![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by sdb on January 4, 2008, at 17:24:19
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 17:00:52
great you're back Phillipa, as I said, you're welcome and people like you :-)
warm regards
sdb
Posted by Phillipa on January 4, 2008, at 18:22:36
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 17:00:52
Excellent makes perfect sence to me and thanks sdb. Love Phillipa
Posted by Glydin on January 5, 2008, at 10:54:47
In reply to I might be able to shed a little light, posted by Dinah on January 4, 2008, at 9:59:15
> Not as much as I'd like, but a little.
>
> The evolution of the generalization rule has come about from Dr. Bob receiving posters' impressions that the overall tone of the medication board was becoming rather negative, and that many posters are finding it difficult to post because of that. Dr. Bob understands that problem and is trying to address it.
~~~ If Dr. Bob is trying to address an "issue" on the med board, I would like to know what his thoughts are regarding how it could be addressed.Also, just as a slight aside, it can be difficult to talk about a problem, pet peeve, irritation, annoyance etc.... if there are only very few posters preceived to be engaging in the behavior that is "bothersome". One can be very very careful in wording and use generic situations but it can still be difficult to not tie it to certain posters. Even if one is proactive and posts a potential solution or intervention, well, the "behavior" still can be identified to a poster(s).
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 10:59:18
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Dinah, posted by Glydin on January 5, 2008, at 10:54:47
I suggested to Dr. Bob that it might be better for him to post this, but he said it would be quicker if I did.
Next time I'll wait for him.
Posted by Glydin on January 5, 2008, at 11:58:37
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Glydin, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 10:59:18
> I suggested to Dr. Bob that it might be better for him to post this, but he said it would be quicker if I did.
>
> Next time I'll wait for him.~~~ I'm glad you did post.... I would like to see a more "balanced" view there but I'm not sure how that would be achieved. As one in recovery on meds, I have felt (and literally been inquired of in emails) the attitude of: "If you're content with your meds and you're doing so well, why are you posting...?" That "feel" as to what I preceived as the flavor of the med board is unsettling to me. It makes me feel unaccepted. Thus, I post very rarely.
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 12:05:05
In reply to Re: » Dinah, posted by Glydin on January 5, 2008, at 11:58:37
Thank you, Glydin.
I think that's Dr. Bob's concern. And while I can see that it has led people to feel reluctant to post, I'm not sure that the overgeneralization rule is the best way to address it. The problem is that I don't have any idea what is.
Posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2008, at 12:41:47
In reply to Re: » Glydin, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 12:05:05
I feel still and rather strongly that a board for successes would give much needed hope to others that they too can improve or is it allowed to achieve wellness? I know I'd love to hear those who have achieved wellness encourage others . As the thought of adding med after med is very depressing to me. That is my thought. Like cheerleaders or is that a generalization? I think I mean just go you can do it. Is that civil and within the guidelines? If not apology in advance. And once I hit the trigger to post I will be judged on the content so please see it as a helpful suggestion. I mean it to be. Thank-you kindly Phillipa
Posted by seldomseen on January 5, 2008, at 13:26:23
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Glydin, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 10:59:18
I'm glad you posted as well.
I have also had people email me their thoughts about my response to prozac suggesting that this response was all in my head.
Perhaps instead of using the generalization rule, we could simply indicate that people need to be respectful of people's experiences with certain drugs, whether we agree with that experience or not.
To me, when a generalizing statement about all SSRIs, MAOIs etc... is made, it's really not about the generalization. The real issue to me is that it can belittle one's own response to the drug as not real or "all in my head". It's just disrepectful.
Just my two cents.
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:01:10
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » Dinah, posted by seldomseen on January 5, 2008, at 13:26:23
I think that's part of the generalization rule, to be respectful of others' opinions. And I can see why saying that a medication is horrible or never works can be seen as disrespectful by those who had success with it. Certainly more direct statements such as you described would not be civil. (And if they're in babblemails can be reported.)
I guess that's where I get stuck. Because I *can* see why the rule is moving in the direction it is moving.
But in many cases when someone says something like "Effexor is a horrible medication and will never work" it's clear that they are talking about their own experience, with a bit of extrapolation thrown in, and its' an expression of distress. They aren't trying to say anything about anyone else's experience, or to put anyone down. And certainly that would be true in the blood pressure controversy.
