![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 112 to 136 of 136. Go back in thread:
Posted by tofuemmy on January 21, 2007, at 9:49:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » fayeroe » tofuemmy, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 1:01:43
I don't think that was uncivil. Impulsivity is one the the HIGHEST risk factors for suicide. I fear for her life. How is that uncivil??
Is stating the obvious (her impulisity in light of the posts right above mine) uncivil?
Perhaps a Please Rephrase?? "I feel scared for you in light of what appears to be impulsive behavior on your part, Deneb."
I don't post to hurt her or to get her blocked, or even to change your rules. I just don't want her to end her life.
FWIW, the fear of losing Babble is not for myself, but for all the people who rely so heavily on this site. If you are successfully sued, you couldn't afford to keep it.
em
Posted by sunnydays on January 21, 2007, at 10:44:17
In reply to Re: feeling afraid, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 1:01:50
> > then what happens to Bob and Babble? Could he be sued by her parents? Would he have to shut down Babble? Who knows.
>
> Is that another fear? Of losing Babble?
>
> BobI think that is always a fear here... I remember some posts in the past where some hypothetical threat to Babble came up and people were very upset. But for me at least, it's not the big fear. The big fears for me are favoritism and the impact pressuring posts can have on people here at Babble who are trying to protect themselves.
sunnydays
Posted by Poet on January 21, 2007, at 10:53:15
In reply to Re: pointing out posts, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 1:01:39
In the future I will not point out a post, even if it is requested, unless I do it via babblemail. Though I question whether under babblemail guidelines it shouldn't be allowed because it might be hurtful.
Poet
Posted by Deneb on January 21, 2007, at 12:37:41
In reply to Re: feeling afraid, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 1:01:50
I just want to alleviate people's fears about me. First of all, I haven't been feeling truly suicidal for a while now so it is very unlikely that I will kill myself because of a block or something else. Second of all, even if I were to kill myself, my parents would not sue Dr. Bob. I also wouldn't want my parents to sue Dr. Bob. Would you all feel better if I wrote a note saying I don't want my parents to sue? Sort of like a will or something?
The risk of me killing myself is also slim because I have *never* actually attempted suicide. OK, I admit I bought a rope once, but I never hung it up and I eventually returned the rope. I would also never OD to kill myself because I know what a horrible way to die that is.
It's unlikely I will feel suicidal next time I get blocked because blocked posters can chat now and I know Bob doesn't not like me or think I'm a bad person.
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 13:08:23
In reply to Re: pointing out posts » Dr. Bob, posted by Poet on January 21, 2007, at 10:53:15
> I don't think that was uncivil. Impulsivity is one the the HIGHEST risk factors for suicide. I fear for her life. How is that uncivil??
>
> Is stating the obvious ... uncivil?It can be, if it leads someone to feel accused or put down. Something like:
> > I feel scared for you, Deneb.
would be more of an I-statement and IMO more sensitive.
> I don't post to hurt her or to get her blocked, or even to change your rules. I just don't want her to end her life.
I understand, and I didn't mean to imply that anyone here wasn't trying to help.
> FWIW, the fear of losing Babble is not for myself, but for all the people who rely so heavily on this site. If you are successfully sued, you couldn't afford to keep it.
>
> emSure, it could be fear that others, not oneself, might lose Babble. Deneb, even. People could also care about and be scared for me. Which I would feel grateful for.
--
> The big fears for me are favoritism and the impact pressuring posts can have
>
> sunnydaysI agree, it would be good if people didn't feel pressured here. How do you think favoritism might affect posters?
--
> In the future I will not point out a post, even if it is requested, unless I do it via babblemail. Though I question whether under babblemail guidelines it shouldn't be allowed because it might be hurtful.
>
> PoetThanks. I see what you mean, it would still be important to be civil. But at least one match wouldn't start a forest fire.
Bob
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 21, 2007, at 19:35:49
In reply to Re: feeling afraid, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 13:08:23
> > I don't think that was uncivil. Impulsivity is one the the HIGHEST risk factors for suicide. I fear for her life. How is that uncivil??
> >
> > Is stating the obvious ... uncivil?
