![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 69. Go back in thread:
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?
Posted by happyflower on January 7, 2008, at 7:29:19
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » happyflower, posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 3:12:51
Yes Racer,
It does help in those situations, I don't frequent the meds boards much, so it explains more of what is going on. Respect for different views has always been a rule on Babble.
It just seems to me that when I do look at the meds board, most threads are about problems with drug, ex. side effects. I would feel comforted if I knew I wasn't alone, (like going through childabuse)if I had some of the same side effects as someone else. But I guess it is how they express their views about such and such drug is the problem. But if others are not allowed to express their views or their experience, than what use is the med. board anyway?
Yes we should all be respectful of different views, I get that. So do you believe overgeneralizing is being disrespectful? I personally don't and this is why.
The thing I am worrying about is that we seem to be repremanding on Babble for something that is a cognitive thinking error of how things are communicated in writing or speaking. Since studying psychology, I see overgeneralizations a lot in real life, it is very common. I just don't feel we should punish for a common error and trying to educate is almost trying to do CBT therapy on this site. It is also almost discrimation of those with the faulty thinking ways of expressing themselves.
We are a mental health site, but should be more acceptant of those who have problems, and overgenerlizations is a problem in expressing one's self. Many people don't even realize they are doing it unless they go through therapy or it is brought to their attentinon. I am one of those who used that type of communication because it is what I learned as a child from the way my parents communicated to me. From studying, I learned different ways to express myself, but sometimes I still use overgenerlizations out of habit.I guess what I am asking for, if we are going to make rules for overgenerlization, that is is handled more gently, blocks seem too harsh to me. It takes many clients months of therapy to learn how to communicate properly. I still mess up and I am studying to become a psychologist, probably CBT.
So a question I have is most overgenerlizations on this site used to cause people to feel put down or is is it a common cognitive problem that many are not aware they do?
I feel we should just be more tolerant of the way people express their views and not get so offended if others don't agree with us. I am working on this too. But the rules we set up for the meds boards will probably need to be enforced on all the boards, right? The deputies are overloaded as it is, do they really have time or the psychologist training to do CBT enforcements in everyone's posts?
To me blocking someone for overgeneralizations is like blocking a depressed person for feeling bad. Where do you draw the line?
Posted by MidnightBlue on January 7, 2008, at 10:27:59
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by happyflower on January 6, 2008, at 16:36:47
4. don't give up--is that okay?
P.S. I think I am giving up this is too hard!
MB
Posted by muffled on January 7, 2008, at 12:49:27
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » happyflower, posted by MidnightBlue on January 7, 2008, at 10:27:59
after in the past I used to post here alot....
Well I don't think there IS any easy answers.
I think babble is slowly evolving and will continue to evolve and change.
I'm glad people are taking up the torch of fairness.
Just it must be hard for Bob(ugh, I WAY like better loving to hate him than supporting him...)cuz its like he gets dissed for blocking, but he ALSO gets dissed for NOT blocking and letting stuff pass....
I'm all for letting stuff pass w/just PBC etc for education, and saving blocks for bad situations.
We just had a tough time on psych, but we made it thru. Somewhat bruised, but we made it and learned and noone was blocked. I think thats good. In the past it would have been shut down much sooner. I am glad we can have the opportunity to try and work thru stuff.
My one wish for babble, is that more would post rather than bmail, cuz bmail hides stuff. I like it when all is out in the open on the boards. That way others can learn too. Cuz most of us started out as lurkers, and then finally posted cuz of what we read here on babble......
Thanks for listening to me.
M
Posted by 10derHeart on January 7, 2008, at 12:54:19
In reply to ATT Dr. Bob and everyone else » Racer, posted by happyflower on January 7, 2008, at 7:29:19
>The deputies are overloaded as it is, do they really have time or the psychologist training to do CBT enforcements in everyone's posts?
I rarely feel overloaded as a deputy, because if I begin to, I remind myself 1) it *is* a voluntary thing and I never *have* to perform any deputy duties and 2) another deputy or Dr. Bob can act. At times I have felt that way, it's been more about IRL stuff needing most/all of my time and energy, which means I should perhaps take a break from Babble for a time.
Interpretation of the overgeneralization rule can be challenging and it is an evolving thing, which is why civil discussion about it here should be helpful to Dr. Bob. But at the same time, I don't see myself as needing any psychology training or practicing CBT on anyone when acting as a deputy. I see myself as respectfully (I hope) reminding posters of the rules Dr. Bob has chosen to place in the FAQ for this site and requesting they abide by them, and not always because I personally think each and every rule is the best rule, or even that if it were my site, a rule I would decide to have/keep. Nothing more, as my role isn't to comment on or attempt to figure out *why* a person might have chosen to write in such a way as to cross the overgeneralization "line."
