Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 400856

Shown: posts 21 to 45 of 56. Go back in thread:

 

Re: I didn't read any.--dinah

Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46

In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:02:33

i hope i did not offend you, i just wanted to understand your view. i hope there no hard feelings. theres none on my end. have a good one. this is my last night of posting anyway, so this ordeal doesnt need to be dragged on. thanks danah

 

Re: I didn't read any.

Posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27

I'm not sure what transference has to do with anything since there is no therapeutic alliance here, and I too don't want to argue, Dinah. But I see Bob's guestion about kicking the hotel patron out as a non-sequitur and therefore clearly sarcastic and inappropriate. One thing is clear, newwife felt accused and put down.

 

Re: I didn't read any.--toph

Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:36:01

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38

i agree once again. i am so glad you agree and i am not over reacting. if i am oh well.

 

Re: I didn't read any. Dinah

Posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27

Hi Dinah,
Thanks for giving your reaction. I know you've read many many more of Dr. Bob's posts than I have, and your radar has to have been finely honed by all that experience.

I may be off base, but I was thinking about the "technical thing" you mentioned. I can't think of what it's called, either...darn it...perhaps exaggeration for effect? I am thinking it fits in with other paradoxical interventions. Anyway, if we are thinking of the same thing, and I don't know for sure that we are, so have the salt ready :)...then I think of it as playing "stupid" in order to challenge a statement. I do this very occasionally, and you have to be very deadpan and seriously curious in your approach otherwise it comes across as disingenuous. If we are thinking of the same thing, then I am guessing this technique would not work in this media, as the nonverbal that goes along with it is just as important to the effect of the intervention. It's similar in some ways to Linehan's irreverence. You need the same kind of sort of genuine curiousity while simulaneously knowing that you are exaggerating.

So, if I am way off base, forgive me for taking up so much time...:) I hate it though, when I use a technique and I don't know what it's called. :( Makes it much harder to 'splain to supervisor about how my gut said to do it. :)

Take care,
gg

 

Re: I didn't read any.---gardenergirl

Posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:57:36

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01

i am very interested in your post. i dont understand it, do you mind explaining it b/c i am so interested i can hardly stand it. do you mind doing that. it would be really nice of you. thanks, jess

 

Re: I didn't read any. gardenergirl

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:19:09

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on October 9, 2004, at 23:54:01

I think I would describe it differently... But we may be thinking of the same thing anyway. The genuine curiosity part I pick up on when my therapist does it. I don't see it as playing stupid or even exaggerating. Perhaps my therapist leaves that part out. He does it so very gently and with such obvious positive intent. His voice even lowers. I think the intent is to subtly shift the focus of thought in such a way as to encourage a deeper understanding of what one has said. It doesn't seem to have any negative intentions.

I have a tendency to do it myself in Sunday School. And I remember it distinctly from philosophy class. Not enough to explain it correctly, or to know the name of it.

Of course, I have no earthly idea what Dr. Bob intended. Only he could say that. That's how I read it. Perhaps he was genuinely interested in the nuances of hotel management, or how hotel management could be applied to Babble.

For myself, I can see a difference between asking someone or forcing someone to leave a place of business and asking someone or forcing someone to leave a community. Especially a community designed for support. Naturally, Dr. Bob *does* effectively do it, through blocks. But blocks are imposed for actions that violate specific rules. I realize that we sometimes don't understand enforcement, but I'll bet that's mainly because we can't see inside Dr. Bob's brain. I'm sure there's an internal logic.

Thank heavens I can't quite imagine Dr. Bob asking someone to leave for any other reason. Even when he says "Babble isn't right for everyone" or "You have to do what is best for you, of course" I wince. That sounds *enough* like "Don't let the door hit you on your way out". To do even that seems like a slap across the face. To say anything more direct, especially in the absence of civility guideline violations, would seem like a rejection of the person as a whole. I honor Dr. Bob for not doing that, especially when it has a cost for him in terms of monitoring time.

 

Re: I didn't read any. Toph

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Toph on October 9, 2004, at 23:31:38

I have no desire to argue, either.