>
> It can be, if it leads someone to feel accused or put down. Something like:yes, just like stating that someone has a giant infected zit on their nose is probably uncivil (or at least rude and demeaning) regardless of how "obvious" it may be
>
> > I don't post to hurt her or to get her blocked, or even to change your rules. I just don't want her to end her life.
>
> I understand, and I didn't mean to imply that anyone here wasn't trying to help.
>
> > FWIW, the fear of losing Babble is not for myself, but for all the people who rely so heavily on this site. If you are successfully sued, you couldn't afford to keep it.
> >
> > em
>
> Sure, it could be fear that others, not oneself, might lose Babble. Deneb, even. People could also care about and be scared for me. Which I would feel grateful for.*
> > The big fears for me are favoritism and the impact pressuring posts can have
> >
> > sunnydays
>
> I agree, it would be good if people didn't feel pressured here. How do you think favoritism might affect posters?"pressure" is a very new concern to me. I've never been in the situation where I was worried about my well-intentioned advice being considered "pressure". If advice is kind, caring, supportive and consistent, is it also possible that it could be considered "pressure"? How would I know, unless I read something like "I read your post to me Llurpsie_Noodle, and I feel pressured" ... BUT then Llurpsie_Noodle is *accused* of being uncivil. yikes! Is pressure only palpable to the one being pressured? Can it ever be detected by the administrators?
> > In the future I will not point out a post, even if it is requested, unless I do it via babblemail. Though I question whether under babblemail guidelines it shouldn't be allowed because it might be hurtful.
> >
> > Poetyes, but sometimes posts have positive advice that we want to point out too! I wouldn't want to select posts to support an argument that the poster is engaged in wrong-doing, but rather to select posts that provide support. This comes up very frequently on the meds board, when one poster has written something that may be unsound medical advice, and the post is later referred to in the spirit of providing better medical advice. Just because a post is incorrect or inaccurate doesn't make us uncivil if we kindly point it out and suggest alternatives, does it?
> Bob
* Dr. Bob, thank you for investing your energy to sort through these different issues and weigh in. It's not often that I feel like you actually explain your reasoning. I don't feel scared for you (in terms of legal or ethical censure), because I feel that things are under control here (legally and ethically).
But I do care about you, because I think you have invested a lot of time and energy in this project, and this project has improved my life. I also worry about you because you seem to take a lot of abuse and be a target for people's dissatisfaction with psycho-babble, and perhaps with life in general! You soak it up well, but I'm not sure that it is healthy for any one person to feel so much pressure from so many different people who often have strong feelings. I wish that you would put your own rules into place more often to protect yourself. In my opinion, there have been occasions when you have been accused, put down, cursed, and threatened, and yet you do not consistently demand that posters remain civil when addressing or referring to Dr. Bob. You're only human too, you know?
Posted by one woman cine on January 22, 2007, at 8:09:28
In reply to Re: please be civil - Oh » Dr. Bob, posted by tofuemmy on January 21, 2007, at 9:49:34
Bob can be sued - it was my question about the duality of bob's role below (admintrator or physcian?) - he is just not an administrator but also plays a personal role in the lives of posters as well. If a poster has a personal relationship, real or loosely percieved, with bob and has "untowards effects" due to the site or threatens self-harm, bob has a duty becasue he is not "just an administrator".
I've actually asked a lawyer about this. Maybe it's just the lawyers opinion but a suit can be filed.
Posted by one woman cine on January 22, 2007, at 8:10:49
In reply to Re: feeling afraid *triggers*, posted by Deneb on January 21, 2007, at 12:37:41
Deneb, your parents don't necessarily have to sue, it could be class action civil suit...
Posted by one woman cine on January 22, 2007, at 8:13:49
In reply to lawsuits/ dual relationships, posted by one woman cine on January 22, 2007, at 8:09:28
I would just like to see more consistency and uniformity with administrative actions in regard to self-harm/suicide posts to see no one gets hurt. The consequences are too high to pay otherwise...
Posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 9:53:10
In reply to Re: feeling afraid and ignored, posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2007, at 9:25:29
> > > is favoritism a concern?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > Glydin
>
> Feeling afraid could certainly make it less pleasant here, I understand that. Including feeling afraid of us not keeping it safe. Either because our hands are tied or because we have favorites. Is that the feeling?~~~ Seeing favorites being played on the board makes me feel angry. If the job of adm. is to govern the guidelines I would hope those decisions would be as objectively as possible. I've come to expect a progression of consequences on behaviors not allowed on this board. In terms of "hands being tied" - posters may be but are yours? I feel, in some instances, you are making adm. calls influenced by the preceived fragility of a poster or threats.
