![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by JenStar on September 2, 2004, at 13:27:32
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 12:45:20
For me, I think the rules work pretty well. (Hear me out, folks...please don't get mad!)
I think it's incredibly hard to write blanket rules that apply to all situations. My feeling is that the best-written rules only "work" perfectly in about 90 or 95% of cases. However, it's even harder to write rules that account for all the onesy-twosy situations that could arise.
I think that having objective -- not subjective -- rules seems the most fair to the greatest amount of people in the long run. If there are too many loopholes for subjectivity, it would almost feel like favoritism in some cases, and might engender hostility or unhappiness in the babble community.
I myself tend to react inappropriately at times to posts (sorry!) with sarcasm or insulting language. I usually feel righteously indignant about such posts, but once I think about it further...what if EVERYONE wrote rude things, all the time? Might the board disintegrate into a shouting match where people are afraid to post? I know it's kind of a "slippery slope" argument, but to prevent against the slip into chaos we need to govern ourselves and stick to the rules consistently.
For example, let's say that someone was banned for responding uncivily to an uncivil post, but we want to change the rules allow that particular person to keep posting in this instance and in future similar instances.
How would this be worded? "If someone responds to an uncivil post with uncivility, but IF that person is liked by at least 15 others who sign a petition, THEN that person will not be banned, as long as that person has been posting here for XX months AND has only had XX "civility warnings" in the timeframe of YYY." It seems that it would get incredibly complicated to work in all the particulars; too complicated to sort out. It might be worth doing -- it just seems hard. And some people would still not be happy with it.
I'm not poking fun or insults at anyone who suggested a petition; please don't read that into my notes. I just used that as an example of how difficult it might be to write 'special circumstance cases' into the ruleset.
I just think the rules are pretty well-thought-out, even if I don't always personally abide by them 10% of the time. :)
JenStar
PS - Personally, I feel a sense of consternation mixed with frustration and irritation when I am solicited for money on behalf of any cause here on babble. Although I might care about the cause/person involved, I feel that it's a bit invasive and manipulative to be asked for money in a forum where I come to be 'protected' and to share ideas/thoughts, not finances. I feel sort of threatened, too: Will people stop liking me if I DON'T contribute? I worry about the person in question: Will they feel bad if other babbles DON'T donate? Will they get a false sense of hope or security, only to be disappointed later?
Here, too, I worry about the "slippery slope" argument: If we allow ONE request for money, would it be fair to deny any OTHER requests? And if we allow ALL requests, would it turn into a forum for donations? Would I be asked for money often and feel like a jerk often for not participating? Or if some requests are allowed to post and not others, would that be fair?
These are the kinds of questions that keep me up nights. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 13:40:03
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 12:45:20
You said: "I'm open to suggestions, but I don't think it would work to try to base administrative decisions on intentions..."
I agree it is hard to know intentions, and having admin based on intentions would require mind reading.
That said, What *was* chemist's block for.
Posted by Atticus on September 2, 2004, at 18:00:26
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 12:45:20
As you did before, through an attempt at verbal misdirection, at rhetorical sleight-of-hand, you've tried to shift the discussion thread from my focus, rule makers, to your own more authoritarian focus, rule breakers. If you're going to sidestep the issues I'm raising about your responsibilities as the keeper of this digital Skinner box -- where I increasingly feel like a lab rat under observation in this longitudinal study, like mere fodder for your academic articles and papers and presentations -- then I don't see how we can continue attempting to communicate. I'm moving along one thread and you're moving along a different one. I feel disappointed that my attempts to actually engage you and get you to ask yourself some hard questions about how the operationalization of this experiment might be enhanced have both seemed, to me, to end up as cases of irresistible force (me) meeting immovable object (you). It's really a pity. But if that's how you want it, then I consider any further attempts at discussion with you pointless. I do hope your IRB is keeping an eye on all this; you're dealing with immensely fragile people here for the most part, myself included, and if you aren't constantly asking yourself, "Am I handling this the best possible way?", then I could see this study potentially doing real harm to some Babble test subjects. It's been my experience in the real world that the level of empathy that a therapist brings to the table makes all the difference. Just some food for thought as you gaze down on us with binary eyes. Atticus
Posted by Fred23 on September 2, 2004, at 18:51:37
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on September 2, 2004, at 13:40:03
> That said, What *was* chemist's block for.