I think I define transference more broadly and I tend to think we experience it with many people, Dr. Bob more than most because he's such a blank slate, and tends to be cryptic in his posts. So Dr. Bob says something, and we tend to interpret in a way, and ascribe motivations to him, based more on our habitual ways of viewing the world, authority figures, etc. than on his actual meaning. Because his actual meaning is usually obscure. Trying to get him to express himself in such a way that an average selection of reasonable people would interpret it the same way is such a challenge that I only undertake if the issue is very important to me. And that's probably a byproduct of the brevity of his remarks. So it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and transference.

Which is a rather academic discussion, and I really am not sure how much sense I'm making these days, so take it with a grain of salt.

Regarding non-sequitur, I thought his final comment was related to the first line in the PBC post and thus *did* have continuity. But you might not see the connection, and that's cool.

 

Re: I didn't read any.--dinah

Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16

maybe i am totally wrong but this is about me and i dont know why your posts are to everyone but me. also, i tried to apologize and i never got a response. it that purposly done. i still do not agree with you and i dont think you are willing to look at the other side. all i can say is i have noticed that you have had past disagreements and you should know how it feels to have your feelings hurt. i would appriciate u not refering to me in any future posts unless you post to me. thanks

 

No hard feelings newwife

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35

In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 9, 2004, at 23:09:46

My posts were mainly academic rather than impassioned.

It isn't easy, but it is possible to establish a dialogue with Dr. Bob in which he could explain his meaning more clearly. If this is important to you, I think it would be worth it.

It can be difficult to learn how to apply the civilty standards and understand Dr. Bob's expectations. I realize it must have been frustrating to you to work so long and hard on a post and have Dr. Bob flag it.

I'm trying to learn not to be such a b*ttinsky and not to proffer civility interpretations, particularly unasked. It's not easy for me, as I'm a b*ttinsky by nature. :)

I'm sorry you feel hurt. And I hope that Dr. Bob can clarify at least some things to ease some of the hurt.

 

Re: I didn't read any.--dinah newwife

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:51:10

In reply to Re: I didn't read any.--dinah, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:39:38

I'm sorry. No offense was intended. It just that I am taking care of bedtime rituals in between posting. And concentration isn't my strong suit right now.

I wasn't aware that I *had* referred to you when not addressing you. I thought I had just responded to post content. But if I'm mistaken, I apologize. It was not my intent.

I didn't interpret your post as a "Do Not Post to Me" since you included "unless you post to me". If I misinterpreted, I apologize. I will try not to refer to you in future posts unless I'm posting to you, but it's a difficult thing to promise as I wasn't aware I had done so this time. I was under the impression that I was discussing ideas, not personalities.

Best wishes.

Dinah

 

Re: No hard feelings either dinah

Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:52:13

In reply to No hard feelings newwife, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:43:35

thank you for that. i can sleep easy. maybe i overeacted. i study law and i tend to speak my mind. this has never happned since i have been posting. when i beielve strongly about my thoughts and feelings and i know in my heart i meant no harm, it hurts to have it flagged like that instead of him taking to time to read through it and write me back. i gave my time and got negative feedback and nothing else. i am a strong taures that has never not spoken my mind. it toook me a long time to be able to sit count to ten and express my thought calmly. i used to not know how to do that. it goes much deeper then dr. bobs post, i actually felt like i would get positive feedback and it backfired. it was a test to me to sit down and handle a situation like my husband tells me to. i really read the home page and it said the admin site welcomes comments and concerns. it took alot for me to be a first time poster on this site. everyone else seems really close. to me i was proud of myself and my writing. i took minutes to write a sentence in fear of it being un civil. my opinions are not uncivil. dr. bob needs to understand that some people take there posts seriously and un civil describes cussing or racist comments to me. i am trying so hard to explain this. un civil can be a hurtful way of describing something that someone may take pride in. maybe there should be another way of handling these situations in the future. i am sure i am not the only one that has felt low and rejected and kinda humiliated in a tiny way. let me know what you think.--jess

 

Re: No hard feelings either dinah newwife

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:15:04

In reply to Re: No hard feelings either dinah, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 0:52:13

I understand. While I have an unreasonable fondness for the PBC (Please Be Civil) after spending many a sleepless night in fear of getting one, I do understand that the word "Civil" has wider connotations than Babble rules. And that being told to be civil sounds like a personal indictment, while in truth I don't believe Dr. Bob intends it to be.

I can think of far better wording, yet I can't say I'd campaign for it because of my admitted fondness for the history involved.