> It's not an issue of whose hurt is worse. How could that be determined, anyway? The issue is what kinds of posts are or aren't OK.
>~~~ So, based on the above, I would like to see you govern accordingly and leave mitigating circumstances out of it.
I am not heartless, I just would like to see continuity and (dare I say it) fairness.
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 22, 2007, at 12:53:38
In reply to Re: » Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 9:53:10
i have 3 pbc warnings on the boards in the last 2 days...
go figure?
Posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 14:00:55
In reply to Re: » Glydin, posted by justyourlaugh on January 22, 2007, at 12:53:38
> i have 3 pbc warnings on the boards in the last 2 days...
> go figure?
I can't...
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2007, at 14:19:21
In reply to Re: » Dr. Bob, posted by Glydin on January 22, 2007, at 9:53:10
> Is pressure only palpable to the one being pressured? Can it ever be detected by the administrators?
I think it's like incivility in general, to some extent it's subjective, but to some extent it may be able to be detected by observers, too.
> Dr. Bob, thank you for investing your energy to sort through these different issues and weigh in. It's not often that I feel like you actually explain your reasoning.
You're welcome. I don't just want to explain my reasoning, I'm also looking for input...
> But I do care about you, because I think you have invested a lot of time and energy in this project, and this project has improved my life. I also worry about you because you seem to take a lot of abuse and be a target for people's dissatisfaction with psycho-babble, and perhaps with life in general! You soak it up well, but I'm not sure that it is healthy for any one person to feel so much pressure from so many different people who often have strong feelings. I wish that you would put your own rules into place more often to protect yourself. In my opinion, there have been occasions when you have been accused, put down, cursed, and threatened, and yet you do not consistently demand that posters remain civil when addressing or referring to Dr. Bob. You're only human too, you know?
Thanks, I know it's kind of inconsistent, but I think it can nice to be less constrained sometimes, and the goal here isn't for *me* to receive support. :-)
--
> Seeing favorites being played on the board makes me feel angry.
Thanks for going into this more. Do you have other feelings, too? About how favoritism might affect you?
> If the job of adm. is to govern the guidelines I would hope those decisions would be as objectively as possible.
>
> I would like to see you ... leave mitigating circumstances out of it.
>
> I am not heartless, I just would like to see continuity and (dare I say it) fairness.I think everyone here would agree that fairness should be the goal. Some, however, might consider fairness to *require* taking into account mitigating circumstances. Whether to, and if so how, I think there will always be different opinions about. And lots of Admin discussion. :-)
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 24, 2007, at 12:28:52
In reply to lawsuits/ dual relationships, posted by one woman cine on January 22, 2007, at 8:09:28
Just last month, in a U.S. District Court in New York, IBM asked a federal judge to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit brought against it by a former employee. Plaintiff James Pacenza, who had been with IBM for 19 years, alleges that he was wrongfully fired for misusing his workplace computer.
More specifically, Pacenza claims he is "addicted" to the Internet - and thus suffers from a disability. He also says the root of his disability is another disability - post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on his service in Vietnam.
Pacenza thus argues that, legally, IBM was required to take steps to help him before terminating him - as it would have done with someone addicted to alcohol or narcotics. He seeks $5 million in damages.Will Pacenza's suit, and others like it, succeed? In this column, I'll discuss that question.
.....
They claim Pacenza did what he did because he is addicted to the Internet. In addition, they allege that he is self-medicating for his Vietnam-induced PTSD.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20070109.html
I thought this was interesting. I know people frequently speak of being "addicted" to Babble. You yourself have used that term.
I was struck by the claim that he was self medicating PTSD.
I wonder if this addiction to Babble does not have a similiar root in some of your most vulnerable Babblers.
I believe being cut off abrubtly from the "self-medication" of Babble could have tragic consequences for some.
I think you are making a mistake if you believe that the most fragile people are the ones who are most adept at seeking help here or behaving in a way to evoke sympathy or "mercy" from you. I would suggest that indeed they might be the ones who would also be most able to seek help effectively in real life.
