![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by Donna Louise on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Re: Therapy, posted by pulse on June 24, 2006, at 5:39:08
> why in world would you get re-directed to another board IF you mean re: any of your posts in this thread (or any other threads)?
>
> pb meds board has always run 'off topic.' sure hope it's not ever going to the trend at so many other fourms: 'off topic' police!
>
> that's also widely known a just plain over-moderating.
>
> the nature of our various dxes, even compliant ON meds, makes it pretty usual to discuss things tangentally.
>
> the pyschology board is not the one for me.
>
> pulse
>
>
>Yes, I was afraid we were too off the med topic here. I see others get redirected but what you say is very reassuring.
donna
Posted by Donna Louise on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Re: Therapy- DR,DECLAN » Paulbwell, posted by Declan on June 24, 2006, at 5:45:35
> Unfortunately I am not a doctor....just a double history major; but I wouldn't last long, I'd misbehave.
I just love history. I would love to audit some classes but that would require a commitment to leave the house.
I was once going to be an xray tech. I was doing really well until a dr. hollered at me. I walked out the door and never went back. I don't want to be anywhere people think it's ok to holler at me.donna
Posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Re: Therapy, posted by pulse on June 24, 2006, at 5:39:08
I'm using pulse's comments, but this is NOT directed at pulse. His well-put & honest thoughts are just a great example to highlight something I've wanted to say for a while.
> sure hope it's not ever going to the trend at so many other fourms: 'off topic' police!
Anything is allowed, but if a thread runs into a series of other-topic posts, it'll probably be re-directed. Unfortunately, re-direction usually kills a discussion, especially since the automatic notices don't follow the redirect. Bob has always re-directed threads; only recently does he seem to be easing up or slacking, depending on your point of view.
> the nature of our various dxes, even compliant ON meds, makes it pretty usual to discuss things tangentally.
Very true. Well put.
> the pyschology board is not the one for me.
Even if you're primarily discussing psychotherapy?! Why not? Is it because most of the people are different? Then the segregation of the boards is by popularity, like in high school, and not topic!
I have tried for YEARS to get discussions going on the Psych board that are contrary to its prevailing dependent-on-my-therapist cathartic dyadic zeitgeist with minimal success. I remember mattdds failed at that and essentially left Babble. But of COURSE the attempts will always fail if people with other ideas and attitudes say "The Psych board is not for me" even when discussing psychotherapy!!
Segregation of topic is exactly why Bob created the psych board in the first place. It was NOT so that a certain group (mostly women) can go over there, while this other group stays over here!
I've read several times lately where people say they're knowingly starting off-topic threads on the meds board because, "my friends are here", or "I don't know anyone on those other boards". Which is really cool that people feel that connection. But this isn't a high school lunch room. It's a topic-specific internet forum.
And THIS post, if anyone replies, will probably get re-directed, too, but I needed to say it. Thanks for reading.
Posted by Squiggles on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Why is Psych board not for you?, posted by pseudoname on June 24, 2006, at 8:47:33
> ...
> Anything is allowed, but if a thread runs into a series of other-topic posts, it'll probably be re-directed. Unfortunately, re-direction usually kills a discussion, especially since the automatic notices don't follow the redirect. Bob has always re-directed threads; only recently does he seem to be easing up or slacking, depending on your point of view.....
Redirection doesn't bother me. Right now,
I'm on vacation so I read the posts mostly,
but a change of pessimism regarding medications
is coming over me - not so much for my health
because lithium is an excellent drug (requiring
a meter - which could be manufactured if the
medical technologists put their heads together)
but for my close friend and friends of hers, some
of whom have died under sad conditions of mental
health care; losing some quality
of life for many years and being in a
chronic state of chemical bondage. I think other people too, suffer from inadequate or just poor drugs.I hope scientific endeavours are increased instead of grants for the genome project, e.g. - i mean what are they going to do if they find that mental illness IS genetic - change the genes in middle life, practice eugenics or just forget about psychopharmacology altogether;
Squiggles
Posted by Declan on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Re: Therapy- DR,DECLAN » Declan, posted by Donna Louise on June 24, 2006, at 8:10:05
It must be the power...some doctors have been very rude to me too, and it's something you hear again and again.