Mostly, I am comfortable enough with Dr. Bob and his overall motivations to assist in doing what I think he would do (not always successfully, of course) as far as administrating. If I ever am too personally uncomfortable (maybe triggered, etc.) with any certain rule or board, I defer to other deputies or Dr. Bob.
Probably obvious, but I speak only for myself and the other deputies may have differing views of their roles or the potential issues you mentioned.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2008, at 13:20:01
In reply to ATT Dr. Bob and everyone else » Racer, posted by happyflower on January 7, 2008, at 7:29:19
> we seem to be repremanding on Babble for something that is a cognitive thinking error
I don't want to make people feel criticized, though I do see how that can happen. What I'd like is to promote interaction that's supportive and educational.
> We are a mental health site, but should be more acceptant of those who have problems
We accept everyone, I just don't think it works to accept all behaviors.
Bob
Posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 14:17:52
In reply to My conclusion, posted by muffled on January 7, 2008, at 12:49:27
>
> I'm all for letting stuff pass w/just PBC etc for education, and saving blocks for bad situations.Speaking for myself, I try to use PBCs to remind people of the rules for behavior on Babble. The problem is, sometimes people continue in the same behavior, despite reminders. I understand how it happens, but at that point I sometimes choose to block, both as a stronger reminder and as a way to protect the larger group from behavior which may be disruptive or even damaging. It's a hard line to walk, between the good of the individual whose behavior is breaking a rule, and the good of those whose behavior is within guidelines.
It's hard to choose to block someone, and it's not something I think any deputy takes lightly. Sometimes, though, if someone continues to behave in a way which breaks the rules, despite often repeated warnings, I think it's appropriate. Kinda like a time out for a kid who knowingly breaks a rule over and over, despite warnings. Other times, it looks like a time out for someone to settle down after an upset -- sometimes it looks therapeutic to enforce a Babble Break, if that makes sense.
I know that blocks result in hurt, and I know that a lot of people object to the entire idea of blocking. Then again, I've been part of a number of online mental health related communities over the past ten years -- and many of them have much stricter blocking policies. One I know of blocks indefinitely, rather than for a set period as it's done here. If someone there crosses a line, that's that, they're blocked unless the moderator decides to allow them back. Another site will block someone who seems in crisis, in order to "encourage" them to get real life help sooner. There's sense to that idea, but it sure makes me appreciate the Babble Way a lot more, you know?
I think my point is that there's probably no perfect way to work any of this. We do our best -- often with your support, which I always appreciate -- and learn as we go along what works best. I try to do my best for the community, and to keep my own feelings out of it. I have always been impressed by Dinah and 10derHeart, and how well they navigate the civility waters. I hope one day I'll live up to their example.
> My one wish for babble, is that more would post rather than bmail, cuz bmail hides stuff. I like it when all is out in the open on the boards. That way others can learn too. Cuz most of us started out as lurkers, and then finally posted cuz of what we read here on babble......
Actually, I'm glad you posted this. I get babblemails every so often from people who ask medication questions, and I usually direct them to the board. I figure, if I have any useful information to offer them, it might be useful to others as well, and that others on the board know far more than I and can offer even more.
One reason for the overgeneralization rule is related to that: a number of people have reported that the negativity about medications on the meds board lately have led them to feel uncomfortable posting there about their own issues with medication. (Frankly, I have felt uncomfortable posting some of my questions, too, so I can empathize.) I don't know how to make the board a more comfortable and accepting place for everyone, but I think asking people to be respectful of differing opinions is a start, and that includes not over-generalizing. It may not be the perfect answer, but I think it's worth trying, you know? Better than doing nothing, in my opinion...
Posted by mike lynch on January 7, 2008, at 17:25:14
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on January 6, 2008, at 16:28:19
> 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!
>
> MidnightBlueYes I agree. And even that post can conceivably be interpreted as a violation in civility by the extremely loose,broad and vague rules here. ANYTHING CAN. This post here is probably violating something
Posted by mike lynch on January 7, 2008, at 17:32:14
In reply to Re: My conclusion » muffled, posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 14:17:52
> >
> > I'm all for letting stuff pass w/just PBC etc for education, and saving blocks for bad situations.