People who have more trouble communicating their pain and evoking helping responses would probably be at most risk if the self-medication of Babble were abrubtly removed. Especially as the block is yet another wound to someone who has been wounded enough to self medicate in the first place.
Bob I believe your questions and actions towards people may very well be establishing a therapeutic relationship. I never talked to a lawyer but I talked to a therapist and that was his comment. I was surprised at first but he made a pretty good case.
Your varying treatment of individuals might very well be percieved as " individual treatment plans". Which would be a therapeutic decision rather than an administrative one.
Just thought it was interesting.
Your friend
zazenduckie
Posted by zenhussy on January 24, 2007, at 13:35:20
In reply to Re: lawsuits))Dr B, posted by zazenduckie on January 24, 2007, at 12:28:52
how does that affect the person's Internet addiction? whether or not they had PTSD before the addiction or after? or do you think it matters when?
very good questions you raise given the posting style offered up by Dr. Hsiung on his site.
thanks owc and zaduckie!
Posted by muffled on January 24, 2007, at 14:37:36
In reply to Re: lawsuits))Dr B, posted by zazenduckie on January 24, 2007, at 12:28:52
It makes me feel bad/sad.
Muffled
Posted by zazenduckie on January 24, 2007, at 16:39:13
In reply to what about blocks resulting in PTSD...possible? » zazenduckie, posted by zenhussy on January 24, 2007, at 13:35:20
I think so.
Don't people say Babble saved their lives and was a lifeline , a family etc? The loss of a safe haven and a community would be pretty traumatic I think. I think many people effected by Katrina could testify to the devastating effect of loss of community.
Perhaps complex PTSD since blocking is usually a series of events rather than a single event. As well as blocks of an individual it would be terribly stressful to see others blocked. I think Bob underestimates this factor. Witnessing trauma causes PTSD as well as experiencing personally. And the helplessness...the absolute helplessness to control the blocking. How many years of archives of people protesting the loss of people they cared about and to what effect? All the power belongs to Bob. And he asks people to trust him rather than giving them power to influence the rules.
I don't understand the rules. I know some people say they do. But some don't. Those who don't are in an impossible situation when Bob overrides their own knowledge of what their post is meant to say. They are powerless even to define the meaning of their own posts.
There is no way to influence whether or not a poster is blocked. It is not predictable. Sometimes people are blocked sometimes they aren't-for exactly the same action.
Complex PTSD features a tendency towards re-victimisation and people do return year after year some of them even after very painful experiences here...and every time the block is longer and so presumably the trauma is even more severe. Maybe it is this more than an internet addiction.
I don't know. This is just speculation. I know you know a lot more than I do about PTSD. What do you think?
Experiencing trauma, the loss of friends , family, community, witnessing the trauma of others, being powerless to control what is happening....yep sounds like PTSD to me.
> how does that affect the person's Internet addiction? whether or not they had PTSD before the addiction or after? or do you think it matters when?
I really don't know. I guess if the addiction was a way to cope with the PTSD it would get worse after the block. On the other side I guess someone with a preexisting addiction might be more likely to become involved enough in Babble to develop a relationship that would result in trauma if it was disrupted.Thanks for taking me seriously and answering my post!
>
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 8:57:09
In reply to Re: what about blocks resulting in PTSD...possible? » zenhussy, posted by zazenduckie on January 24, 2007, at 16:39:13
> I think so.
>
> Don't people say Babble saved their lives and was a lifeline , a family etc? The loss of a safe haven and a community would be pretty traumatic I think. I think many people effected by Katrina could testify to the devastating effect of loss of community.I have written once or twice that I think that babble saves lives.
>
> Perhaps complex PTSD since blocking is usually a series of events rather than a single event. As well as blocks of an individual it would be terribly stressful to see others blocked. I think Bob underestimates this factor. Witnessing trauma causes PTSD as well as experiencing personally. And the helplessness...the absolute helplessness to control the blocking. How many years of archives of people protesting the loss of people they cared about and to what effect? All the power belongs to Bob. And he asks people to trust him rather than giving them power to influence the rules.Yes, Zazenduckie I have to agree with you here. I do my very best to be a good LlurpsieNoodle. Civil and friendly and supportive. I know that sometimes I am triggered to act self-destructively. One of those self-destructive urges is to get myself blocked on babble. Yes, my psyche views getting myself blocked as a self-injurious behavior.