Posted by pulse on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:21
In reply to Why is Psych board not for you?, posted by pseudoname on June 24, 2006, at 8:47:33
thanks and fyi i'm female. ROFLMAO. are you male or female? don't know that it matters, just curious.
glad you liked and used my points, but the bulk of your post does *seem* to be directed at me, certainly toward the end. perhaps your intent was to get everyone to think about all YOUR good points, and, as is your hope, then take some action toward those ends.
i wish the psychology board was for me. however, let's just say i've made a hard and fast rule/ promise to myself that currently prevents my being there.
i don't care either for what i believe you mean by segregation, but i would prefer some more organization in the psychology board. something along lines of what the owner/admin of crazymeds' crazy talk USED to do. i just visited there a few days ago, and was aghast at how lacking in the former good-natured poking fun at every dx under the sun - that it now is. my guess is that jerod finally, after fighting mightily and for far too long, caved to some sort of relentless pressure. anyone can only take so much. i could always be completely wrong re: the why/s of the extreme changes over there.
*i'm confused: first you say no to the off-topic police (agree it most definitely DOES kill discussions). then, you say yes to pb being topic-specific boards.
i realize that pb is huge and that probably only so many boards are feasible. not to segregate, but, rather as break-it-down categories. not to make cutesy, and often couterproductive clique-forming easy, but to prevent some to many untoward (minimizing) events from happening.
even though i've seen the other boards listed here for some time, it rarely occurs to me to go to them. also, i'm on sabbatical from therapy, and intent on lightening up, unless something really catches my interest such as the - in no way unusual - turn this very thread veered onto. i'd be more inclined to visit the social board.
as with donna, i see no reason for your post (or mine) to be re-directed.
*actually, i came back in for the following: gardengirl, you do an excellent job of moderating. you've that inate ability to be fair, funny, AND still be able to bring down the hammer hard and fast, when the relatively few situations here, warrant it. that's the kind of forum mod & admin. i was & also the kind of group facilitator i've been. 'dirty job but someone has to do it.' remember, though, gg, sometimes it can feel like 'no good deed goes unpunished.'
pulse, i AM woman.....
Posted by Declan on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Re: Why Psych board not for you? gg i forgot ty » pseudoname, posted by pulse on June 24, 2006, at 13:36:28
Hi Pulse
I went to Faith for a bit and made a display of myself by talking about the Gospel according to Thomas, sex, and the fascinating psychology of the Mass, but decided it was kinder all round not to do so.
I took you for a bloke too.
Declan
Posted by pulse on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Boards » pulse, posted by Declan on June 24, 2006, at 13:52:03
you 2 are killing me.
could it be TRUE that the short-lived 1, between the 2 good therapists i've had,...who, btw, had her eyes glued to my then husband's ...ummm, shall we say ....'lower region,' was right afterall? she said i'd been raised as if a son. i thought she was crazy as a loon.
ok: what/ why a bloke?
pulse, the gender-confused
Posted by Donna Louise on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Re: Boards » Declan, posted by pulse on June 24, 2006, at 14:36:09
> you 2 are killing me.
>
> could it be TRUE that the short-lived 1, between the 2 good therapists i've had,...who, btw, had her eyes glued to my then husband's ...ummm, shall we say ....'lower region,' was right afterall? she said i'd been raised as if a son. i thought she was crazy as a loon.
Pulse, FWIW, I knew you were a woman. Never entered my mind otherwise. However, I was tomboy and still am and we do relate pretty well so maybe I am just recognizing another tomboy? Or girl that has also been around the block a few times? Similar history thing. I guess with a name like Donna there is little doubt as to my gender.
dl
> ok: what/ why a bloke?
>
> pulse, the gender-confused
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Donna Louise on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Boards » pulse, posted by Declan on June 24, 2006, at 13:52:03
> Hi Pulse
> I went to Faith for a bit and made a display of myself by talking about the Gospel according to Thomas, sex, and the fascinating psychology of the Mass, but decided it was kinder all round not to do so.
> I took you for a bloke too.
> DeclanSounds fascinating to me. Maybe we could have a board for discussions of this nature. I am only have joking. Now that I think more about it, I am not joking. It would be fun and stimulating. Just what I am always looking for, fun and stimulation..
donna
Posted by pulse on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Re: Boards » pulse, posted by Donna Louise on June 25, 2006, at 5:08:33
Donna,
it's obvious you're highly intuitive.
