![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:48
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests' » Dinah, posted by violette on June 20, 2010, at 19:31:24
I wasn't referring to Psych Central either. The forums I was referring to were hobby related. And the hobbies were things you would typically think of as very very innocuous.
I signed up for a hobby group, moderated and with membership approval, just a few weeks ago. There was a day or so of niceness, then a flurry of posts... well, they wouldn't be allowed here. It all degenerated into a couple of people each trying to prove that they were innocent and the other was guilty. With far too many others jumping in on one side or the other. While I was wondering how on earth either "side" could possibly think they were coming across at all well themselves.
Eventually the posts abruptly stopped so I assume off board moderation took place.
I quietly and without a single post, left the group. I don't need that in my life when I'm trying to pursue enjoyment of a hobby.
This was by no means an isolated experience. It is more the norm than an exception in my experience. Not only online but in person too. You should hear the stories my husband can tell about a national group he briefly joined - a group not at all associated in the mind with acrimony. I'd like to be more of an optimistic about the potential of humans to live in harmony with no authoritative intervention, but my experience really doesn't support such optimism.
Again, this has nothing to do with any group any Babbler would likely have heard of or ever belonged to. Nothing at all to do with mental health.
I'm very certain that there are exceptions to this general rule. I may have even run across one or two in my life. :) So I'm definitely not negating your experience. I am glad you found such a place, and hope that you treasure it well. Such places are treasures indeed.
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:48
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests' » violette, posted by Dinah on June 20, 2010, at 20:19:56
I know one National Osteoporosis everyone supports and tries to help each other. And not all agree on the treatment options. It's kind of like putting their heads together and trying to figure out the best way to heal. Other topics also. I do also like facebook as you can delete stuff you regret posting. And take someone off on your own if not to your liking. I feel that while gone today so much as gone on. What happened to the babble I remember? Phillipa
Posted by Emily Elizabeth on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:48
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests' » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on June 20, 2010, at 21:38:42
Sorry, just needed to add an important letter to the subject line. :)
Best,
EE
Posted by Deneb on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:49
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests', posted by Emily Elizabeth on June 20, 2010, at 22:01:03
Posted by violette on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:49
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests', posted by Emily Elizabeth on June 20, 2010, at 22:01:03
That is so funny that I couldn't resist deleting a letter to get the old subject line back..I can't believe that wasn't noticed earlier.
lol
Posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2010, at 12:00:43
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests' » Emily Elizabeth, posted by violette on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:49
Wow went from meds, to social to here? Just looking at boards saw this. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 21, 2010, at 15:13:01
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ihnphicehmow » Lou Pilder, posted by violette on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:47
> Lou,
>
> I forgot to say - it's not that I am uninterested in your situation with the anti-semantic statements you refer to, but I just don't have the time or motivation to look into it.
>
> I'd be disgusted if I came across an anti-sematic statement and I would think it would be very harmful and irresponsible to allow someone to post them here. I generally don't believe in censorship but I think if someone wrote an anti-sematic statement with ill intent, and did not correct themselves, they should be banned from posting altogether. If they said something of that nature, it should be brought to their attention by whoever sees it; it could be a typographical error or a misunderstanding, but if others conclude the person truly intended to convey racist views after it was first questioned as a possible mistake or misunderstanding-I think they should not be permitted to post here.
>
> Statements can be misinterpreted, so it would depend upon the situation. If a non anti-sematic person was referencing history, they could quote an anti-sematic statement in conversation to convey a point in reference to something else. So you see, it would depend on the context of the statement. Sometimes others' statements are misinterpreted since communication is a two-way concept. Dialogue between and among members should be encouraged to determine the truth of the situation.violette,
You wrote,[...don't have the time or motivation to look...harmful and irresponsible to allow...be brought to their attention by whoever sees it...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to thew following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. In,[...don't have the time or motivation to look....]
1. redacted by respondent
B. In [...harmful and irresponsible to allow...]
as to what you are wanting to mean here,
1. would the members or the adminstrators or both or someone/something else be those that could be irresponsible?
2. what kind of harm could occur if an antisemitic statement is allowed to be posted here (without sanction)?
3. Who could be the people that the harm could come to?
4. what actions could make any irresponsibility turned into responsibility?