That is what has me worried, as I am aware that nutrition can affect one's mental state.
And I'm aware that there is an appropriate board for that discussion.
Posted by alesta on September 2, 2004, at 19:00:23
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by JenStar on September 2, 2004, at 13:27:32
hi, jenstar,
the points we have all been making here is that we are trying to figure out *what rule* was broken.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 2, 2004, at 23:18:48
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 2, 2004, at 18:00:26
> As you did before, through an attempt at verbal misdirection, at rhetorical sleight-of-hand, you've tried to shift the discussion thread from my focus, rule makers, to your own more authoritarian focus, rule breakers.
Sorry about that, let me try to go back:
> It's basically a matter of creating a more complex and flexible rule framework that allows critical thinking and compassion to be applied in such cases.
What's good for the group isn't necessarily good for each member. IMO, it's better for this group if people aren't asked for money, but of course it may be better for some individuals if they receive some.
Should it be a more complicated rule? Should some people be allowed to ask for money? I'm open to suggestions. Should we form a committee to consider a new rule? To approve requests?
> I do hope your IRB is keeping an eye on all this
For the record:
> This site is not currently considered research.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/consent.html> It's been my experience in the real world that the level of empathy that a therapist brings to the table makes all the difference. Just some food for thought as you gaze down on us with binary eyes.
One difference between this and therapy is that here I'm not focused on just one person. Sorry you feel gazed down upon,
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:35:38
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by JenStar on September 2, 2004, at 13:27:32
JenStar,
Your post reminded me a bit of when I was a teaching assistant for a psych. lab course. The professor who designed the course was someone who really liked rules. Everytime something came up with regards to a student, in particular related to how she graded something, she would make a new rule for next year that would avoid the situation. Dang, she had so many rules, it was like a fascist regime! (I really think she justed hated conflict.) I would frame it to the students that the expectations for the class were clearly spelled out. They may not like the rules, but the syllabus clearly defined what had to be done and what could not be done in order to get a certain grade.Now in teaching, there are always students who come to you with a situation that gets you to think about whether you can waive the rules in this one case. I really struggled with this and was usually not likely to do it. But in one case, I sought consulation with a different professor who was supervising the class that semester. She pointed out to me that the syllabus was like a contract between you and the student. At the same time, if you felt it was appropriate to renegotiate the contract based on extenuating circumstances, then that was within your right as the instructor. (Notice, she never did tell me what I should do...the hazard of working for psychologists...:).
It was hard to make the decision, because you hear a lot of stories from students. Grandma's are sick or die frequently it seems, especially around the time of exams. But what if Grandma really IS sick? How do you make that decision? My method was to stick to the rules as much as possible unless my gut was just crying out to "renegotiate" them. Ironically, in the one case I sought consulation on, it turned out the student never followed up, so she failed anyway...All that agonizing for an anticlimactic result! Aagh!
This sure ain't easy, I would imagine. That being said, I think that when there is a great deal of questioning and posting surrounding a block, it is not always a popularity contest, but rather may represent true cofusion and/or true gut reactions that something isn't right. It would be nice if we at least knew that Dr. Bob's gut was resonating, even if he chooses not to renegotiate the rules.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 8:21:02
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » JenStar, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:35:38
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 9:23:49
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 2, 2004, at 18:00:26
Well, sure we are lab rats. But we (on good days) are cognizant lab rats and can change some behaviors just knowing that if we want.
I really have less problem with the cash solicitation blocks. At least this is a rule you can see applied evenly. Of course the intentions were great, and I'll miss them a lot but it *is* a case of 'rules is rules.'
It's the subjective ones I have real problems with. There is, human nature being human nature, too much opportunity for bias and/or past history to slip in.
I'd like to see it a bit more like criminal court:) There are cases guilt is obvious - like the current subject lines on social or cases where someone is called a moron (or worse.) But conviction should be based on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
At least that would seem more fair to me.....
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 13:54:23
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Atticus, posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 9:23:49
This was also meant for you.
Posted by Atticus on September 3, 2004, at 13:54:36
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Atticus, posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 9:23:49
Not to be melodramatic, but allow me a moment to be melodramatic. ;)
Here some examples of the "rules is rules" concept.
White-skinned human beings were once allowed to own black-skinned human beings in this country. Rules were rules. And the bloodiest war in this nation's history was required to get rid of a bad rule.