>
> Speaking for myself, I try to use PBCs to remind people of the rules for behavior on Babble. The problem is, sometimes people continue in the same behavior, despite reminders. I understand how it happens, but at that point I sometimes choose to block, both as a stronger reminder and as a way to protect the larger group from behavior which may be disruptive or even damaging.Yes but when the "damaging" behavior is posting a, what may or may not be inaccurate description of a blood pressure machine, things are going into the realm of absurdity. In this case I think the block caused much more damage and hurt then whatever problems caused by the "gneralizatioN" You're not suppose to believe what you read on a message board anyway, that's just common sense. And to attempt to create a message board where you try and reprimand those who maybe unintentionally loose with the facts, generalize, or whatever, it's just absurd and unrealistic
Posted by muffled on January 7, 2008, at 17:48:22
In reply to Re: My conclusion » muffled, posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 14:17:52
> Speaking for myself, I try to use PBCs to remind people of the rules for behavior on Babble. The problem is, sometimes people continue in the same behavior, despite reminders. I understand how it happens, but at that point I sometimes choose to block, both as a stronger reminder and as a way to protect the larger group from behavior which may be disruptive or even damaging. It's a hard line to walk, between the good of the individual whose behavior is breaking a rule, and the good of those whose behavior is within guidelines.
*Hard is RIGHT!!! Thats why I could never do it! and I appreciate those of you who are willing to be deputies!!!
> It's hard to choose to block someone, and it's not something I think any deputy takes lightly. Sometimes, though, if someone continues to behave in a way which breaks the rules, despite often repeated warnings, I think it's appropriate. Kinda like a time out for a kid who knowingly breaks a rule over and over, despite warnings. Other times, it looks like a time out for someone to settle down after an upset -- sometimes it looks therapeutic to enforce a Babble Break, if that makes sense.*I agree with you Racer. As long as a person is given the opportunity to be warned and back off. And yes. I have seen cases where a babbler is unfortunately escalating and proly needs a break.But its rare. Mostly I think babblers have been doing WONDERFULLY at handling stuff!!!
> I know that blocks result in hurt, and I know that a lot of people object to the entire idea of blocking. Then again, I've been part of a number of online mental health related communities over the past ten years -- and many of them have much stricter blocking policies. One I know of blocks indefinitely, rather than for a set period as it's done here. If someone there crosses a line, that's that, they're blocked unless the moderator decides to allow them back. Another site will block someone who seems in crisis, in order to "encourage" them to get real life help sooner. There's sense to that idea, but it sure makes me appreciate the Babble Way a lot more, you know?* Yup, I appreciate it too. Thats why I still here. And I honestly beleive its a kinder place blocking wise than when I first came here...
> I think my point is that there's probably no perfect way to work any of this. We do our best -- often with your support, which I always appreciate -- and learn as we go along what works best. I try to do my best for the community, and to keep my own feelings out of it. I have always been impressed by Dinah and 10derHeart, and how well they navigate the civility waters. I hope one day I'll live up to their example.
*Racer, you do VERY well yourself as well. Like I said its a TOUGH job!
> > My one wish for babble, is that more would post rather than bmail, cuz bmail hides stuff. I like it when all is out in the open on the boards. That way others can learn too. Cuz most of us started out as lurkers, and then finally posted cuz of what we read here on babble......
>
> Actually, I'm glad you posted this. I get babblemails every so often from people who ask medication questions, and I usually direct them to the board. I figure, if I have any useful information to offer them, it might be useful to others as well, and that others on the board know far more than I and can offer even more.*:-) Thanks!
> One reason for the overgeneralization rule is related to that: a number of people have reported that the negativity about medications on the meds board lately have led them to feel uncomfortable posting there about their own issues with medication. (Frankly, I have felt uncomfortable posting some of my questions, too, so I can empathize.) I don't know how to make the board a more comfortable and accepting place for everyone, but I think asking people to be respectful of differing opinions is a start, and that includes not over-generalizing. It may not be the perfect answer, but I think it's worth trying, you know? Better than doing nothing, in my opinion...*yeah, I not on that board much. I hope tho people that hang around that board know there is this discussion so they can get a sense of things too?
Well done.
Thanks Racer.
M
Posted by muffled on January 7, 2008, at 17:56:28
In reply to Re: My conclusion, posted by mike lynch on January 7, 2008, at 17:32:14
Well, there have been blocks I have completely not understood many times here....
But then they pass, things move on. Change DOES happen....
So I make my point, wonder if it will be understood by a certain administrator...and just leave it now.