5. In your opinion, do you think that the administrators could be held liable for any people's injuries or deaths if they became victims of antisemitic violence, or anti-Islamic violence or anti something else violence, and it could be shown that the one's that did the violence acted on what they were led to believe was supportive here in relation to a statement that could arrouse antisemitic feelings or anti other feelings, as being allowed to stand without the rule drafter posting as to if they do or do not consider the statement in and of itself supportive or not as a reply from a request from a Jewish member that is concerned about the potential of him becoming a victim of antisemitic violence as a result of what the statement in question could purport?
C. In, [...be brought to their attention by whoever sees it...]
1. For those that want to see the post in question, here is the link to see the post on the faith board and then the link to my request bringing it to the attention of Mr. Hsiung on the admin board.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/941769.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/950671.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2010, at 18:08:47
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests' » Dinah, posted by violette on June 21, 2010, at 10:17:47
> Is there anyway you could reword your phrases so that do not resemble parental shaming techniques?
>
> violette> As a college teacher, I try never to shame students in my classes, though I have colleagues who use it as a regular part of their pedagogy. But shaming a student for getting something wrong, or even for falling sleep, just feels creepy to me. Which is not to say I don't correct students or let them know it bothers me when the fall asleep, etc.
>
> chujoeI'm open to rephrasing my requests, what do you all think would be better?
--
> The technique you have been using here is similar to shaming done by families. ... I'm triggered by the way you go about this. ... I find the way this is done to be upsetting, offending, and it may be hurtful to community members who are sensitive to this type of behavior.
>
> > (The demands of a dysfunctional shame-bound family are irrational and inconsistent, for the family only knows it is unhappy and does not know what would make things better. The child becomes the scapegoat for the family's incompetency in solving its problems-in-living.)> I had to grow up with the effects of a family member who was repeatedly shamed during childhood ... It's sad to see the effects of shaming on this person in my family, and it has affected my life in so many ways.
>
> violette> Whenever Dr. Bob gives me that ultimatum to be civil or else It reminds me of my dad letting me know he was in power.
> the shaming technique of my parents somehow lead to internalizing stressors from the tactic which eventually lead to social phobia panic attacks when in the presence of any authority figure provoked panic attacks. This has never abated and led to avoiding all such situations.
>
> bulldog2> the word "paternalistic" occurred to me ... I am pretty sensitive to this since I experienced shaming virtually every day of my life until I was 18 and went away to college.
>
> chujoeI agree, these situations certainly could be triggering for people who were shamed a lot in the past. But shaming them isn't my intent.
Neither do I see my "demands" as irrational or inconsistent. And I do know what I think would make things better: being civil and staying connected (not being blocked).
What if those goals were seen as reasonable? Then these situations would be opportunities to feel pride instead of shame and panic.
> My guess is that Dr. Bob's goal is to encourage the community to take on some of the responsibility of making sure Babble remains a place of support and education, and/or to encourage all posters to recognize that they aren't powerless with regard to Admin. I think those are actually laudable goals.
Yes, and thank you.
> But I think it actually makes it very difficult to do what he is asking. Once he makes the request, anyone who tries to say anything appears to be doing it for his sake, not for the sake of the poster(s).
>
> DinahPeople don't have to wait for me to ask. And does it have to be either-or? Couldn't they do it both for the poster and for me?
--
> part of respecting others also involves being critical of one's own views and developing the ability to hear oneself as others do. ... I admit to being baffled by the seemingly arbitrary use of the moderator's power on this forum to threaten Bulldog with expulsion for describing as "arrogant" a series of remarks that were in fact arrogant while saying noting about Christ-empowered's patently ridiculous claim that "psychiatrists kill people every day.
>
> chujoeHow do others hear incivility?
If a claim is patently ridiculous, and a poster is asked for evidence:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100528/msgs/951398.html
and doesn't reply, is it necessary for me to say anything?
> I'd like to think the members here could work stuff out among themselves, as we are all either adults or close enough. All the censoring can make ya feel like walking on eggshells.
>
> violetteIn my experience, even adults aren't always able to work things out themselves. And can be like eggshells.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 21, 2010, at 20:13:27
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests', posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2010, at 18:08:47
> > Is there anyway you could reword your phrases so that do not resemble parental shaming techniques?