Women once were not allowed to vote in this country. Rules were rules. It took a concerted suffragette movement years to change a bad rule.
And now we have the rules of the Patriot Act. How will history judge those?
To my way of thinking, all rules should be subject to relentless scrutiny, constant questioning, as should the people who make those rules. Critical thinking and evaluation should be applied to every decision, to every rule. Because those rules are created by human beings, and all human beings are fallible. All human beings make mistakes. Rules are simply the status quo, as I see it. And sometimes the status quo could be improved upon, as I think the above examples demonstrate.
I don't believe that all my rhetoric is ever going to change a thing around Psycho-Babble world. So for my own mental health -- which was, I seem to recall, why I began posting to PB in the first place -- I'm bowing out of all future discussions like this. I feel they're futile. I'm just gonna go write my poems, and if anyone wants to stop by Writing and chat, that's fine. Atticus
Posted by malthus on September 3, 2004, at 13:57:31
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » Dr. Bob, posted by Atticus on September 2, 2004, at 18:00:26
Hi Atticus:
I have read the evolution of this thread and understand fully why you are taking a break from posting. I am heavyhearted that you are feeling worse than you did before your hospitalization. I had a strange feeling of deja-vu about you when I sat down to write this and don't fully understand it. I know from my experiences with depression (and you have mentioned this before) about the mask that has to be put on to get through the day when feeling utterly slaughtered inside. And to make matters worse the whole business of protecting family and friends is absolutely draining.
I realize that the following may be "breaking the rules" but I don't give a #*@~ (rhymes with "cram".): If you feel like communicating with me please, please e-mail me:
malthusdog@yahoo.com I need to know you are not thinking about anything "shiny". I've had to force back unpleasant images in the past month of my car impacting a large tree but starting back on Zyprexa has enabled me to push them down although I've gained 10 lbs. yuk >:( ! I wonder if pushing them down with medication is the best way to go. I've read a lot about how ecstasy therapy with a qualified professional (I've never taken it) has helped many people with depression but I guess the images of brain cells being killed (doesn't alcohol do this as well with absolutely no therapeutic effect?) has been a deterrent. I'm going to post this over on Writing in case you are not checking this particular thread anymore (don't blame you.)malthus who will not appear sad-faced or serious when she knows Atticus is well
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 15:05:44
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » AuntieMel, posted by Atticus on September 3, 2004, at 13:54:36
Hey, I agree with you. Rules *should* be re-evaluated on a continuous basis. And anyone that disagree with them should fight against them. [I came of age in the late 60s, early 70s and I've done my share of trying to change rules:)]
I'm just saying that since this rule *does* exist, it would be unfair to let a group of people off the hook, no matter how good the cause, because then pandora's box has been opened and everyone will want the same treatment.
And what I was saying is this rule is one of the few that are cut and dry.
I'm not taking sides here, just explaining my thinking. I get distressed enough over the subjective rulings as it is.
Peace?
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 15:25:00
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » AuntieMel, posted by Atticus on September 3, 2004, at 13:54:36
atticus, man, i hear you, and completely agree! i just read your post, and feel better, b/c i just felt the same way, like this issue is so intricate yet some posters come in and say things that oversimplify it and try and make you look like you're wrong but you know you're not...they're just not seeing the 100 billion angles to this thing...i am becoming very frustrated and can relate 100% to your comment about wanting to forget trying to discuss this stuff for your own mental health. there's someone here that gets it, dude! please write back! i need support...:)did i tell you i love your posts? i think you're brilliant..can be lonely at the top, huh?
amy :)
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 3, 2004, at 15:55:03
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate--atticus-write me, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 15:25:00
Posted by Atticus on September 3, 2004, at 16:26:00
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate--atticus-write me, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 15:25:00
OK, Alesta,
I just posted a new poem, dedicated to Jai and Malthus, on Writing. Read it, make a few brief comments on it (it's about meeting my ex-wife when we were both 18) just to satisfy the powers that be that we're conversing about writing, and we'll take our discussion from there to Social. Writing is where I can be found from now on. But I do ask that you don't talk about Babble world. I feel that any attempt at change here is a lost cause, a topic no longer of any interest to me. On Sunday, I marched with 200,000 people in my home town and came away feeling I could move the whole planet. On Tuesday, I watched a virtual-reality bloodbath on this site, one person blocked after the other so fast that the cyberbodies stacked up like cordwood, and I felt powerless to do anything. Go figure. Atticus
Posted by JenStar on September 3, 2004, at 17:10:04
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » JenStar, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 1:35:38
hi gg,
thanks for your post! I think it's great that you followed your gut/heart with that student situation, and gave her a second chance, even though she didn't follow up herself. At least YOU did the right thing and probably (I'm guessing) slept better for it. The idea of the syllabus as a contract is interesting -- I never thought of it that way before. Cool concept.I do think it's wise to allow some "wiggle room" in most rule sets; without it we could end up in dangerous or nonsensical situations.