IMHO there are glitches, but then again there may be alot more to it than meets the eye.
There's been a few unfortunate instances where I just did NOT get why somnething was done, only to have it dawn on me over time, the WHY behind some things here.
I'm am so glad to see that people really care enuf bout this place to try and help improve it.
Good on ya guys!
M
Posted by happyflower on January 7, 2008, at 18:30:50
In reply to Re: support and education, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2008, at 13:20:01
> > we seem to be repremanding on Babble for something that is a cognitive thinking error
>
> I don't want to make people feel criticized, though I do see how that can happen. What I'd like is to promote interaction that's supportive and educational.Perhaps maybe gently reminding people of better ways to state things could be more supportive and educational than blocking them. A lot of people do this kind of thing without even knowing they are doing anything wrong.
Kinda like spanking a kid who did something wrong, all they learned is to be afraid and to hit, but not really the desired behavior. I really don't believe for the most part that people overgenerelize to cause bad feelings in others.
> > We are a mental health site, but should be more acceptant of those who have problems
>
> We accept everyone, I just don't think it works to accept all behaviors.Do you belive that most people overgeneralize to harm others? If not, than why punish everyone who does this cognitive error, especially if they are not doing to hurt others? If the poster is civil and overgeneralizes about a product or viewpoint, it is different to me than someone who is uncivil torwards an individual and used the overgeneralization to make the poster or reader to feel bad.
I feel the reader needs to assume some of the risk and responsiblity in reading the boards, just like any other forum.
I also believe if we are going to start doing cognitive therapy here, than there should be some information about how to write things in a more acceptable way, keeping in mind it might take some a long time for some to learn this technique as many bad habits have been learned and have been used for many years. It isn't something that most people can learn overnight, in fact a lot of people don't even realize that they do this behavior. If we just block posters without people understanding on why or how to improve, how will that be supportive and educational? I feel this is a rule that can be enforced, but does it really need blocking in order to do it?
>
> Bob
Posted by MidnightBlue on January 7, 2008, at 18:37:57
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by mike lynch on January 7, 2008, at 17:25:14
> > 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
>
> Yes I agree. And even that post can conceivably be interpreted as a violation in civility by the extremely loose,broad and vague rules here. ANYTHING CAN. This post here is probably violating somethingI apologize for this post. It seems I have offended at least two people. That was clearly not my intent. I was only trying to understand and state the kind of information I felt comfortable sharing.
Clearly, even after several years at this, I still don't understand what is and what is not correct to post.
MidnightBlue
Posted by mike lynch on January 7, 2008, at 20:22:04
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by MidnightBlue on January 7, 2008, at 18:37:57
>
> Clearly, even after several years at this, I still don't understand what is and what is not correct to post.
>The point was that even though the post was kind, and respectfully articulated, it still could be scrutinized, knowing the strict guidelines here. That is the problem with the policy, not your post. I don't think your post offended anyone
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 9:51:30
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2008, at 4:12:51
> > 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?
> >
> > AbbieNormal
>
> Something 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?
> >
> > Sigismund
>
> I think something like:
>
> > such and such a drug is always helpful
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote as a reply to Sigismund's question as to what is an overgeneralization,[...I think something like: >such and such a drug is {always} helpful...]
The definition of{>over<generalization} is given by some English grammer authorities as:
[...sweeping generalizations that {oversimplify reality}...]. (citation 1B)
Your example used the word {always}which is consistant with English language authorities. Here are some other exmples given by an English langusge authority as being an overgeneralization as that are so general that they {oversimplify reality}
A. [... In times of crisis, every American supports his President...]
B. [...All birds can fly...]
The above examples can be paralled with Phillpa's statement in question to be examined as to if her statement is an overgeneralization according to the English language authority here in my citation (1B).
I am unsure as to if there is an authority that states that statements like the one in question by Phillipa,[...more often than not...]is considered to be an overgeneralizaion by a recognized authority. If you know of one, could you post a citation for such here?
The past practice here has many posts that use the phrase in question and I can find no instance here where the phrase {more often than not}, before Phillipa wrote it in her discussion with another poster about here experiance that she found as a nurse, is sanctioned. If there is one, could you post it here?
I ask:
C. How could a reasonable person know that they would be breaking a rule of yours here by writing {more often than not}, which is different from words like {always}, when there are many uses of the same phrase that were not sanctioned here and that a definition that English language authorities use, that an {overgeneralization} is a statement that is so general that they oversimplify reality that could have words in the statement like {all}, {every}, {always} and such?