Maybe the solution lies somewhere in context? I know Dr. Bob doesn't like to rule based on intent, since intent is hard to judge. But context can be easier to judge, I'd think?
Posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:03:26
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » seldomseen, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:01:10
And maybe the PBC's could be adjusted a bit to something more like "Please be respectful of those who have had different experiences." Overgeneralizing is a more difficult concept to empathize with, while respect might be easier?
Posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2008, at 19:15:47
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » seldomseen, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:01:10
Saying effexor or any med is a horrible med to me would be very scarey for the person new to that med hence the new meds board. Makes better sense to word it this way I think. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2008, at 19:17:11
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:03:26
Excellent. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2008, at 4:12:51
In reply to generalising vs over generalising, posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2007, at 0:34:23
> But can we take a closer look at who may be upset if we generalize about a blood pressure monitor?
>
> Seldom.When it's overgeneralizations about things, my concern isn't that people might be upset, but that people might make decisions based on what's posted.
--
> She is entitled to her experienced opinion.
>
> If I say Zyprexa increased my appetite, and therefore, I think it's sucky med...I'm generalizing my experience to all patients....but, that's OK?
>
> AbbieNormalSomething like:
> my experienced opinion is that the automatic ones more often than not are not acurate
or:
> I think the automatic ones are sucky
I think would be fine.
--
> If I say that such and such a drug is often helpful, that's a generalisation, right?
>
> What's an overgeneralisation?
>
> SigismundI think something like:
> such and such a drug is always helpful
Bob
Posted by Toph on January 6, 2008, at 8:04:38
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2008, at 4:12:51
Someone ought to talk to these people about overgeneralizing dammit...
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/heartdisease/treatment/128.html
Posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 8:44:23
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Toph on January 6, 2008, at 8:04:38
I find it interestesting that is says on this site that the psychology forum isn't therapy itself. Many people overgeneralize without even realizing it, and that is one of the things CBT is for, to correct overgeneralizing. So could it be that the psych forum is trying to do therapy now?
It also says not to believe everything that is written, so don't you think that would apply to advice or information on medical machines as well? Are there people out there that will truely believe everything that is written on Babble or on the internet and take the advice of people they don't really know? It seems some of the responsiblity should be for those who read and they should take things with a grain of salt, or consult with their own doctors or experts.I feel the rules of posting are getting too nit picky, and makes me afraid to post anything in fear of getting blocked. I more often than not, don't want to post anymore. After 3 years of being on this site, it is sad indeed to not feel safe here anymore.
Posted by Phillipa on January 6, 2008, at 13:29:25
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 8:44:23
I'm afraid too but I have made many friends here that have helped me via e-mail. It was so nice that on the med board we used to quite often solve our disputes on the board ourselves with an apology if someone were angry or offended. Could we try again? Even my initial dispute with this last block was discussed and we made up via e-mail with the other poster. I am not sure what happened. Dr. Bob could you shed some light on this? I'd appreciate it. Love Phillipa
Posted by Toph on January 6, 2008, at 13:52:24
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 8:44:23
My only point hf is that while protecting posters from overgeneralization they ought to also guard agsinst overvigilance and overreaction.
Posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 15:24:16
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » happyflower, posted by Toph on January 6, 2008, at 13:52:24
Good point Toph,
If we protect our readers against overvigilence and overreaction, then what do you have?
Barney the dinosour instead!!!... I love you, you love me, we are a happy family , with a great big hug from me to you, won't you say you LOVE ME TOO? or there is always PsychoRomperRoom with Captain Kangeroo.
What is funny to me is, do we really need protecton from all of this? I am more scared of Barney than overgeneralizations. lol
I feel the rules are getting too strict here, especially for a mental health site. Shouldn't acceptence be a better lesson to learn, than protection from overgenerlizations?
P.s. I mean no disrespect to Barney, RomperRoom and Captian Kangeroo, or anyone for that matter, and although Barney can be scarey, I still love him still the same .