> >
> > violette
>
> > As a college teacher, I try never to shame students in my classes, though I have colleagues who use it as a regular part of their pedagogy. But shaming a student for getting something wrong, or even for falling sleep, just feels creepy to me. Which is not to say I don't correct students or let them know it bothers me when the fall asleep, etc.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> I'm open to rephrasing my requests, what do you all think would be better?
>
> --
>
> > The technique you have been using here is similar to shaming done by families. ... I'm triggered by the way you go about this. ... I find the way this is done to be upsetting, offending, and it may be hurtful to community members who are sensitive to this type of behavior.
> >
> > > (The demands of a dysfunctional shame-bound family are irrational and inconsistent, for the family only knows it is unhappy and does not know what would make things better. The child becomes the scapegoat for the family's incompetency in solving its problems-in-living.)
>
> > I had to grow up with the effects of a family member who was repeatedly shamed during childhood ... It's sad to see the effects of shaming on this person in my family, and it has affected my life in so many ways.
> >
> > violette
>
> > Whenever Dr. Bob gives me that ultimatum to be civil or else It reminds me of my dad letting me know he was in power.
>
> > the shaming technique of my parents somehow lead to internalizing stressors from the tactic which eventually lead to social phobia panic attacks when in the presence of any authority figure provoked panic attacks. This has never abated and led to avoiding all such situations.
> >
> > bulldog2
>
> > the word "paternalistic" occurred to me ... I am pretty sensitive to this since I experienced shaming virtually every day of my life until I was 18 and went away to college.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> I agree, these situations certainly could be triggering for people who were shamed a lot in the past. But shaming them isn't my intent.
>
> Neither do I see my "demands" as irrational or inconsistent. And I do know what I think would make things better: being civil and staying connected (not being blocked).
>
> What if those goals were seen as reasonable? Then these situations would be opportunities to feel pride instead of shame and panic.
>
> > My guess is that Dr. Bob's goal is to encourage the community to take on some of the responsibility of making sure Babble remains a place of support and education, and/or to encourage all posters to recognize that they aren't powerless with regard to Admin. I think those are actually laudable goals.
>
> Yes, and thank you.
>
> > But I think it actually makes it very difficult to do what he is asking. Once he makes the request, anyone who tries to say anything appears to be doing it for his sake, not for the sake of the poster(s).
> >
> > Dinah
>
> People don't have to wait for me to ask. And does it have to be either-or? Couldn't they do it both for the poster and for me?
>
> --
>
> > part of respecting others also involves being critical of one's own views and developing the ability to hear oneself as others do. ... I admit to being baffled by the seemingly arbitrary use of the moderator's power on this forum to threaten Bulldog with expulsion for describing as "arrogant" a series of remarks that were in fact arrogant while saying noting about Christ-empowered's patently ridiculous claim that "psychiatrists kill people every day.
> >
> > chujoe
>
> How do others hear incivility?
>
> If a claim is patently ridiculous, and a poster is asked for evidence:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100528/msgs/951398.html
>
> and doesn't reply, is it necessary for me to say anything?
>
> > I'd like to think the members here could work stuff out among themselves, as we are all either adults or close enough. All the censoring can make ya feel like walking on eggshells.
> >
> > violette
>
> In my experience, even adults aren't always able to work things out themselves. And can be like eggshells.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I agree, these situatons certainly could be triggering for people who were shamed a lot in the past. But shaming them is not my intent...].
So what? The end result could be that the triggering could happen regardless what your intent is.
Is this not analogous to your rule saying that if what people post here could have the potential to lead another to feel put down, to not post anything that could lead someone to feel put down, does it not? If not, could you post here why not? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou Pilder
Posted by chujoe on June 22, 2010, at 8:17:20
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests', posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2010, at 18:08:47
>>How do others hear incivility?
If a claim is patently ridiculous, and a poster is asked for evidence:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100528/msgs/951398.html
and doesn't reply, is it necessary for me to say anything?<<
What bothers me is the peculiar rhetoric of several of the anti-med posters in which they talk about being "clean" for x number of months, and in which they refer to drugs as "chemicals" and in which they make global statements not just "I statements" that imply that many posters on the board are deluded, ignorant, etc. because they use psych drugs. This sort of language clearly equates the use of prescribed drugs with the use of street drugs.
