![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 16:17:45
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
once again, good point, i agree with you AGAIN!
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 16:14:09
Atticus,
When I use the navy analogy I don't mean to suggest that psychobabble has a military-like loyalty oath. But there are similarities such as agreeing to the terms of service or civility guidelines. There is an authority and a set of rules.
The captain was eccentric, capricious, and perhaps a poor leader, but if the crew had accepted him with his quirks, the ship would have made its destination.
Once the crew rebelled, questioned authority, and mutinied, the captain's weaknesses were magnified. The mutiniers thought the captain, who probably could have got them where they were going - maybe with a few detours, like looking for strawberries - was unfit, and in doing so, helped make him unfit.
The crew undercut him and precipitated the fall. The crew became his undoing and made the ship's mission impossible. If the crew had met him half way (given him the benefit of the doubt) a mutiny could have been avoided.
verne
Posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
In reply to Re: Infallibility » verne, posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 15:36:05
You seem to be getting your sea legs. By this, and before anyone comes down on me, I mean you are catching on to the 'mysterious ways of babble.'
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 11, 2004, at 17:47:42
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2004, at 18:00:49
In reply to Re: You seem to be getting your sea legs » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on October 11, 2004, at 17:41:36
Thanks Mel, though it seems like Admin has been in the "Perfect Storm" lately.
It does take some courage to begin posting here.
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 16:55:13
Let me be sure I understand your argument. The crew was to blame for Captain Queeg's incredibly poor judgment and stewardship of the vessel he commanded, and if it had just let him go on his merry demented way, all would have been well? So even if a leader proves himself or herself utterly unfit for command, those under that command shouldn't question his or her decisions? I couldn't disagree more, if that's what you're asserting. We have critical faculties for a reason: to independently assess situations and apply our own moral and ethical standards. If we don't, I feel, we become sheep. The crew wasn't Queeg's downfall; Queeg was. I ask anyone who remembers his meltdown during the court martial to ask themselves if this man should have been in charge of anything anywhere. Enabling such behavior only reinforces it, I believe. I firmly believe that all of our leaders, those we agree with and those we don't, should always be subject to our constant scrutiny and appraisal. Because if they make a poor judgment call, a lot of people stand to get hurt. It's essential to question authority -- the most basic tenet in a democratic-thinking society, even if the forum is PB. Atticus
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
i agree and my feeling stood to be hurt in this situation and i feel like i tried to hard to avoid hurting anyone else. does dr bob do the same?
Posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 22:13:04
In reply to Re atticus, posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 21:49:31
No he doesn't. Not hard enough. In any case, I've said my piece about Bobby's gross deficiencies as the administrator and mediator of a site such as this. You'd think that after so many years of doing this he'd be better at it. His concept of cyber-psych is sound; it's his execution -- his virtual bedside manner -- that sucks. I've found a new site to post poems, and left a message for Malthus and Jai on Writing. They both know how to get in touch with me via e-mail. Me, I've had enough of this place. It served a purpose for a while, but I've had it with little Bobby's megalomania routine. Ta. Atticus
Posted by verne on October 11, 2004, at 23:05:52
In reply to Re: The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility » verne, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 20:11:15
> Let me be sure I understand your argument. The crew was to blame for Captain Queeg's incredibly poor judgment and stewardship of the vessel he commanded, and if it had just let him go on his merry demented way, all would have been well?
The point I'm trying to express is that the crew shared in, or contributed to, the captain's meltdown. I can't remember the book but after the trial in the movie, the lawyer for the captain gives the crew a tongue-lashing for their part in the captain's failures.
This is more than a story about a captain that becomes unhinged and a crew that mutinies. It's about the nature of rebellion and authority - how any revolt will shape and influence the authority. The crew created Captain Queeg.
The captain or authority doesn't exist in a vacuum. "Captain" is a meaningless title without a ship and crew. And the mutiny isn't simply about an inept captain and disgruntled crew that takes command. They all share in the failure.
The reason I brought up the Caine Mutiny is not that Dr. Bob resembles the captain or the posters, the crew in a particular way. For me the comparison with the book had more to do with the nature of any "mutiny" - especially the interaction between the rebels and the authority - how both shape each other.
How an obsession with a tiny pail of missing strawberries can lead - with a little "help" - to a complete collapse of command. The captain may have gotten silly over the strawberries but the crew was quite serious about undermining his authority from then on. And in the end, he was found unfit for command - which is exactly what the crew had hoped for all along.
verne
Posted by newwife on October 11, 2004, at 23:29:46
In reply to Re: Re atticus » newwife, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 22:13:04
i am kinda done with it too. i have a group of gals that are great and we will always be friends, but i refuse to come to what i thought was a support site and voice my opinion only to have it belittled by the boss of the site. kinda sucks.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 3:41:24
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
> your response to newwife contained uncalled-for and unjustifiable elements of sarcasm and mean-spiritedness.