< Or girl that has also been around the block a few times? Similar history thing. >
of the 2, it HAS to be the above 1!
believe it or not, i was as far way from a tomboy as could be; prissy little thing, but likely due to being an only child, was also always the natural leader w/ all my little friends.
i've 1 email addy & i've also used same - 'msprs' - at some net forums - as a joke on myself.
alot of my former men problems have to do with this: i look very feminine, even w/ no makeup or other 'accessories', so not a thing i can do about, not that i feel i should. contrasted with:
i'm as opposite as could be, far as the true nature i almost always show, if not immediately, then, just a very short way down road.
when i told my ex this theory, he commented simply, 'ya think? '
thank you,
pulse
Posted by pulse on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Re: Boards » Declan, posted by Donna Louise on June 25, 2006, at 5:19:13
< Just what I am always looking for, fun and stimulation.. >
i'll 2nd that.
pulse
Posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Re: Why Psych board not for you? gg i forgot ty » pseudoname, posted by pulse on June 24, 2006, at 13:36:28
> thanks and fyi i'm female.
Sorry.
> are you male or female? don't know that it matters, just curious.
Male. Everyone in Toronto said they thought I was a female.
Before they met me.
> the bulk of your post does *seem* to be directed at me, certainly toward the end.
You're right; I worded the last sections with "you". I should've at least rephrased that. I really didn't want to charge against you; it was something that had been building over a long time and I could've generalized it much better.
All the same, you seem pretty cool (like collected) and level in response to me, so thanks and sorry again.
> i wish the psychology board was for me. however, let's just say i've made a hard and fast rule/ promise to myself that currently prevents my being there.
Hmm.
> *i'm confused: first you say no to the off-topic police (agree it most definitely DOES kill discussions). then, you say yes to pb being topic-specific boards.
Topic-specific boards do help foster discussions and manage half a million posts. I'm sorry when discussions get re-directed, because it hurts them, but I think the major board divisions are workable.
Ditto your props to gg.
> pulse, i AM woman.....
Roar on! :-)
Posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to Why is Psych board not for you?, posted by pseudoname on June 24, 2006, at 8:47:33
…that I think the "prevailing zeitgeist" on the Psych Board is important and valuable, and I don't want anyone NOT to post about their experiences in that vein. I just would like to see, for my own development, some diversity and even pro-and-con discussions there.
Posted by Declan on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to and I should also add…, posted by pseudoname on June 25, 2006, at 11:15:40
All that stuff I wanted to post on Faith could have gone on Psychology. I'm not a Christian in a 'say the creed' sense and think that the question 'is it true' is kinda what you expect from a scientist or a child (excuse me). But there are important questions of values and suffering that I would like to talk about that have nothing to do with my T (excuse me again)and relate more to the sorts of things people talk about here. Still.....
Declan
Posted by llrrrpp on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to and I should also add…, posted by pseudoname on June 25, 2006, at 11:15:40
Yes, pseudo,
I think that the psych board also needs a bit more diversity. I think that the current discussions there are great. I'm getting a lot out of them, but if people aren't posting for various reasons, then I suppose i'm missing out on a lot too. That's too bad.In my case, my pdoc and T work together as a team. I know they talk a lot about my case in my absence, because I often don't have to give them updates on what's going on with the other. Also, they both have access to my records, so they can check my doses, and whether I've been showing up to my appt.s regularly. My T helps me get through my life when I have mushy brain from my meds, and he also has some really interesting ideas about how thoughts & the mind change and adjust in response to medicine. He's not an MD, but he's smart, and seems well-read, and that's good enough for me. My pdoc, on the other hand, is a very kind guy, super funny, and a great listener. He would probably be a good T, I just don't know how deep his training goes in that regard. So I can talk to him about behavior stuff, in addition to what the different drugs are doing.
He freely acknowledges that given my initial interview, the diagnosis of T and pdoc confirm each other and all that- there's still no accurate prediction of how I will respond to any given med. It's trial and error, and he seems to be pretty open to me giving suggestions, which is nice. Oh yeah, and he has samples too! I LOVE samples, it's like going trick-or-treating!!