As I have already explained, most of the posters here who defend the use of psych drugs here do so while readily admitting that such drugs are not for everyone, that they can be misused, that they have serious side effects, should not be forced on people etc. I have not seen equal open-mindedness from the anti-med folks. Also, being told, "If you're happy with your drugs..." or that people "exist in a state of med induced bliss..." I find that condescending and deeply offensive.
So my protest is against the asymmetrical treatment of these anti-med posters and Bulldog2, who was, I believe, punished for using specific "uncivil" phrases while others were allowed to deploy an entire rhetoric of incivility without being censured. Civility involves much more that merely avoiding certain words; part of civility can also involve refusing to be bullied or lied to.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 17:49:11
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests', posted by chujoe on June 22, 2010, at 8:17:20
> What bothers me is the peculiar rhetoric of several of the anti-med posters in which they talk about being "clean" for x number of months, and in which they refer to drugs as "chemicals"
I think I'd probably consider that OK.
> and in which they make global statements not just "I statements" that imply that many posters on the board are deluded, ignorant, etc. because they use psych drugs.
Implications are in the eye of the beholder, but if they could lead others to feel accused or put down, I'd consider them uncivil. If I missed any of those, please notify us and we'll take another look.
> Also, being told, "If you're happy with your drugs..." or that people "exist in a state of med induced bliss..." I find that condescending and deeply offensive.
Maybe, it might depend on the "..."...
> part of civility can also involve refusing to be bullied or lied to.
Would you consider it civil to call a bully a bully?
Bob
Posted by violette on June 22, 2010, at 20:24:16
In reply to Re: wording of pubic 'rephrasing requests', posted by Dr. Bob on June 21, 2010, at 18:08:47
"I'm open to rephrasing my requests, what do you all think would be better?"
As I said, a brilliant and reticent web mastermind can figure it out...though i see you have a background in mathematics, so maybe you somehow are less inclined toward the dynamics of emotions and personal communication/dyads?
it's your rule and according to your rule, if others are put down by a comment, it would be uncivil (regardless of intent). A few of us said we felt 'put down' by your statements/methods.
Actually, Bulldog and Christ Empowered had already made amends on the Medication board right before you blocked Bulldog (sent him to his room).
Good luck with your forum administration issues.
"Believing that making you ashamed would motivate you to behave as they wished (The demands of a dysfunctional shame-bound family are irrational and inconsistent, for the family only knows it is unhappy and does not know what would make things better. The child becomes the scapegoat for the family's incompetency in solving its problems-in-living.), your parents intended you to feel shame about yourself for your "bad" behavior. Sometimes, they even rationalized that shaming you was "for your own good."
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 21:46:01
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests' » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on June 22, 2010, at 20:24:16
> > I'm open to rephrasing my requests, what do you all think would be better?
>
> As I said, a brilliant and reticent web mastermind can figure it out...Well, what I've figured out is what I'm using. If others would like to work on an improving that, I'm still open to input.
> it's your rule and according to your rule, if others are put down by a comment, it would be uncivil (regardless of intent). A few of us said we felt 'put down' by your statements/methods.
That's to be supportive. My primary role here isn't to support individual posters, it's to manage the community. People may feel put down when I block them, too.
> > Believing that making you ashamed would motivate you to behave as they wished (The demands of a dysfunctional shame-bound family are irrational and inconsistent, for the family only knows it is unhappy and does not know what would make things better. The child becomes the scapegoat for the family's incompetency in solving its problems-in-living.), your parents intended you to feel shame about yourself for your "bad" behavior. Sometimes, they even rationalized that shaming you was "for your own good.
>
> http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.htmlThanks for sharing that link. Also from the "Healing Shame" section of that page:
> Replace shame with mature guilt. Guilt has often received bad press, and well it should--if, and only if, you are talking about neurotic guilt--guilt that self-flagellates and changes nothing. If you are talking about mature guilt, then guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. Shame, on the other hand comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do. To illustrate: John feels shame that he is not the sort of person who can ever excel at his work. Whatever happens, a demotion, a "blowing-out" by his boss, he senses that this is because he is "basically inadequate," so he hangs his head and lowers his eyes and dampens his energy. Finding the "smarts" and the courage to re-evaluate himself as "guilty" of inertia and poor training, he begins to create and achieve goals that are possible for him. So if he sets certain standards, and then if he doesn't achieve them, he can rightly feel guilty that he is failing and can increase his efforts to succeed, or redefine his goals. He has moved into consciousness that his worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
Do you see my requests as more shaming or guilt-tripping?
