![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 104 to 128 of 169. Go back in thread:
Posted by violette on August 3, 2010, at 10:44:17
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » violette, posted by SLS on August 3, 2010, at 5:12:54
Hi SLS,
Ron reminded me of someone I used to work with. In fact, he used the terms playground and kiddie pool to express anger about work scenerios "the system" while not being mean to individuals. While he was abrupt in his mannerisms, he was a sweetheart inside-a giving person. I got along with everyone at work and I'd always be one that sat and listened to his concerns, and at the end, he'd end up laughing and his soft side would come out.
I totally see your point. I also recognize some people may have never stepped foot in a therapist's office before and could possibly benefit from having someone listen to them.
Ron is obviously not the person I worked with, but I just don't see how he was hurting anyone with his words and thought he might benefit more from working through whatever was troubling to him if given the chance. If he wasn't expressing his anger in the manner which he did-jokes about the forum-I don't believe he would have had the chance to address anger buried deep inside.
When some people are brought up not allowed to express emotions, I think it's better to express them in that way vs. keeping them inside. And if Ron didn't express anger in the way he did, I don't believe he would have expressed it at all. That's only my guess though....
Take care
Posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2010, at 12:18:21
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » manic666, posted by SLS on August 3, 2010, at 6:19:19
Posted by manic666 on August 3, 2010, at 13:05:32
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?It is up to you... (nm) » SLS, posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2010, at 12:18:21
Hey baby i just go it, when i posted get a life. it was a terminology, like ron said kiddies pool. i didnt mean anything by it, its just a statment.i had never thought till you brought it up,mabye ron was the same ,thats why i couldnt see anything wrong in it.You seem cool at the minute, mabye a bit of stimulation posting is good for you,im not being weired or anything i mean it, stay safe.
Posted by violette on August 3, 2010, at 13:27:27
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » violette, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2010, at 9:21:24
> One of the greatest values I have gotten from Babble came from the threads that upset me most.
I have had similar feelings as you, Dinah. Ron and I had a productive discussion on the Admin. board about a disagreement a while back. We also found one commonality in our disagreement. But overall the conversation was self-exploratory for me (and maybe for him too?), even though it upset me a bit at first. And I enjoyed talking with Ron about the topic.
But in thinking of SLS's recent post to me in this thread, I probably need to remind myself more often this forum isn't a therapist's office. At the same time, I feel strongly about this issue as a result of my beliefs and values-just as you feel strongly about a rating system due to your beliefs and values. Do you see your strong feelings about a proposed rating system as a distortion on your part? Maybe a bit of both? It doesn't have to be either/or.
But just as you have a different view than Bob about the effect of such a system, I have a different view of self-expression toleration.
Psychoanalysts are notorious for letting someone process their anger-they can really tolerate alot. They have limits too-such as physical violence. And people change by developing insight from working through those feelings. Also-anger is part of the grieving process of human beings. So i tend to agree with this approach, with limits, and am more tolerant as long as someone is not directing their anger at specific individual in a bullying or hurtful way....
But just as SLS's post reminded me to adjust my expectations, it also confirmed the validity of my beliefts and values that behavioralism does not work.
Speaking of murder, I don't think it's working to just kill off terrorists. As much as we address the behavior, people still want to become terrorists.
Of course we can't let people go around and kill others, but it doesn't seem to be working to tell them over and over and over again that their 'behavior' is wrong. They are conditioned from a young age to believe this behavior is the solution to their problems. I do not think it is realistic to expect someone who grew up being conditioned to take that route and to have a victim stance, to suddenly take our advice-hey, you can achieve your political goals through non-violent means. And addressing the behavior by hunting them down and killing them off is actually reinforcing their victim stance-and maybe even strengthing their will-rather than producing change.
Because the West has learned this after our violent wars, doesn't mean they will just suddenly wake up and realize there are other solutions. We learned the hard way too-Vietnam for one. But it took people being personally affected by the war for us to realize the Cold War was wrong-to truly get the insight-before protests against this method become a contagion in our society.
I think instead, if someone's father, brother, or sister has found an alternate solution to terrorism successfully-such as started a legitimate business to improve their circumstances or a peaceful non-profit org-I think it would more likely have an effect on other terrorists-spreading the insight that they have the power to change their situation. But people are not going to get that insight until they feel it themselves-instead of think it, despite being shown, directed, and told over and over. Being told to change behavior, despite pointing out to people the positive things they can do-does not allow such insights to be realized for those who are conditioned and reinforced in their views-one must experience it to change that will. So things never change. We can get better at fighting them off, but they might get better at attacking us as trying to change their behavior by simply killing them off-instead of empowering them in positive ways-is reinforcing that same victimhood. The #1 worse place to live in the world now? Iraq.
I guess I didn't see Ron as a terrorist. But I do realize that as much as I think it would benefit people to allow this forum to be more like a 'therapist's office', I should adjust my expectations a bit. And thanks for the conversation.
Posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2010, at 13:31:34
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » violette, posted by SLS on August 3, 2010, at 5:12:54
> > Maybe Ron was hurting inside?
>
> This is also true of many murderers. It is unlikely that Ron is a murderer, though. However, behaviors have consequences. Ron must surely be an adult and capable of making adult decisions, as he no longer wishes to play in the 'kiddie pool'.
>
>
> - ScottI feel very offended by the use of the word "murderers" in a thread that started off because Ron said "kiddie pool". .
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2010, at 15:19:51
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » Dinah, posted by violette on August 3, 2010, at 13:27:27
> Do you see your strong feelings about a proposed rating system as a distortion on your part?
Well, if it is, my therapist won't be able to help me much. This is one of the rare instances he thinks I am completely and totally right.
Well, in general anyway. He may have thought I spoke injudiciously once or twice to Dr. Bob. I do have my moments of frustration and don't always walk away from the computer when it might be wiser to do so.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:22:57
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by ed_uk2010 on August 2, 2010, at 16:43:44
> Well, I didn't feel put down. I was mildly amused. I really don't understand how the 'kiddie pool' reference could cause anyone to feel put down. It wasn't directed at any specific poster.
Eddy, as you'd be aware, this is his entire reply to my post, right down the bottom...
> >I'm posing the question to the other PB members: what changes might you suggest to make this place more vibrant?
>
> That's an interesting (if less than productive) question which I shall not address, it having been argued about with little result for the last 4 years and perhaps longer for all I know.
> Instead here is something to reflect on
>
>
>
> Three in the Morning (Chuang Tzu)
> When we wear out our minds, stubbornly clinging to one partial view of things, refusing to see a deeper agreement between this and its complentary opposite, we have what is called 'three in the morning'.
> What is this 'three in the morning'?
> A monkey trainer went to his monkeys and told them: 'As regards your chestnuts: you are going to have three measures in the morning and four in the afternoon.'
> At this they all became very angry. So he said: 'All right, in that case I will give you four in the morning and three in the afternoon.' This time they were satisfied.
> The two arrangements were the same in that the number of chestnuts did not change. But in one case the animals were displeased, and in the other they were satisfied. The keeper had been willing to change his personal arrangement in order to meet objective conditions. He lost nothing by it!
> The truly wise man, considering both sides of the question without partiality, sees them both in the light of Tao.
> This is called following two courses at once.That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB.
I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:24:13
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » SLS, posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2010, at 13:31:34
The instructive spectacle has certainly brought us all out of the woodwork.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:28:17
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » ed_uk2010, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:22:57
I was very offended by the way the instructive spectacle was managed. I became very angry. I am not at liberty to jump to conclusions about Bob's motives, so I will have to think about my choice of words.
I was mildly (very very mildly indeed) hurt that Ron was leaving. Lots of things (almost everything!) are mildly hurtful. But Ron was ready for the block, the chopping block. He was on notice.
Posted by Dinah on August 3, 2010, at 15:53:34
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » ed_uk2010, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:22:57
I will say that the original post was less upsetting to me than the subsequent discussion has been.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 3, 2010, at 16:51:39
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by Dinah on August 3, 2010, at 15:53:34
I was just going to say nearly the same thing.
I'm now trying to figure out how to contribute to this thread in some positive, constructive way so others can even have a clue on my POV on things.
sigh. failing so far to think of anything articulate and civil.
I'll keep thinking about it.
Posted by Willful on August 3, 2010, at 17:21:07
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on August 3, 2010, at 16:51:39
I hope you do find a way to express your POV, I'm very interested to hear how you've experienced babble and what your thoughts are on this topic.
Willful
Posted by fayeroe on August 3, 2010, at 17:52:16
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:28:17
> I was very offended by the way the instructive spectacle was managed. I became very angry. I am not at liberty to jump to conclusions about Bob's motives, so I will have to think about my choice of words.
>
> I was mildly (very very mildly indeed) hurt that Ron was leaving. Lots of things (almost everything!) are mildly hurtful. But Ron was ready for the block, the chopping block. He was on notice.While doing my 3 miles in 101 heat, I thought about what happened here after Ron was blocked.
I want to re-phrase what I said earlier about being offended over the word choice of "murderer" in a post.
I realized that I had misspoken when I said I felt "offended".
I felt hurt when I read that sentence.
Posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:40:57
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » violette, posted by SLS on August 3, 2010, at 5:12:54
Behaviours have consequences, one of which is the current state of Babble.
Dinah has been right, surely, about the shaming quality of the requests.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 8:02:20
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 20:40:57
> Behaviours have consequences, one of which is the current state of Babble.
>
> Dinah has been right, surely, about the shaming quality of the requests.Yes! And I, for one, do not respond well to requests that appear to be shame-based.
pc
Posted by Justherself54 on August 4, 2010, at 11:38:14
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » sigismund, posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 8:02:20
I don't respond well to them either. It's uncomfortable. Also runs the risk of the "messenger being shot".