First, please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility
>
> The number of posts you let go by before actually responding to her about your "asking them to leave" remark was also very noticeable.
>
> Then there's the notion you introduce about making the guests feel unwelcome by saying they can always go elsewhere.The above remind me of something Haim Weinberg said about virtual large groups:
> Unfortunately, idealization is a double-edged sword. It fosters unrealistic expectations of the group leader, and when these expectations are not met, the group becomes furious.
>
> We can argue that processes in the VLG reveal the Internet Unconscious, which contains an illusory belief that ultimate freedom of speech is achieved in cyberspace and that forum members always show respect and tolerance to different opinions.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/388862.html
I may be wrong, but unrealistic expectations and illusory beliefs (for example, regarding infallibility, availability, and tolerance) may be part of the group dynamic now. I say part of the group dynamic because I don't mean to attribute them to particular individuals, though particular individuals may be expressing them now.
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 12, 2004, at 12:06:03
In reply to Re: group dynamic + please be civil » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 3:41:24
>
> The above remind me of something Haim Weinberg said about virtual large groups:
>
> > Unfortunately, idealization is a double-edged sword. It fosters unrealistic expectations of the group leader, and when these expectations are not met, the group becomes furious.
> >I find it very interesting, Bob, that you left out a very salient part of Mr. Weinberg's advice to virtual VLG administators: "it (idealization) creates an intensive counter-transference reaction of the leader. It is very easy to fall into the trap." This is exactly what many of us accused you of in this thread, namely that you let counter-transference get the best of you with newwife. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, after all, you're human. If you trust the group it can dynamically work it out with you. I don't think I could even read so many posts as you do without building some pretty strong feelings about the posters and myself. You maintain that your response was purely neutral, a cerebral inquiry to have her further clarify her analogy. I will accept that (or I'm trying to, anyway). I just wanted to note the curious ommission in your citation.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 2:05:18
In reply to Re: group dynamic + please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 12, 2004, at 12:06:03
> I just wanted to note the curious ommission in your citation.
More evidence that I'm not perfect. :-)
Seriously, I left it out because it didn't have to do with the point I was trying to make. But what kind of countertransference did you see me as having?
Bob
Posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 7:38:44
In reply to Re: group dynamic, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 2:05:18
> > I just wanted to note the curious ommission in your citation.
>
> More evidence that I'm not perfect. :-)
>
> Seriously, I left it out because it didn't have to do with the point I was trying to make. But what kind of countertransference did you see me as having?
>
> BobI appreciate the humor in your response. I was saying that leaving it out was conspicuous, as if you intended (consciously or unconsciously) for us not to see the whole message. Could it be that the idealization dynamic works both ways? The group expects you to be perfect so that somehow this pressure either externally imposed or self-imposed causes counter-transference (whatever that is)? Isn't there a famous phrase, "I don't know what counter-transference is, but I know it when I see it"? Somehow, someway, without hearing the intonation of your voice, a part of the group detected sarcasm,condensation,ridicule, something bad in your question to newwife. I submit that your multiple PBCs and no block either meant that you felt some culpability or you were pleased with how the group handled the matter. If I may be so bold as to speak for others, many of us would like to think it was it was a little of both.
-Toph
Posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 7:56:36
In reply to Re: group dynamic » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 7:38:44
> ...condensation,... LOL
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 10:03:14
In reply to Re: group dynamic » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 7:38:44
> > > idealization ... creates an intensive counter-transference reaction of the leader. It is very easy to fall into the trap.
> >
> > what kind of countertransference did you see me as having?
>
> Could it be that the idealization dynamic works both ways? The group expects you to be perfect so that somehow this pressure either externally imposed or self-imposed causes counter-transference (whatever that is)?That's an interesting theory, that idealization could be felt as pressure. I think what he meant, however, was the leader also seeing himself or herself as ideal.
> Somehow, someway, without hearing the intonation of your voice, a part of the group detected sarcasm,condensation,ridicule, something bad in your question to newwife.
I don't know about "detected in", how about "attributed to"?
> > > The LG is full of negative feelings: the frustration of not being heard or mirrored, the alienation one feels in the crowd, the bombarding by stimuli that blocks cognitive functions, the tendency to find some refuge from losing one's identity in the mob by clinging to subgroups and attacking other subgroups.
Different people may "hold" for the group (by expressing or being seen as expressing) these feelings at different times. Maybe at that time it served a function to see me as holding them?