Oh well- I guess I've blabbed on and on enough about this. I just wanted to put in my two cents that behavior and chemistry and cognition are not easily parsed into "discussion boards". If you come here to get support, why not post in multiple places? Variations on a theme? That way you expose the broadest range of psycho-babble folks to your concerns, and you increase your chances of getting feedback that might give you some choices, some inspiration, or at least a cyberhug
yours,
-ll
Posted by pulse on June 26, 2006, at 0:56:22
In reply to apology and clarifications » pulse, posted by pseudoname on June 25, 2006, at 10:49:28
thank you for your extensive apology.
i assure yout that i'm not all that cool & collected, but always nice to hear. it's especially nice now that i'm in the grips of this d*mnable summer SAD, plus, for first time ever, also still unable to sleep more than 4-5 hrs (i need 8-9). if no sleep, then the tummy goes, and, finally, depression (MDD this time on TOP of SSAD) will catch me, one way or the other.
so, i'm sure everyone can now understand re: this reason, why i, unlike some who care to, can't post on multiple boards.
i do much believe you and i could have some very good conversations, full of insight and learning, so i apologize to you for my not being able to post other than here.
regards,
pulse
Posted by Tamar on June 26, 2006, at 7:28:37
In reply to Why is Psych board not for you?, posted by pseudoname on June 24, 2006, at 8:47:33
> I have tried for YEARS to get discussions going on the Psych board that are contrary to its prevailing dependent-on-my-therapist cathartic dyadic zeitgeist with minimal success.This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by 'dependent-on-my-therapist cathartic dyadic zeitgeist'. Can you explain further?
Tamar
Posted by Poet on June 26, 2006, at 9:01:04
In reply to Therapy, posted by Declan on June 23, 2006, at 14:48:17
Hi Declan,
My math skills are pretty bad, so I won't even try to figure out the hours I've sat there for almost four years.
I think everybody has there comfort zone of topics and yours is history. Mine is film, but I can also get into politics, which is why I avoid the politics board. My T encourages me to speak my opinions, on Babble I'd get blocked.
Poet
Posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 10:44:32
In reply to Zeitgeist » pseudoname, posted by Tamar on June 26, 2006, at 7:28:37
Hi, Tamar.
> This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by 'dependent-on-my-therapist cathartic dyadic zeitgeist'. Can you explain further?
I guess I should first remind myself that I don't want anyone to shrink from posting and discussing all they want to about therapy in that category.
Also, in describing what I mean, it could sound like I'm being critical of fellow Babblers for being in such therapies in the first place. I don't want to leave people feeling that way. I believe that all people in therapy are doing the best they can, there's very little guidance or good information available to prospective clients, and there are so many unknowns that good results from any therapy often cannot be understood even in retrospect. There are many highly individualistic, idiosyncratic components in any therapy, and careless generalizations by me could throw people off. Even if I'm personally skeptical of these therapies' ultimate overall clinical efficacy, (a) I may be wrong, and (b) people may be getting something valuable out of them other than "clinical" benefit.
I'd appreciate any advice on how I talk about these things.
What I mean.
•dyadic: Psychotherapy that's long-term and focused on the relationship between the client and the therapist. The feelings the client develops about the T are often talked about as "transference" (although that word is often used here in other ways as well).
•cathartic: The experience of supposedly "buried" feelings, as well as (supposedly) transferential and other feelings, is seen as therapeutically essential. Clients may be told that, despite their doubt or denials, they have these feelings. Clients try to feel reactions more fully and freely about childhood experiences and about the therapist. Although this assertion may be challenged, it seems clear that the feelings most urgently sought and fostered are those in the categories of vulnerability and dependency.
•dependent-on-my-therapist: This condition can develop quite naturally in a therapy relationship that goes on for years, focuses on the therapist-client relationship, and highlights feelings of vulnerability and dependency. Clients in these therapies report intense emotional disturbance around issues of leaving the T, getting another T, cutting back on appointments, disagreeing with the T, etc.The therapies are also largely insight-based, seeking to understand that the client feels X now precisely due to specific early life events, which (the theories go) can be identified through nondirective, largely intuitive therapeutic techniques.
Many people will disagree with this statement, but I am firm: These therapies are simply a more freewheeling form of Freudian psychoanalysis with most of the terminology and trappings removed.