Bob
Posted by chujoe on June 23, 2010, at 6:43:42
In reply to Re: wording of posts, posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 17:49:11
"Would you consider it civil to call a bully a bully?"
Yes. "Civil" comes from the same root as "civilization" and "civilized." To live in civilization requires more than being nice -- sometimes it is necessary to call a bully a bully. Unchecked, bullies make civilization -- and, indeed, civility itself -- impossible. You posted a quotation from Violette's link about "mature guilt" -- that is exactly what calling a bully a bully is intended to engender.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:23:49
In reply to Re: wording of posts, posted by chujoe on June 23, 2010, at 6:43:42
> > Would you consider it civil to call a bully a bully?
>
> Yes. "Civil" comes from the same root as "civilization" and "civilized." To live in civilization requires more than being nice -- sometimes it is necessary to call a bully a bully. Unchecked, bullies make civilization -- and, indeed, civility itself -- impossible. You posted a quotation from Violette's link about "mature guilt" -- that is exactly what calling a bully a bully is intended to engender.I agree, bullies need to be checked. But here, that's my role. And the role of posters is to support and educate.
Bob
Posted by chujoe on June 26, 2010, at 11:16:36
In reply to Re: wording of posts, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:23:49
> I agree, bullies need to be checked. But here, that's my role. And the role of posters is to support and educate.
>
> BobI can accept that, but it highlights the different kind of "ownership" you have from the posters here & the way it potentially infantalizes community members, no matter how nice a Mr. Rogers you are. Probably an insoluble problem in a space like this.
Posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:00:10
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests', posted by Dr. Bob on June 22, 2010, at 21:46:01
"Do you see my requests as more shaming or guilt-tripping?" -Bob
Hi Bob,
I see the manner in which you ostracize a person as shaming. My conclusion is based primarily upon what I learned from reading Bradshaw's work; your requests are similar to how some abusive families shame its members. It seems like an odd policy for a mental health professional to employ on a mental health related forum.
Some people might not be familar with, or do not wish to know about the possible effects of shame on their inner state, though others have provided examples of that awareness. It would be ideal if everyone who experiences your ostracization turned the situation around to a positive. And although I have no one particular in mind, it could trigger new members...in addition to regular members who may or may not be silent about this....Some newer members may be new and not realize making 'generalizations' in casual speech or pointing out, for example, someone who posts with bullying intent, are uncivil acts.
As for me personally, I'd rather individually address someone directly to settle a conflict or potential conflict rather than asking you or being forced to accept your 'coming to the rescue'. I've done it before and have seen others do it without escalations. I've seen alot of apologies to one another recently-to clarify misunderstandings or perceptions of negative feelings associated with mere disagreements. That seems to work, though I can certainly see how things can progress to greater conflict.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I realize you can't make everyone happy here; but, at the same time, some of the administrative policies here seem way "off" to me.
When I use this forum, I can't help but think about the potential harm to others who may (or may not) already have internalized shame/self-worth issues, and am just trying to prevent that from happening in the small way that I can or possibly can. Thanks
Posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:06:23
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests' » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:00:10
Just for the record - I am not claiming that bringing this up is all about benevolence...the hypervigilance, trying to 'prevent' harm to others, or whatever you call the behavior - is pretty common for some survivors of childhood abuse. My intentions are generally good, but I do admit I have influential heuristics intertwined with my thoughts - like everyone else on the planet.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 17:51:57
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests' » Dr. Bob, posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:00:10
> "Do you see my requests as more shaming or guilt-tripping?" -Bob
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I see the manner in which you ostracize a person as shaming. My conclusion is based primarily upon what I learned from reading Bradshaw's work; your requests are similar to how some abusive families shame its members. It seems like an odd policy for a mental health professional to employ on a mental health related forum.
>
> Some people might not be familar with, or do not wish to know about the possible effects of shame on their inner state, though others have provided examples of that awareness. It would be ideal if everyone who experiences your ostracization turned the situation around to a positive. And although I have no one particular in mind, it could trigger new members...in addition to regular members who may or may not be silent about this....Some newer members may be new and not realize making 'generalizations' in casual speech or pointing out, for example, someone who posts with bullying intent, are uncivil acts.