If you could clarify this , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
citation 1B
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-analysis-analysis-overgen.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 9:59:16
In reply to Lou's request to Mr. Hsiung for a citation-ovrgn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 9:51:30
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > AbbieNormal
> >
> > Something 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?
> > >
> > > Sigismund
> >
> > I think something like:
> >
> > > such and such a drug is always helpful
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote as a reply to Sigismund's question as to what is an overgeneralization,[...I think something like: >such and such a drug is {always} helpful...]
> The definition of{>over<generalization} is given by some English grammer authorities as:
> [...sweeping generalizations that {oversimplify reality}...]. (citation 1B)
> Your example used the word {always}which is consistant with English language authorities. Here are some other exmples given by an English langusge authority as being an overgeneralization as that are so general that they {oversimplify reality}
> A. [... In times of crisis, every American supports his President...]
> B. [...All birds can fly...]
> The above examples can be paralled with Phillpa's statement in question to be examined as to if her statement is an overgeneralization according to the English language authority here in my citation (1B).
> I am unsure as to if there is an authority that states that statements like the one in question by Phillipa,[...more often than not...]is considered to be an overgeneralizaion by a recognized authority. If you know of one, could you post a citation for such here?
> The past practice here has many posts that use the phrase in question and I can find no instance here where the phrase {more often than not}, before Phillipa wrote it in her discussion with another poster about here experiance that she found as a nurse, is sanctioned. If there is one, could you post it here?
> I ask:
> C. How could a reasonable person know that they would be breaking a rule of yours here by writing {more often than not}, which is different from words like {always}, when there are many uses of the same phrase that were not sanctioned here and that a definition that English language authorities use, that an {overgeneralization} is a statement that is so general that they oversimplify reality that could have words in the statement like {all}, {every}, {always} and such?
> If you could clarify this , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou Pilder
> citation 1B
> http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-analysis-analysis-overgen.htm
>Mr. Hsiung,
Here is the correction to URL for the citation 1B
Lou Pilder
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-analysis-overgen.htm
Posted by happyflower on January 8, 2008, at 10:51:42
In reply to Lou's request to Mr. Hsiung for a citation-ovrgn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 9:51:30
Posted by muffled on January 8, 2008, at 12:04:25
In reply to Good point ! (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by happyflower on January 8, 2008, at 10:51:42
And now lets keep it administrative here!
LOL!
:-)
M
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 12:24:40
In reply to correction to citation URL-ovrgn, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 9:59:16
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > AbbieNormal
> > >
> > > Something 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?
> > > >
> > > > Sigismund
> > >
> > > I think something like:
> > >
> > > > such and such a drug is always helpful
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote as a reply to Sigismund's question as to what is an overgeneralization,[...I think something like: >such and such a drug is {always} helpful...]
> > The definition of{>over<generalization} is given by some English grammer authorities as:
> > [...sweeping generalizations that {oversimplify reality}...]. (citation 1B)
> > Your example used the word {always}which is consistant with English language authorities. Here are some other exmples given by an English langusge authority as being an overgeneralization as that are so general that they {oversimplify reality}
> > A. [... In times of crisis, every American supports his President...]
> > B. [...All birds can fly...]
> > The above examples can be paralled with Phillpa's statement in question to be examined as to if her statement is an overgeneralization according to the English language authority here in my citation (1B).
> > I am unsure as to if there is an authority that states that statements like the one in question by Phillipa,[...more often than not...]is considered to be an overgeneralizaion by a recognized authority. If you know of one, could you post a citation for such here?
> > The past practice here has many posts that use the phrase in question and I can find no instance here where the phrase {more often than not}, before Phillipa wrote it in her discussion with another poster about here experiance that she found as a nurse, is sanctioned. If there is one, could you post it here?
> > I ask:
> > C. How could a reasonable person know that they would be breaking a rule of yours here by writing {more often than not}, which is different from words like {always}, when there are many uses of the same phrase that were not sanctioned here and that a definition that English language authorities use, that an {overgeneralization} is a statement that is so general that they oversimplify reality that could have words in the statement like {all}, {every}, {always} and such?
> > If you could clarify this , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > Lou Pilder
> > citation 1B
> > http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-analysis-analysis-overgen.htm
> >
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here is the correction to URL for the citation 1B
> Lou Pilder
> http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-analysis-overgen.htmMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...when its {overgeneralization} about things (blood pressure monitors), my concern isn't about that people might be upset, but that people might make decisions, based on what's posted...].