---------
I should point out that I've encountered very few hostile responses to my posts about other orientations, and in fact recently I have received explicit encouragement to post about them from more than one person on the Psych board. But general engagement with alternative threads doesn't happen.
And to me the zeigeist is overwhelming. I feel that alternative voices in the discussions are so few and far between. Maybe I'm just lonely in that way.
Thanks for question, Tamar. I hope things are going okay for you.
Posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 10:58:41
In reply to Re: Therapy » Declan, posted by Poet on June 26, 2006, at 9:01:04
> My math skills are pretty bad, so I won't even try to figure out the hours I've sat there for almost four years.
Hey, Po’.
For me, I’d be to afraid to figure out the actual amount of MONEY I’ve spent on therapy. It could be calculated in cars. New cars.
:-(
Posted by sleepygirl on June 26, 2006, at 12:12:46
In reply to and I should also add…, posted by pseudoname on June 25, 2006, at 11:15:40
are you hoping for a discussion of different types of therapies? any kind in particular?
Posted by llrrrpp on June 26, 2006, at 13:15:47
In reply to Re: Zeitgeist » Tamar, posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 10:44:32
I guess the reason why these topics (dependence on T, catharsis, dyadic) come up so often is because they are very natural to the client-T relationship, indeed any relationship.
For instance, I had weekly violin lessons from a woman for 3 years, and after that from a man for 4 years.
Dependence on Violin teacher to make progress learning violin, catharsis- learning how to do something musically, technically, and you figure out how it works and it's great!. and the relationship thing. My female teacher was a maternal figure. My male teacher was my spiritual advisor (he was born-again Christian). And so it goes with our important relationships.
I'm not quite sure that I've gotten to any point with my T where I have strong feelings about it. I'm very anxious before my sessions- like going to the dentist anxious. But once i'm there, I like my T. He's kind of like a professor/mentor/counsellor/advisor. Not romantic feelings, but more like feelings of respect and admiration. Catharsis- yep. I've done some hard core crying in my sessions. lost all my mascara on multiple occasions. Not dependent on him, but I did feel sad when he went on vacation 2 weeks ago. I was pretty unstable that week.
We don't do psychoanalysis. or strictly CBT either. kind of mixed and matched. He helps me figure out patterns in my major relationships and life events. Helps me interpret my strong feelings and confused interpretation of events. And generally helps me organize my memory. And he gives me lots of advice for dealing with difficult people and getting my life back on track. So.
Sorry I've only been in therapy for 3.5 months. I have nothing profound to offer here. Oh well.
I like hearing about other approaches though. Makes me think about relation between psychology and other things I study, like buddhism, for example.
Well take care all!
-ll
Posted by caraher on June 26, 2006, at 20:33:21
In reply to Re: Zeitgeist » Tamar, posted by pseudoname on June 26, 2006, at 10:44:32
Thanks for clarifying. I tend to have similar views and caught the gist of what you meant, but your explanation made clearer which parts of the meaning I'd assumed you truly intended.
My therepist works from a primary CBT orientation, and while I read many posts here about transference and countertransference and all that I don't think I'm personally missing anything by not having had much cause to investigate the client-therapist relationship in great detail. It's not that we never talked at all about where certain feelings come from, or about the therapy relationship between us. But the focus has been very practical and concrete. For instance, we made use of our relationship in therapy as a safe ground for me to practice things like making eye contact - a setting where anxiety about the behavior was present, but not overwhelming, in part because of the boundaries our relationship imposes.
But... on any discussion board, the topics of discussion are largely determined by the topics the most active people are most passionate about. This is no different. I participate when and where I feel I have something to contribute. I don't think it can be helped much if one introduces certain topics and wither away from neglect. Keep trying and eventually perhaps more like-minded people will feel at home.
Posted by Dinah on June 26, 2006, at 20:56:21
In reply to Re: Zeitgeist » pseudoname, posted by caraher on June 26, 2006, at 20:33:21
That's the whole key. As long as people don't try, there can be no momentum built up. If people put out topics, eventually like minded people will find the threads that interest them, and a certain momentum will build. If no threads get put out there, like minded people are more likely to read, and think this isn't the place for them.
And it can be. This is a big enough place for all sorts of therapy experiences. And I, at least, am interested in all sorts of experiences, not just ones that mirror mine. I just might not have anything useful to contribute other than encouragement.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.