I am also triggered and very upset and saddened when one of the community is forced out because of an infraction that seems trivial. I think that the punishment rarely fits the crime on this site. I have also given up trying to change things on babble. I am only writing about this because I find that it helps me understand my own reactions to blocks and I am very much interested in your suggestion that PTSD/InternetAddiction/Psycho-Babble may cause certain posters to react in an extremely maladaptive fashion to a block.
> I don't understand the rules. I know some people say they do. But some don't. Those who don't are in an impossible situation when Bob overrides their own knowledge of what their post is meant to say. They are powerless even to define the meaning of their own posts.
Yes, that's one of the problems with this place, and perhaps with communication in general. Certain statement intended to be interpreted quite literally is civil; when interpreted in the larger context of preceding thread is somewhat uncivil, and when interpreted in light of some heated argument taking place on another board altogether is decidedly uncivil. The original poster might not be given a chance to rephrase. That's terrible, in my opinion.
>
> There is no way to influence whether or not a poster is blocked. It is not predictable. Sometimes people are blocked sometimes they aren't-for exactly the same action.
>
> Complex PTSD features a tendency towards re-victimisation and people do return year after year some of them even after very painful experiences here...and every time the block is longer and so presumably the trauma is even more severe. Maybe it is this more than an internet addiction.
>
I've been diagnosed with this form of PTSD. I've found that I am triggered by certain happenings, and I *DO* tend to return to the scene of the crime, perhaps to see if the abusers will treat me better "this time". It's futile. They haven't changed; I haven't changed. We fall into the same patterns: I make myself vulnerable and elicit their abuse. I can EASILY see how blocks can initiate this pattern. A block happens. The poster is stunned, furious. The poster returns, hoping for a different outcome ("THIS time Dr. Bob is going to give me a chance to express myself"). Another block. It escalates. So does the sense of trauma in the blocked person (or so I would imagine, having never been blocked).> I don't know. This is just speculation. I know you know a lot more than I do about PTSD. What do you think?
>
> Experiencing trauma, the loss of friends , family, community, witnessing the trauma of others, being powerless to control what is happening....yep sounds like PTSD to me.
>There is recent neuroimaging research on how humans perceive social isolation and being excluded from a group. In one study, the subject is inside an MRI scanner, and is playing a virtual videogame with 2 other people. They are supposed to toss a ball back and forth. After a while, the subject is excluded from the game, and the other two just toss the ball back and forth between the two of them. The part of the brain that shows more activity during exclusion is the same part of the brain that shows increased activity when sensing physical pain (such as a pin-prick, or holding a too-hot mug of coffee). Thus, social ostracism is a real punishment, in the sense that it causes the brain to activate (some) of the network associated with perception of physical pain.
I don't think it would be appropriate for a pdoc to administer physical punishment to uncivil members of a support group.
We need to reconsider what the meaning of a block is. How does a block affect the blocked, the innocent bystander, the target of the incivility, the administration?
Does it make us feel "better" when someone is punished who has offended us? If so, is this feeling a pro-social feeling (i.e. of safety in our community), or merely a wish for revenge (outlet for anger) in a just world?
Does it make us feel "better" when someone is punished who has targeted an incivility towards us, but we were never offended? In my experience, no. I feel guilty because somehow my post may have elicited the other poster to post something that got them into trouble. Survivor's guilt, also.
Does the blocked person feel "better" once they understand their incivility. Do they feel that they have been given a learning opportunity, a chance to reflect and learn how to be a better community member? Does the blocked person feel pain or anguish at being cut off from his/her support network? Do these feelings vary as a function of whether the rule infraction was blatant vs. subtle? Do these feelings vary as a function of current mental health status? Do these feelings vary as a function of history of being abused or traumatized? Do these feelings vary as a function of the individuals addiction to psycho-babble?