That was your response to a member posting,[...but can we take a closer look at who could be upset if we generalize about a blood pressure monitor?...]
The member asking here is asking about {generalizing}. Is not {generalizing} different from {(over)generalizing}?
Is not the following in the post in question by Phillipa as a {point of view} or an {opinion}? (citation 2B).
An opinion, or point of view, is characterized by English language experts as a {judgment} by someone or an {appraisal} formed in their mind that is less-strong than something based on a statistical study that gives statistical knowlege. This can be found using the Webster dictionary definition of {opinion}. Is not that Phillipa is stating an {opinion} or {point of view} other than a statistical study? Is she not writing about what she {observed} as using the two monitors in her experiances as being a nurse? She writes in her first paragraph in the post in question,{when (I was) nursing}. Here Phillpa identifies that she is going to write about her experiance as a nurse so that the reader could know that what she is writing is comming from that { point of view}
Then Phillipa writes,[...I floated from every floor in..a hospital..{What I have seen}is...]
Here Phillipa describes the setting as being in a hospital and what she {has seen}.
Then Phillipa goes on to do a {description}, for she uses the grammatical structure,[.. Things {I} don't especially like..]. Is this not the {first person} grammatical structure?
The she writes, [..It's {amazing} how...]. Could not this be a first person obsevation, a view?. The she writes,[...you actually hear the blood pressure. Did not Toph post a citation concerning accuracy here? Could not Phillipa's post have at least some factual foundation?
Are not different points of view encouraged here? Here is the link to my citation 2B concerning a dictionary definition of {point of view} which states that a POV is something that is something {observed}, which in my opinion Phillipa was writing as to what she observed which IMO is different from overgeneralizing because overgeneralizing is characterized by English language experts as {a sweeping generalization that oversimplifies reality}. If you are wanting to mean that the phrase, {more often than not}, oversimplifies reality in the context used by Phillpa, and not in the contexts used in the links that I cited in another thread from the past practice here, could you post that here what that could be?
If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly
Lou Pilder
citation 2B
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/point+of+view
Posted by Jamal Spelling on January 8, 2008, at 13:03:30
In reply to Re: overgeneralizing » happyflower, posted by Racer on January 7, 2008, at 3:12:51
> 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.
Discussions on medication efficacy are infrequent. I don't think the medication board has a negative flavor. But if it does, maybe it is simply a reflection of how people really feel. I don't know why people feel so threatened by these discussions.
Posted by Jamal Spelling on January 8, 2008, at 14:04:54
In reply to Re: the flavor of the board, posted by Jamal Spelling on January 8, 2008, at 13:03:30
I myself feel somewhat unwelcome on the Medication board. Linkadge is right, medication is like a religion. And if you don't sing the praises of its god, people label you as a heathen and attack you.
For some reason, people get angry at the suggestion they might benefit from other interventions, in addition to their medication. A poster once told me that because I had benefited from other interventions, that therefore my depression couldn't have been real - real depression *only* responds to medication. Mmm, does that mean that, if your depression doesn't respond to medication, then you don't really have depression? Naw, I'm just kidding, LOL!
I think that is sort of the problem. People think that, if they benefit from medication, and somebody challenges the efficacy of that medication, the person is suggesting that their depression is "all in their head", and that conclusion is not correct either.
And even if people *do* show a placebo response to medication, so what? There are many perfectly real illnesses, like flu, which have a 100% placebo response rate, because of regression to the mean. It doesn't mean that your condition is any less real or painful! And drug trials tend to place placebo response at between 20% and 70%, so a lot of responders really are placebo responders. But of course, everybody wants to believe that they are not part of that placebo response group.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 15:26:33
In reply to Good point ! (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by happyflower on January 8, 2008, at 10:51:42
happyflower,
You wrote [...Good point!...Lou...]
Could you expund more on why the point in question is good? If you could, you may offer someone something that could be supportive and/or educational to them.
Lou
Posted by happyflower on January 8, 2008, at 18:14:49
In reply to Lou's reply to happyflower-gdpont » happyflower, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2008, at 15:26:33
I believe you made some very good points in the text your wrote below. I completely agree with you.
I ask:
C. How could a reasonable person know that they would be breaking a rule of yours here by writing {more often than not}, which is different from words like {always}, when there are many uses of the same phrase that were not sanctioned here and that a definition that English language authorities use, that an {overgeneralization} is a statement that is so general that they oversimplify reality that could have words in the statement like {all}, {every}, {always} and such?
If you could clarify this , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
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.