> your multiple PBCs and no block
I did finally block her, but earlier today I saw I just said "please be civil" in the subject line. I guess that would fit with your culpability theory!
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 13, 2004, at 10:09:51
In reply to Re: group dynamic, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 10:03:14
> but earlier today I saw I just said "please be civil" in the subject line.
I noticed that. :) And also the lack of your customary smiley in your thank you to me.
It made me wonder if everything was ok with you.
It's none of my business, of course. But if everything isn't ok with you, I hope it gets better soon. And if everything is ok with you, just attribute this to extra fine tuned antennae.
Posted by Toph on October 13, 2004, at 14:31:02
In reply to Re: group dynamic, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2004, at 10:03:14
> > > > idealization ... It is very easy to fall into the trap.
> > >
> That's an interesting theory, that idealization could be felt as pressure. I think what he meant, however, was the leader also seeing himself or herself as ideal.
>
Would you please clarify why the leader sees himself as ideal? This seems to be the other side of Weinberg's sword - is it that the leader develops an illusionary belief that he is perfect, available, or tolerant, when in actuality he is less than ideal as he could make a mistake, need to distance himself from his stressful group or impulsively say something sarcastic, for example?> Different people may "hold" for the group (by expressing or being seen as expressing) these feelings at different times. Maybe at that time it served a function to see me as holding them?
>
So, by this, do you mean that, for example, I felt that it was ubsurd for newwife to suggest that problem posters be banished, and when you innocently queried her to clarify if this were the consequence she intended, I then transferred my distain, frustration, want to be sarcastic, whatever for newwife on to you and your motives?
-Toph
Posted by just plain jane on October 13, 2004, at 19:43:30
In reply to The Doctrine of Bob Infallibility, posted by Atticus on October 11, 2004, at 11:01:49
Are you at all familiar with the Ghostbusters movies??
The three stooges, errrr, gents :), who amused us so were
University Doctors of Parapsychology and Psychology with grants to do research
somewhere in New York (the sign on their building says Weaver Hall Department of Psychology) :Dr. Peter Venckman (Bill Muray)
Dr. Egan Spengler (Harold Ramis)
Dr. Ray Stantz (Dan Ackroyd)do you suppose... could this be a similar type Doctor?
(please dismiss any misspellings of the fictitious persons' names)
btw, nice job with the poetry
Posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:56:09
In reply to The Doc Bob » Atticus, posted by just plain jane on October 13, 2004, at 19:43:30
Just thought I'd share with the group my own experience with idealization in a clinical setting. I find that when I am geting personally uncomfortable with being "put on a pedestal" or being viewed as infallible by my clients, that gut feeling is a good diagnostic indicator that clinical idealization is occuring.
So I guess I am one who can feel, maybe not pressure, but rather perhaps cognitive dissonance with being the object of idealization.
Just my 3 cents...(inflation, you know)
gg
Posted by fayeroe on October 14, 2004, at 1:08:47
In reply to Re: group dynamic + please be civil » Atticus, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2004, at 3:41:24
I may be wrong, but unrealistic expectations and illusory beliefs (for example, regarding infallibility, availability, and tolerance) may be part of the group dynamic now. I say part of the group dynamic because I don't mean to attribute them to particular individuals, though particular individuals may be expressing them now.
****What would be unrealistic about not expecting sarcasm from you when replying to someone who was obviously trying to express herself clearly and succinctly? What are your expectations about the group?
Posted by Annierose on October 14, 2004, at 11:17:38
In reply to Re: idealization, posted by gardenergirl on October 13, 2004, at 19:56:09
gg - Could you explain further about "idealization"? It sounds like positive transferance, which is good, right? I guess thinking more about it, as much as I look up to my T, I don't put her on a pedestal. I feel free to disagree, ask for further explanation of an idea, etc. But I do hold her in high regard.
Annie
Posted by gardenergirl on October 14, 2004, at 20:55:46
In reply to Re: idealization » gardenergirl, posted by Annierose on October 14, 2004, at 11:17:38
Idealization can be viewed as a transference, but it is also a defense against something painful. By endowing a person with infallibility and/or unrealistic positive traits, it serves as a source for positive esteem in the client because they are affiliated with such a "great" person. So they must be "great" too.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2004, at 20:58:29
In reply to Re: idealization » Annierose, posted by gardenergirl on October 14, 2004, at 20:55:46
Nawwww. At least not in my case. It just gives the illusion of safety.
Posted by Annierose on October 14, 2004, at 22:05:18
In reply to Re: idealization » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2004, at 20:58:29
gg - very interesting! I think I understand it.
Thank you for your reply. Now I need to sit with the definition a bit to see if I "idealize" my T, or just plain think she's great.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.