Finally, what meaning do blocks have for the administration? Is there the sense of relief for having gotten someone "off the streets" who threatened the safety of community members? Is there a sense of regret for being forced to apply rules, even though the infraction was not serious? Is there any sense of guilt at being forced to punish a member of the community who has done many supportive acts? Is there a sense of pleasure at administering a punishment to someone who is clearly "guilty"? Is there a sense of resentment towards the rules in general, and Dr. Bob in particular who have set up a system that forces them to make unpopular and seemingly unfair decisions against their friends? Is there a sense of hopelessness from having to enforce escalating blocks on a babbler who is clearly trying to elicit punishment for some self-destructive reason? Is there a sense of hopelessness at being forced to apply blocks towards those that genuinely are trying hard, but just don't "get it"
>
> > how does that affect the person's Internet addiction? whether or not they had PTSD before the addiction or after? or do you think it matters when?
>
>
> I really don't know. I guess if the addiction was a way to cope with the PTSD it would get worse after the block. On the other side I guess someone with a preexisting addiction might be more likely to become involved enough in Babble to develop a relationship that would result in trauma if it was disrupted.
>
>
>
> Thanks for taking me seriously and answering my post!
>Duckie, I always take you seriously. You are very welcome.
-Ll
Posted by muffled on January 25, 2007, at 9:53:43
In reply to Re: what about blocks resulting in PTSD...possible » zazenduckie, posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 8:57:09
WHOAH! WELL SAID Lurpy!
Mebbe Bob will 'get' it this time. Cuz I don't think he really 'gets' it.
Thanks,
Muffled
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 10:51:05
In reply to Re: what about blocks resulting in PTSD...possible » zazenduckie, posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 8:57:09
I hope I checked the right box!
Great post.
I don't "feel" better if anyone is blocked or hurt - but I also have to ask, what is best for the community?
Would a block reduce harm/bad feelings & increase safety and trust for the group if a poster is repeatedly uncivil?
I think the question could be asked conversely as well.
Posted by Honore on January 25, 2007, at 11:02:30
In reply to Re: what about blocks resulting in PTSD...possible » zazenduckie, posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 8:57:09
> >
>
> I am also triggered and very upset and saddened when one of the community is forced out because of an infraction that seems trivial. I think that the punishment rarely fits the crime on this site. I have also given up trying to change things on babble. I am only writing about this because I find that it helps me understand my own reactions to blocks and I am very much interested in your suggestion that PTSD/InternetAddiction/Psycho-Babble may cause certain posters to react in an extremely maladaptive fashion to a block.
>This seems to me to be the main problem, ie that most of us are really disturbed and even threatened when one of us is blocked. I know we all would like to avoid that happening. At the same time, sometimes, each of us might actively want one person or another to be blocked--or, if not blocked, to be somehow taken to task-- because of something they've done that upsets or angers us. So it's a conundrum.
My sense is that, on one hand, there's something very constructive about the support that happens when we're blocked. I thought about this before, because it helps us to feel stronger in the face of someone's disapproval, or rejection of something we've done- ie to feel that we still are okay. Which to me at least is a very important struggle.
Yet, at the same time, when someone can't feel that, but experiences a block simply as destructive of their own reserves of potential good feeling about themselves, esp. to a dangerous degree, it is extremely troubling. It's hard to know if some of us have become more self-destructive-- or if the people most fearful about that are the ones of us not blocked, whose fantasties about the power of each of us to harm others are more intense than the harm actually inflicted by the block.
> > I don't understand the rules. I know some people say they do. But some don't. Those who don't are in an impossible situation when Bob overrides their own knowledge of what their post is meant to say. They are powerless even to define the meaning of their own posts.
>I know it seems counterintuitive, but no one can define the meaning of anything they say. This is a crucial principle of interpretation-- ie a text does not define its own meaning-- I know that we all feel as though we are the authors of our own meaning- but as authors, we're subject to the interpretations of our readers. Not to grind a point in too much-- but it is a principle axiom of interpretation- ie human interaction.
Oops, I've got to run. I hope nothing I've said here is uncivil. I don't mean to be. I really feel all the things that people here have expressed, I'm just also wondering how it really ever could be otherwise.
Honore
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2007, at 11:15:50
In reply to well said - Li » Llurpsie_Noodle, posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 10:51:05
I agree that it works both ways.
Babble has at times been very bad for me, but not because of Bob's severity. I appreciate that he tries to provide a safe atmosphere here.
I might sometimes take issue with the length of blocks, and have at times argued the point with him. And I've also argued for allowing blocked posters in Chat, or other softening of the blocking rules that would allow blocked posters to receive support during their block.