>
> As for me personally, I'd rather individually address someone directly to settle a conflict or potential conflict rather than asking you or being forced to accept your 'coming to the rescue'. I've done it before and have seen others do it without escalations. I've seen alot of apologies to one another recently-to clarify misunderstandings or perceptions of negative feelings associated with mere disagreements. That seems to work, though I can certainly see how things can progress to greater conflict.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, I realize you can't make everyone happy here; but, at the same time, some of the administrative policies here seem way "off" to me.
>
> When I use this forum, I can't help but think about the potential harm to others who may (or may not) already have internalized shame/self-worth issues, and am just trying to prevent that from happening in the small way that I can or possibly can. Thanksviolette,
You wrote,[...some of the administrative policies here seem xxx yyy to me...]and [...trying to prevent...]
I am unsure as to what policies you are meaning. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Are the policies that are xxx yyy listed in the TOS here?
B. If so, could you list those here? If not, what are they?
C. In any of those that you may list here, being xxx yyy, what criteria do you use to make the determination in your thinking that they are xxx yyy?
D. Could, in your opinion, the policies in question foster a {false harmony} to some members here?
E. In your opinion, could the policies in question cause depression to some members here, or prevent a person from recovering from depression. If so, could you post your opinion here as to if shaming could harm other members here that are not part of the discussions involving the adminstrative actions in question that are xxx yyy?
F. Are you aquainted with the writings of Dory Hallander, PhD (Psychology)?
E. Other questions if answers are posted here.
In,[...trying to prevent...],
F. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 17:59:21
In reply to Lou's request-schaymmeighnghrmzehvreewn » violette, posted by Lou Pilder on June 26, 2010, at 17:51:57
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 1:45:57
In reply to Re: wording of public 'rephrasing requests', posted by violette on June 26, 2010, at 17:06:23
> > I agree, bullies need to be checked. But here, that's my role. And the role of posters is to support and educate.
>
> I can accept that, but it highlights the different kind of "ownership" you have from the posters here & the way it potentially infantalizes community members, no matter how nice a Mr. Rogers you are. Probably an insoluble problem in a space like this.
>
> chujoe> It would be ideal if everyone who experiences your ostracization turned the situation around to a positive. ... Some newer members may be new and not realize making 'generalizations' in casual speech or pointing out, for example, someone who posts with bullying intent, are uncivil acts.
>
> As for me personally, I'd rather individually address someone directly to settle a conflict or potential conflict rather than asking you or being forced to accept your 'coming to the rescue'. I've done it before and have seen others do it without escalations. I've seen alot of apologies to one another recently-to clarify misunderstandings or perceptions of negative feelings associated with mere disagreements. That seems to work, though I can certainly see how things can progress to greater conflict.
>
> violetteI agree, some community members will feel infantilized if constrained, and that's a problem, since IMO some constraints are necessary.
But I oversimplified. Their *primary* role is to support and educate, but they can also do a lot to help this site run smoothly:
They can help orient newer members. Everyone receives some orientation during the registration process, but it can be a lot to process and retain.
They can encourage others to interpret things more charitably and not to address those they can't get along with. Interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. They can help others develop those skills.
They certainly can address others directly to resolve (or, even better, to avoid) conflicts (as long as they're civil, since IMO being uncivil increases the risk of escalation).
Before others are blocked, they can show them how they might rephrase or suggest they apologize. After they're blocked, they can try to help them turn it into a positive, for example, by replacing shame with mature guilt.
And of course they can volunteer to be deputy administrators themselves.
--
> I see the manner in which you ostracize a person as shaming.
Why do you see the result as shame as opposed to guilt?
> > Guilt is believing that one has done something bad; shame is believing that one is bad.
http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.html
> I am not claiming that bringing this up is all about benevolence...the hypervigilance, trying to 'prevent' harm to others, or whatever you call the behavior - is pretty common for some survivors of childhood abuse. My intentions are generally good, but I do admit I have influential heuristics intertwined with my thoughts - like everyone else on the planet.
>
> violetteI understand you want to make the site better, and I appreciate your input -- and self-reflection. Might heuristics like that also lead survivors of childhood abuse to want to protect others from mature guilt?