Perhaps an additional canned paragraph in the PBC could add that civility has a particular meaning in Babble, not the general meaning in the community. Clearly some PBC's involve actual incivility, and others are more accurately described as violations of Babble rules. So a Please Read and Follow Babble Rules would be more appropriate in some cases, if less catchy than a PBC.

Ordinarily, I would offer to have you Babblemail me to discuss the applicability of Babble rules in this instance, althouth it would be utterly insufferable of me to do it, I know. But I also know I'm more likely to spend a lot of words trying to get a dialogue to explain than Dr. Bob probably would. And I can see you have a genuine desire to understand what happened.

But unfortunately I'm not in any real shape right now to gather my thoughts well enough to be helpful in that way. If you have any interest in doing so, I could offer to do so in the future. I know, I know, I'm being insufferable and know it all-y. It's just that I've made such a study of Dr. Bob's civility rulings and the rules themselves. I guess I have some deep seated desire to share what I've gleaned over the years. I'm trying to overcome it. I really am.

 

Re: I didn't read any. Dinah

Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 1:25:47

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16

>
> I think I define transference more broadly and I tend to think we experience it with many people, Dr. Bob more than most because he's such a blank slate, and tends to be cryptic in his posts...

You know, up until tonight Dinah I thought that Bob's approach to interacting here was a sort of tabla rasa technique. But I feel like he got ticked at me for teasing him in my earlier post. Is that the tone you sense here?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/400811.html
Maybe I'm just paran.., er, overly sensitive. But these feelings can carry over into subsequent posts. Maybe that's why I see Jess' situation as if Bob is having a bad day and his question is not neutral but layered with his humanity and not mere slate.

 

Re: I didn't read any. Toph

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:43:28

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Dinah, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 1:25:47

Personally, no. That wasn't what I picked up. Dr. Bob doesn't seem to mind good natured teasing. I do it all the time.

Which is not to say I think Dr. Bob always responds neutrally, without regard to what is said about himself. He'd have to be inhuman to do that, and I doubt even the blankest slates are able to totally eliminate personal reactions. I do think he tries to step back in those circumstances and give himself time to moderate his reaction. Have you ever noticed that when something emotional is going on on Babble, he focuses on the easy stuff first? It's absolutely maddening sometimes to see him respond to a post about Babblemail when all H*ll is breaking out elsewhere. I could be wrong of course. I'm extrapolating motive from action, and that frequently leads to incorrect assumptions.

My interpretation, and that's all it is, is that there might be three reasons for Dr. Bob's response.

There may be specific posters who have reason to believe that you may be referring to them. I could see how that could be possible, and if I can I imagine Dr. Bob could as well.

In the past, I've been extremely touchy about dissociative disorders. Others may have been as well. I'm not sure. I am so busy being touchy that I don't notice what others are doing. He might be concerned that people who believe they have alternate ego states might be offended. So he might be trying to short circuit troubles on that front.

Drat. I can't remember the third.

Or I could be wrong about all three, and Dr. Bob might have something else completely in mind. It's hard to tell, because he's such a blank slate. :)

He didn't actually give a PBC, did he?

 

And now I must shut up.

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:44:48

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:43:28

As I should have done many posts ago.

Dr. Bob should speak for himself.

And I'm being a real Cliff Clavin.

Apologies all around.

 

Re: And now I must shut up.-dinah

Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 2:01:40

In reply to And now I must shut up., posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:44:48

dr. bob should be very thankful to have you today. i think he owes you a big hug. unfortuantly he wont be getting one from me anytime soon. haha:)

 

Re: I didn't read any.

Posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:28:41

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 0:33:16

All of the explaining what Bob "may" have meant reminds me of asking someone what time it is and they tell you how to build a clock..........I don't feel that he is THAT complex, for pete's sake.

Even if he was being "clever", I took it in the context of when it happened and am laying aside all of the "psych" explanations and am viewing it as something someone mortal did. I feel that for me, putting it in a smaller box, in context, allows me to see it for what it was. Sarcasm. When I get a gut reaction by reading something someone wrote, that means something. And I actually felt it in my gut when I saw it. And it made me sad, as GG said. (I'm just going to stay with Ethel and try to get her to Tallulah's wedding without ten more disasters.)

Since I was the one to first mention the sarcasm, I feel that I would like to lay it to rest and not cause "newwife" anymore hurt. I feel that she suffered undue anguish due to what unfolded here. And to all that supported her, thanks. Sometimes just stepping up and having someone else's back really helps a person.
And I feel that "newwife" needs it more than Bob does.