But as for the blocks themselves, while I might occasionally not understand them, or think Dr. Bob misinterpreted what was said, I also think that reasonable people can disagree, or can interpret statements differently. I've also sometimes not understood the lack of a block, but apply the same logic to it (although I might fuss a bit first).
I think there has recently come into question why sometimes multiple PBC's are given and other times they're not. I think I explained my own logic elsewhere recently, and I'm sure Dr. Bob has his own formulas (ones that I try to incorporate in my own to the extent I understand them).
Posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 15:38:24
In reply to Re: well said - Li, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2007, at 11:15:50
First of all, I'm impressed that anyone READ my post, much less understood any of it. That means a lot to me.
Second, I am inspired to integrate another piece of psychology into the ongoing discussion of blocks, their effects on the community, and their effect on those involved with the block more directly.
It is well-known that one of the best ways to unite diverse individuals is to invoke their negative feelings towards a common enemy. Adolf Hitler used this principle to unite what was at the time a very diverse German People in the years leading up to, and including WWII.
While it seems to me acceptable for Dr. Bob to use a common mistrust of, and malcontent towards himself to create a sense of common purpose and community on psycho-babble; it also seems that deputies find themselves placed into a category that is a target for mistrust and malcontent. Dr. Bob stresses that his participation on Psycho-babble is not to experience support; however, the deputies are forced to exist in a dual status that seems to me would be extremely stressful for the average human being, much less someone with [a history] of mental health issues.
Take for example a poster whose block (issued by Dr. Bob) is widely condemned after having received a PBC from a deputy. Who is going to be the target of the bad feelings that arise when we perceive that someone is unfairly punished? The deputy has an important choice: Silence- often interpreted by the masses as implicit agreement with the terms of the block; Agreement- and risk the ire and ill-will of those from whom s/he would otherwise enjoy support; Disagreement- and be burdened with having to rationalize a PBC and not a block, and find proof of Dr. Bob's poor judgment.
It strikes me as a tremendous stressor for a deputy to constantly have to justify his or her decisions, in many cases in much more detail than Dr. Bob does. This burden comes because of a deputy's dual status.
Deputies, in case you're curious, I am very fond of you all. I am also very aware of your unique status. It makes me more tempered when I write to you, and more wary when I disagree with you. If I am ever blocked by a deputy, I will find it very hard to understand it at a deeper level, because I view blocks as an extreme punishment. I may never forgive myself for my incivility, and may feel shame, fear, and tiny bit of anger in your presence for a long time. But those are my issues. I'm very sensitive to [the possibility of] punishment by others. If I'm punished I'd much rather be punished by an authority than by a peer.
-Ll
Posted by dessbee on January 25, 2007, at 15:57:46
In reply to ., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 15:38:24
Some other boards have a specific category/link for sensitive issues like suicidal thoughts. That way users who do not want to be confronted with these thoughts can avoid it.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 30, 2007, at 12:16:41
In reply to ., posted by Llurpsie_Noodle on January 25, 2007, at 15:38:24
> Llurps,
>
> While it seems to me acceptable for Dr. Bob to use a common mistrust of, and malcontent towards himself to create a sense of common purpose and community on psycho-babble; it also seems that deputies find themselves placed into a category that is a target for mistrust and malcontent. Dr. Bob stresses that his participation on Psycho-babble is not to experience support; however, the deputies are forced to exist in a dual status that seems to me would be extremely stressful for the average human being, much less someone with [a history] of mental health issues.Thank you for your empathy.
> Deputies, in case you're curious, I am very fond of you all.
Ditto from this end.
> I am also very aware of your unique status. It makes me more tempered when I write to you, and more wary when I disagree with you. If I am ever blocked by a deputy, I will find it very hard to understand it at a deeper level, because I view blocks as an extreme punishment. I may never forgive myself for my incivility, and may feel shame, fear, and tiny bit of anger in your presence for a long time. But those are my issues. I'm very sensitive to [the possibility of] punishment by others. If I'm punished I'd much rather be punished by an authority than by a peer.
Thank you for saying this. It's hard to know how participating in a dual role affects others, so your insight is valuable to me.
(((((Llurps))))))
namaste
gg
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.