Bob
Posted by chujoe on June 28, 2010, at 7:48:01
In reply to Re: helping this site run smoothly, posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2010, at 1:45:57
>> ... Interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. They can help others develop those skills. <<
Community members may also decide that they do not want to participate in the Mr. Rogersifcation of the site. Actually, I agree that a site like this needs moderation -- of a sort that fosters an ethos of responsibility. Anyway, there is just a hint, in the language quoted above, of the sort of infantilization I'm concerned about, not that I have a solution. I guess, if pressed, I'd suggest just dropping the language that asks others to help an offending poster rephrase, replacing it with a suggestion that the poster review the site guidelines. That way, the community could join in if they wish, but without the whole "Now, children, can we show Johnny how we behave at Psychobabble..." attitude. [I exaggerate for emphasis & clarity.] You say above that that it's your job to check bullies, so check them. Recruiting others to "rephrase" and reeducate has a slightly Maoist tang about it. [Again, I exaggerate for emphasis & clarity.]
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 18:58:55
In reply to Re: helping this site run smoothly, posted by chujoe on June 28, 2010, at 7:48:01
> > Interacting with others may be frustrating, staying civil may be a challenge, and new skills may be required. They can help others develop those skills.
>
> Community members may also decide that they do not want to participate in the Mr. Rogersifcation of the site.Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Mr. Rogersifcation"?
> Actually, I agree that a site like this needs moderation -- of a sort that fosters an ethos of responsibility. Anyway, there is just a hint, in the language quoted above, of the sort of infantilization I'm concerned about, not that I have a solution. I guess, if pressed, I'd suggest just dropping the language that asks others to help an offending poster rephrase, replacing it with a suggestion that the poster review the site guidelines. That way, the community could join in if they wish, but without the whole "Now, children, can we show Johnny how we behave at Psychobabble..." attitude.
That very language is actually intended to foster an ethos of responsibility. As in, friends don't let friends get blocked.
> Recruiting others to "rephrase" and reeducate has a slightly Maoist tang about it.
Or, it reflects an Eastern/collectivist perspective more than a Western/individualistic one.
Bob
Posted by chujoe on June 30, 2010, at 12:29:40
In reply to Re: helping this site run smoothly, posted by Dr. Bob on June 29, 2010, at 18:58:55
>>Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Mr. Rogersifcation"?<<
My example, coming a little later in the post, was this: "Now, children, can we show Johnny how we behave at Psychobabble..." attitude. That is, the exertion of authority that pretends to be communitarian, collective, consensual. Typically, such forms of control find expression in cliches such as "Friends don't let friends [insert bad behavior of choice]."
But I may be overly suspicious. In the late 1960s I lived for a while with people associated with the Weathermen & who believed in the practice of "self-criticism," which consisted of describing one's deviationist tendencies and publicly resolving to hue closer to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine as understood by Chairman Mao. All strictly voluntary, of course. That's where my remark about Mao originates, in any case.
>>Or, it reflects an Eastern/collectivist perspective more than a Western/individualistic one.<<
Nevertheless, despite those experiences noted above (or perhaps because of them), I remain committed to a view of the individual that might best be described as Buddhist-Existentialist & that allows for individual authenticity balanced by a commitment to community. In practice this leads to the conclusion that the human individual is only authentically him- or herself within a community. Which is one reason I have spent so much time in Vietnam over the last fifteen years. It is also one of the reasons I like & admire Psychobabble.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 1, 2010, at 16:41:23
In reply to Re: helping this site run smoothly, posted by chujoe on June 30, 2010, at 12:29:40
> In the late 1960s I lived for a while with people associated with the Weathermen & who believed in the practice of "self-criticism," which consisted of describing one's deviationist tendencies and publicly resolving to hue closer to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine as understood by Chairman Mao. All strictly voluntary, of course.
It sounds like confession. :-)
> I remain committed to a view of the individual that might best be described as Buddhist-Existentialist & that allows for individual authenticity balanced by a commitment to community. In practice this leads to the conclusion that the human individual is only authentically him- or herself within a community. Which is one reason I have spent so much time in Vietnam over the last fifteen years. It is also one of the reasons I like & admire Psychobabble.
Thanks, I've valued your participation. That's one of the challenges here, balancing individual authenticity with a commitment to community.
Bob
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.