloudy on April 15, 2005, at 15:21:02
In reply to Re: please don't delete them yet » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2005, at 11:23:55
Just let us know when you're done, OK? I'd like to see these posts gone from here, even if we had some laughs.
pc
Posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2005, at 16:04:17
In reply to Re: please don't delete them yet » AuntieMel, posted by partlycloudy on April 15, 2005, at 15:21:02
Posted by 64bowtie on April 22, 2005, at 19:47:22
In reply to Re: blocked » RH_is_a_predator, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2005, at 11:09:28
AM and GG,
used2be appears to be passing judgement rather than just perceiving... Am I wrong here?
Rod
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:20:01
In reply to AM and GG, Wow I been outta touch, posted by 64bowtie on April 22, 2005, at 19:47:22
> used2be appears to be passing judgement
Sorry, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 64bowtie on April 23, 2005, at 16:33:25
In reply to Re: please be civil » 64bowtie, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:20:01
Dr-Bob
I'm trying to learn something: Do you evaluate 'passing of judgement' as a wrong thing?
(Please support your premise).
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on April 25, 2005, at 14:50:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » 64bowtie, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2005, at 16:20:01
Posted by TofuEmmy on April 25, 2005, at 16:06:58
In reply to ....I'm soooo confused............... (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by 64bowtie on April 25, 2005, at 14:50:53
I know you want to hear from Dr Bob, but since he hasn't commented, and you brought me back in time...
What I learned from a Catholic nun in the 60's was that to "pass judgement" is to put yourself in the place of God. The idea was this is not something I ought to do. Bad emmy.
So, yes, imho, saying that someone is passing judgement is negative statement.
I hope this helps to understand Dr. Bob's comment.
em
Posted by 64bowtie on April 26, 2005, at 19:47:52
In reply to Re: ....I'm soooo confused............... » 64bowtie, posted by TofuEmmy on April 25, 2005, at 16:06:58
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:12:13
In reply to Thanx » TofuEmmy », for your gentle touch (nm), posted by 64bowtie on April 26, 2005, at 19:47:52
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.