 

Re: I didn't read any. thanks

Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:50:26

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:28:41

thanks for expressing how you feel. i dont even know you and you are making this so much easier for me. i can understand your posts and we are alot alike, i read something and take it for what is written, i dont dig and dig and dig. when i feel disrespected it really does not matter what others think. i am so glad you can see it. i am not counting on an apology though.

 

Re: I didn't read any. thanks newwife

Posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:53:28

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. thanks, posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:50:26

You're more than welcome, newwife!! I have to go do my moonlighting job now and will be away from my 'puter til evening. Have a good day and don't dwell on all this stuff......It ages you!! Pat

 

Re: I didn't read any. thanks pat

Posted by newwife on October 10, 2004, at 5:58:26

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. thanks newwife, posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:53:28

i hope you have a wonderful day

 

Re: I didn't read any. fayeroe

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 6:18:07

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by fayeroe on October 10, 2004, at 5:28:41

I actually agree. I told you I was being a Cliff Clavin. Sorry for the unasked for clockmaking explanation. My intent was merely to offer an alternative explanation about a portion of Dr. Bob's post that was causing distress, and reduce some of the pain until Dr. Bob is able to clarify his own intent about his hotel question.

 

Re: I didn't read any. Dinah

Posted by verne on October 10, 2004, at 9:10:12

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 9, 2004, at 23:00:27

Dinah,

I really appreciate your perspective and desire to understand how the clock ticks. I'm like that too. I've spent more time trying to understand babblespeak, the guidelines, board "politic", and PBC rules than trying to find a cure for what actually ails me.

I think it's great that you're sharing what you've learned about the mystery that is psychobabble.

verne

 

Re: I didn't read any. Dinah

Posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 9:32:01

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Toph, posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 1:43:28

>
> He didn't actually give a PBC, did he?


Yes, he gave me a PBC - "please be careful." While I do not know if this admonition has the same weight as a "please be civil." I would have to commit another transgression in Bob's eyes to discover if it would lead to a block (actually, I've said so much lately it would then be hard to figure out whether "please be careful" is a benign warning carrying no potential sanction or not).

But, at the risk of igniting the ambers here, it is important to note, Dinah, (this is the admin board, after all) that your question, 'He didn't actually give a PBC, did he?" I took to be a rhetorical one, in the sense that we both know the answer to your question. Rhetorical questions are actually statements, in this case, you meant, "He didn't give you a PBC, so he must not have been angry" or something like that. Similarly, when Bob asked Jess, "you force them to leave?" I view this rhetorically in the sense that Bob knows that she doesn't force these difficult patrons out of the hotel - she would be fired, rather he is making a statement, "Jess you shouldn't expect me to remove annoyng posters, that would be like asking your patrons to leave" or some such thing.

Also, I didn't understand the Cliff Clavin reference. Did Cliff sort of moderate things at Cheers for Sam? I am not trying to be disrespectful, I just am not sure I get the analogy. I'm sorry to bring up a thread that has sort of died down, I just wanted to resolve some unresolved issues I had from last night. I appreciate your comments. -Toph

 

Re: I didn't read any.

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 9:40:44

In reply to Re: I didn't read any. Dinah, posted by Toph on October 10, 2004, at 9:32:01

> >
> whether "please be careful" is a benign warning carrying no potential sanction or not).

It's my understanding that it isn't equivilant to a PBC, although it may be a sort of warning that Dr. Bob is watching a thread. I could be wrong.

Actually, my question wasn't rhetorical. Your post was on another thread and it was late and I was tired and lazy. I thought I remembered that it didn't get a PBC, but I wasn't sure. So it was an actual question.

> Also, I didn't understand the Cliff Clavin reference.

Cliff was an annoying know it all who constantly dispensed unasked for an frequently incorrect information. My mother is a Cliff Clavin, and I suspect I'm one too - especially on the Admin board. I'm *trying* to be helpful, but I also know I am being Cliff Clavin-y.

I'm trying, with indifferent success as you can tell, to back off trying to be helpful here.

 

Above for Toph. (nm)

Posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 9:41:09

In reply to Re: I didn't read any., posted by Dinah on October 10, 2004, at 9:40:44


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.