Posted by fayeroe on August 4, 2010, at 12:46:58
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by Justherself54 on August 4, 2010, at 11:38:14
> I don't respond well to them either. It's uncomfortable. Also runs the risk of the "messenger being shot".
I get sick at my stomach when I see "blocked again" or whatever he uses for his subject line. I know then that he is trying to get the guilt train loaded and moving.
You have given me more to think about by mentioning the "messenger being shot" risk. Thanks.
Posted by fayeroe on August 4, 2010, at 12:48:53
In reply to Re: blkd for 3 weeks..who felt put down? how? » fayeroe, posted by SLS on August 2, 2010, at 11:31:43
Is that a problem for you?
Posted by fayeroe on August 4, 2010, at 13:49:03
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2010, at 7:43:33
""and I see other posters as responsible for not trying to help him avoid the block."
Bob, I sure hope that you don't teach classes and use the tactics that you are attempting to use on us.
I think Bob could say "Student A, you are failing this class".
I think that Bob might then say "Class, if Student A fails this class, I will see you as responsible for not trying to help him avoid failing the class".
Posted by sigismund on August 4, 2010, at 15:31:21
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » sigismund, posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 8:02:20
>Yes! And I, for one, do not respond well to requests that appear to be shame-based.
PC, let's say you or I were in this situation.
Can you imagine explaining to me how I might apologise or vice versa.
It's not that we don't care at all. It's just that it's (mostly) inappropriate.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 17:42:58
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » PartlyCloudy, posted by sigismund on August 4, 2010, at 15:31:21
> >Yes! And I, for one, do not respond well to requests that appear to be shame-based.
>
> PC, let's say you or I were in this situation.
>
> Can you imagine explaining to me how I might apologise or vice versa.
>
> It's not that we don't care at all. It's just that it's (mostly) inappropriate.Well, first I would want to know what was uncivil about what I had said, because I don't believe that had been pointed out - isn't the relevant FAQ usually referred to in the warning? It seems odd that a phrase has been teased out of an entire post, deemed uncivil, but none of us are told why it's considered so.
And then I would decide whether what I had said might have been construed as being uncivil or not. I might not even decide it was worthy of a response; I might wonder if I was being made an example of, and then I would mentally shrug my shoulders, let the process take its course, and figure out if it was important to me to take a stance or not.
I might decide that it was a molehill that was trying mightily to become a mountain, and that I didn't want to help it along.
But that's me.
How about you?
Posted by fayeroe on August 4, 2010, at 19:05:05
In reply to Re: The Question Remains: Why Is Babble Not Babbling?, posted by sigismund on August 3, 2010, at 15:28:17
It comes back to that famous (but not famous enough) quote of Karl Rove told to Ron Suskind -
The aide [now known to be Karl Rove] said that guys like me [writer Ron Suskind] were in what we call the reality-based community, which he defined as people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. That's not the way the world really works anymore, he continued. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality judiciously, as you will, we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history, actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
The above, my friend, I found on the Politics board where I had gone to post about Prop 8's being overturned by a federal judge...I will continue on my way now. P
Posted by violette on August 4, 2010, at 23:56:41
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » PartlyCloudy, posted by sigismund on August 4, 2010, at 15:31:21
Posted by sigismund on August 5, 2010, at 3:06:27
In reply to Re: Why Is Babble Not Babbling? » sigismund, posted by PartlyCloudy on August 4, 2010, at 17:42:58
I've never read a FAQ.
Perhaps some innate deviousness has made it natural for me to master the civility rules.
Just like home.
So, I'd (probably) know what was uncivil, and it would merely be a question of whether I was willing to do the public recant and repentance.
If you wrote to me arguing (as in "Darkness at Noon") that some greater good in which I believed justified my misrepresenting myself, or differently, if you were to argue that I had already misrepresented myself (not too hard) I would listen and perhaps agree.I grew up in a family where there were often correct and cold relations, so the civility rules seem to come naturally to me.
I remember Seldomseen's good post about form vs content, something about the spirit of the post is up to you.
That stung a bit, my spirit being what it is.
Posted by sigismund on August 5, 2010, at 3:19:50
In reply to Re: The Question: ^^^Interesting^^^ » sigismund, posted by fayeroe on August 4, 2010, at 19:05:05
>He cut me off. That's not the way the world really works anymore, he continued. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality judiciously, as you will, we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history, actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
Is that postmodern?
Geez. That moment has passed perhaps?
Just so no one gets the impression that I am an anti-American monomaniac, I should recount what Niall Ferguson, the conservative economic historian, said about the current (dispiriting because the issues are not addressed) Australian election.
Something like....
Australia may well become an economic colony of China's. Maybe the best option for Australia is for it to be sold to China which will then put in the infrastructure.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.