Posted by MidnightBlue on January 6, 2008, at 16:28:19
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2008, at 4:12:51
Dr. Bob,
For what it is worth, you now have me completely confused! I'm afraid to say anything other then:
1. have a nice day
2. check with your doctor
3. wishing you good thoughts
4. hang in there
So much for not posting on religion or politics. Now everything is scary!
MidnightBlue
Posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 16:36:47
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on January 6, 2008, at 16:28:19
Midnightblue,
You might want to scratch #4 on your list, it could be taken in more than way. LOL I think Have a nice day would be okay though.
>
> For what it is worth, you now have me completely confused! I'm afraid to say anything other then:
>
> 1. have a nice day
>
> 2. check with your doctor
>
> 3. wishing you good thoughts
>
> 4. hang in there
>
> So much for not posting on religion or politics. Now everything is scary!
>
> MidnightBlue
Posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 16:38:54
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 16:36:47
Posted by seldomseen on January 6, 2008, at 17:04:35
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2008, at 4:12:51
"When it's overgeneralizations about things, my concern isn't that people might be upset, but that people might make decisions based on what's posted"
Well now this is a very very sticky wicket in my opinion.
I've always felt as though the intentions of babble are very clear - to support and educate.
However, there is an old saying "that he who yells the loudest is usually the one everyone believes is right".
To this, I would say that "Caveat Emptor" is posted very clearly on the top of the every forum.
It maybe well within Babble's reach to control the way something is said on babble, but I think it is well out of babble's reach to control what people do with what is said.
Just my two cents.
Seldom.
Posted by Phillipa on January 6, 2008, at 19:02:48
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » Dr. Bob, posted by seldomseen on January 6, 2008, at 17:04:35
Definitely agree. I can read something like when a kid if someone jumps off a roof will you follow. I wouldn't. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2008, at 1:03:04
In reply to Re: I might be able to shed a little light » seldomseen, posted by Dinah on January 5, 2008, at 16:01:10
> I would like to see a more "balanced" view there but I'm not sure how that would be achieved. As one in recovery on meds, I have felt (and literally been inquired of in emails) the attitude of: "If you're content with your meds and you're doing so well, why are you posting...?" That "feel" as to what I preceived as the flavor of the med board is unsettling to me. It makes me feel unaccepted. Thus, I post very rarely.
>
> Glydin> I have also had people email me their thoughts about my response to prozac suggesting that this response was all in my head.
>
> Seldom.Just to reiterate what Dinah said, I wouldn't consider direct statements like those to be civil. And the civility policy here does apply to babblemail.
I think the overall "flavor" of the board is harder to address.
--
> Perhaps instead of using the generalization rule, we could simply indicate that people need to be respectful of people's experiences with certain drugs, whether we agree with that experience or not.
>
> Seldom.That's an interesting suggestion, but my inclination is to keep it a separate rule. I do of course care about how people feel, but I think my primary concern in these situations is decisions people make. For example:
> A is a first-line drug and B isn't.
might lead someone who's doing well on B to feel it isn't being given the respect it deserves. But if it's not an exaggeration, it might help someone deciding between the two and I'd consider it OK to post.
--
> But in many cases when someone says something like "Effexor is a horrible medication and will never work" it's clear that they are talking about their own experience, with a bit of extrapolation thrown in, and its' an expression of distress.
>
> DinahI agree, but then let's suggest alternative ways of expressing themselves. Like we do I-statements in other situations.
Bob
Posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 3:12:51
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » Toph, posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 15:24:16
>
> I feel the rules are getting too strict here, especially for a mental health site. Shouldn't acceptence be a better lesson to learn, than protection from overgenerlizations?I think the point of the over-generalization rule has a lot to do with acceptance -- but in the direction of accepting *all* beliefs, including those of us who believe that medications can help improve our conditions, and that it's worth trying to find one which works for us. I'm another who doesn't feel particularly comfortable on the meds board anymore, for the reasons mentioned by others above. I try to be respectful of those who do not believe that anti-depressant medication is effective, but I don't always feel that my views are respected in return.
So, while I agree that acceptance is a good goal, I think of the over-generalization rule as being an attempt to facilitate acceptance of opposing views -- including those of us who believe the medications in question can be effective.
Does that make more sense?
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.