Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 803345

Shown: posts 45 to 69 of 69. Go back in thread:

 

Re: My conclusion

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

 

Re: My conclusion » Racer

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

 

sigh

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

 

Re: support and education

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

 

Re: overgeneralizing

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 something

I 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

 

Re: overgeneralizing

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

 

Lou's request to Mr. Hsiung for a citation-ovrgn » Dr. Bob

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
>
> 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

 

correction to citation URL-ovrgn

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

 

Good point ! (nm) » Lou Pilder

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

 

Happyflower. good to see you :-) » happyflower

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

 

Lou's request to Mr. Hsiung clarification-poven?

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.htm

Mr. 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



 

Re: the flavor of the board

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.

 

Re: the flavor of the board

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.

 

Lou's reply to happyflower-gdpont » happyflower

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

 

Re: Lou's reply to happyflower-gdpont

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

 

Re: the flavor of the board » Jamal Spelling

Posted by seldomseen on January 8, 2008, at 21:24:55

In reply to Re: the flavor of the board, posted by Jamal Spelling on January 8, 2008, at 14:04:54

I agree, I think it's all about respecting other people's experiences.

Seldom.

 

Re: please be civil » Jamal Spelling

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2008, at 10:19:51

In reply to Re: the flavor of the board, posted by Jamal Spelling on January 8, 2008, at 14:04:54

> people feel so threatened by these discussions.

> 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.

Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.

But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.

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
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce

> For some reason, people get angry at the suggestion they might benefit from other interventions, in addition to their medication.

You can lead a horse to other interventions, but you can't make him drink them. :-)

> 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.

There might be more supportive or educational ways to resp ond than by challenging them...

Thanks,

Bob

 

Lou's reply to happyflower-deepblu » happyflower

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2008, at 16:29:04

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to happyflower-gdpont, posted by happyflower on January 8, 2008, at 18:14:49

> 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

happyflower,
You wrote,[...you made some very good points...].
I would like to share more of what I know from my perspective here that may be unbeknownst to some. The subject here IMO involves much more than the literal meaning of what an overgeneralization is. Thefreare more deeper meanings IMO that I think could be of benifit to some here in a mental health setting.
Let us look at one cognitive meaning of{overgeneralization}. One meaning is that {overgeneralization} is when you see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat. (citation 4B)
I think that by your posting your understanding here, that you could have a deep understanding of the issues here involved in this thread which I consider to be important to the goals here of support and education that could be in citation 4B that lists {overgeneralization} as a cognitive distortion. If you could click on the offered link here, we could have the opportunity to discuss this deeper if you would like.
Lou
citation 4B
http://www.sfpsychiatry.com/Links_files/Cognitive%20Distortions.pdf

 

Lou's reply to happyflower-arnbek

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2008, at 16:40:16

In reply to Lou's reply to happyflower-deepblu » happyflower, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2008, at 16:29:04

> > 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
>
> happyflower,
> You wrote,[...you made some very good points...].
> I would like to share more of what I know from my perspective here that may be unbeknownst to some. The subject here IMO involves much more than the literal meaning of what an overgeneralization is. Thefreare more deeper meanings IMO that I think could be of benifit to some here in a mental health setting.
> Let us look at one cognitive meaning of{overgeneralization}. One meaning is that {overgeneralization} is when you see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat. (citation 4B)
> I think that by your posting your understanding here, that you could have a deep understanding of the issues here involved in this thread which I consider to be important to the goals here of support and education that could be in citation 4B that lists {overgeneralization} as a cognitive distortion. If you could click on the offered link here, we could have the opportunity to discuss this deeper if you would like.
> Lou
> citation 4B
> http://www.sfpsychiatry.com/Links_files/Cognitive%20Distortions.pdf
>

happyflower,
Here is another link to aspects of the above in some more detail by Aaron Beck
Lou
http://www.candleinthedark.com/beck.html

 

Thanks Lou » Lou Pilder

Posted by kid47 on January 10, 2008, at 9:41:11

In reply to Lou's reply to happyflower-arnbek, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2008, at 16:40:16

The info on cognitive distortion was succinct and enlightening. Very helpful stuff.

Thanks

kid

PS.....Good to see you back at Babble

 

Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob

Posted by Jamal Spelling on January 10, 2008, at 13:00:50

In reply to Re: please be civil » Jamal Spelling, posted by Dr. Bob on January 9, 2008, at 10:19:51

> > people feel so threatened by these discussions.

> > 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.

> Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.

I can see how my statements might have offended others, and I apologize.

> But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.

Thank you. I don't take it personally, since you don't know me, as a person. And other people shouldn't ever take anything that I say personally either, since I don't know them, as persons, i.e. there is no objective basis for me to pass judgment on them.

 

Lou's reply to Kid47-cogdsrtion » kid47

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 10, 2008, at 13:42:51

In reply to Thanks Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by kid47 on January 10, 2008, at 9:41:11

> The info on cognitive distortion was succinct and enlightening. Very helpful stuff.
>
> Thanks
>
> kid
>
> PS.....Good to see you back at Babble

Kid47,
You wrote,[...Thanks Lou...Very helpfull...]
You are welcome. Could you post here what you thought to be helpful?
Lou

 

Lou

Posted by happyflower on January 11, 2008, at 20:35:25

In reply to Lou's reply to happyflower-deepblu » happyflower, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2008, at 16:29:04

Hi Lou,

Well you understand and I understand and if I thought it would help this site become better or at least change it's rules, I would elaborate on it.

But I have tried doing this before, and well, my time would be better off doing something else more meaningful to me right now. It is Dr. Bob's site and he can do whatever he wants, and I finally accept that. I am glad you are trying though.

 

Lou's reply to happyflower-gld » happyflower

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 11, 2008, at 22:50:50

In reply to Lou, posted by happyflower on January 11, 2008, at 20:35:25

> Hi Lou,
>
> Well you understand and I understand and if I thought it would help this site become better or at least change it's rules, I would elaborate on it.
>
> But I have tried doing this before, and well, my time would be better off doing something else more meaningful to me right now. It is Dr. Bob's site and he can do whatever he wants, and I finally accept that. I am glad you are trying though.

happyflower,
You wrote,[...if I thought it would help this site become better...tried..before...I'm glad you are trying...]
I am glad that you are glad.
Lou

 

Re: thanks (nm) » Jamal Spelling

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 14, 2008, at 4:13:09

In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Jamal Spelling on January 10, 2008, at 13:00:50


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.