In this case, though, I'm OK with the rules as they are (and the results). I'd probably accept it if the general rules change, too, as long as the changes aren't too exotic and complex. (Who am I kidding...I like babble enough that I'd come here even if we had to start every post with the words "Purple elephant!")
I agree that when people all cluster to a topic it's usually from a genuine concern. But I also think there can be the lure of the bandwagon at play; people can sometimes feel compelled to be part of a movement or an uprising especially if things in 'real life' are stressful.
I'm making a parallel to my own life (and I know it's not fair to always extrapolate to "everyone" from "me", but it's a start!) -- I personally tend to respond to the curser/rude posts with my own venom when I'm feeling especially trodden upon, ignored, or incapable of saying how I really feel about stuff IRL. I believe that happens to others, too -- emotions and issues IRL can affect the type of response given here on babble. Sometimes things gain momentum and people get on board, working from strong emotions which are fired by other emotions they read in posts.
I also think that when people cluster to see an issues as "Dr. Bob vs XX poster" it can be a rebellion against the authority of Dr. Bob as the overseer, a desire to draw him out into deeper conversation or to have him show personal feeling/thoughts (which makes him into a peer), or to express frustration with the fact that although he runs this board and he's a doctor, he's unavailable for personal assistance.Just my 2 cents...(hopefully not said in an uncivil way!)
take care,
JenStar
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 17:31:56
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » AuntieMel, posted by Atticus on September 3, 2004, at 13:54:36
I just always try to see it in terms of 'fairness.' And I guess I was hoping Dr. Bob would answer my questions.{sigh}
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 17:31:58
In reply to Oh my, Atticus we all love you.....:-) (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on September 3, 2004, at 15:55:03
don't get the wrong idea, jai...i'm just relieved that there's someone else here who can relate to how crappy i feel right now...perhaps i laid it on too thick...:)
amy :)
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 3, 2004, at 20:20:46
In reply to Re: Oh my, Atticus we all love you.....:-) » Jai Narayan, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 17:31:58
Dear Amy, my feeling is we can never love too much. I was serious....we do love Atticus so much. He's so amazing. I was serious. A note about me....I always mean what I say.
I appreciate all who care and give support. There's nothing wrong with support and love.
So you are great and really kind to give support to Atticus right now and whenever.
God knows, we all blossom from love and support.
I welcome you to support me when I need it.
Thanks.
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 21:13:38
In reply to Re: Oh my, Atticus we all love you.....:-), posted by Jai Narayan on September 3, 2004, at 20:20:46
thank you, jai, for interpreting the meaning behind your words...:) well, then, on that note, i wish you love...:)
Love,
amy
Posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 21:52:40
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » gardenergirl, posted by JenStar on September 3, 2004, at 17:10:04
Purple Elephant... ;)
I don't think your post was uncivil. It was nice to hear more from you. I think you hit on something important here. Stress and depression do play a big role in posting, at least for me. I know when I am more depressed, I write less and probalby come across sounding more abrupt and impersonal. Later I see it and cringe because it doesn't feel like the real me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
gg
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 3, 2004, at 22:13:03
In reply to Re: Oh my, Atticus we all love you.....:-)--jai, posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 21:13:38
Posted by AuntieMel on September 3, 2004, at 23:11:11
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate » JenStar, posted by gardenergirl on September 3, 2004, at 21:52:40
Posted by alesta on September 3, 2004, at 23:25:19
In reply to Re: Being Compassionate, posted by JenStar on September 2, 2004, at 13:27:32
<I'm not poking fun or insults at anyone who suggested a petition; please don't read that into my notes.
well, i don't think anyone was reading that into your notes..but it sure looks like you are poking fun and insulting now...i don't appreciate your "cleverly disguised" insult...*i'm* the one who started the petition. if you're aiming to hit a nerve, well you have succeeded.
amy
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.