![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 16:57:09
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2010, at 16:25:45
> > Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I did think this might have been part of that, yes.That wasn't my understanding of the Twitter/Facebook controversy. I thought that had everything to do with where our posts went, not who came to Babble.
Posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 17, 2010, at 16:25:45
>> Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
>>
>> Dinah>I did think this might have been part of that, yes.
Many people are saddened by the fact that so many people no longer post for whatever reason. I certainly am. The opposition to the Facebook/Twitter thing may have been a part of a conflict with Bob about the reasons for the decline of participation. Some people wanted Bob to acknowledge that the implementation of the civility rules had driven people away. If that had been given, one reason for opposition to Facebook and Twitter links would have fallen away, leaving the worries about privacy and concerns about the content of Twitter.
That's how I recall it, anyway.
Posted by Phillipa on August 17, 2010, at 21:11:09
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
Sigi me also a great deal of posters opted for the out to twitter/facebook I did. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 17:59:16
Did the twitter/facebook contretemps involve the civility guidelines? I thought it was the concerns about privacy and safety.
I suppose it goes to show that we all remember things a bit differently.
But I'm not sure I'd put a reluctance to have new members on the list.
Hmmm... I think there was some feeling that Dr. Bob cared more about getting new people on Twitter and wasn't as concerned with addressing the needs of older posters.
I suppose that could loosely be considered sibling rivalry. Though I'd consider it more about the perception of whether or not Dr. Bob was respecting us. The possibility of hordes of new members were tangential to the real interpersonal issue. The issue was between Bob and posters, not between posters and potential posters.
Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
It's between you and the posters, Dr. Bob. Not between current posters and potential posters.
Of course that's aside from the less interpersonal concerns of safety and privacy and the indiscriminate excerpting of our private and personal thoughts.
And of course, that's just how I remember it.
Posted by sigismund on August 18, 2010, at 0:10:29
In reply to Re: new members » sigismund, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
>Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
That's how I remember it too (now that you mention it).
(But you might recall how often when the question of participation is raised, the question of blocks is never far behind.)
I am not sure if I can recall an episode of obvious scapegoating here. I don't think so. Singling them out, destroying them cleverly, that's what I'd be looking for.
Groups can be like that.
But too many people at Babble have had experience with that and will defend anyone who is on the receiving end of it.
So maybe there hasn't been any.
Not a lot, anyway.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2010, at 15:38:43
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by sigismund on August 18, 2010, at 0:10:29
Yes, I do remember blocks being brought up.
I think you're right about Babblers.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2010, at 6:56:40
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I read something by a group therapist the other day:
>
> > Rare is the established group that actually wants new members. Quite the contrary: groups often have uncanny, covert, and thinly veiled strategies for getting rid of new members. Feelings of competition for parental love and attention, terror about one's place and where one fits, murderous feelings towards the new sibling, can all be reactivated in the group that is coping with new additions to the group family.
>
> I wonder if that sometimes applies here, too.
>
> BobYou mean to say that this is why you block people?????
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
In reply to Re: new members » sigismund, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 21:35:46
> Some people wanted Bob to acknowledge that the implementation of the civility rules had driven people away. If that had been given, one reason for opposition to Facebook and Twitter links would have fallen away
>
> sigismundI don't think there's any question that some people leave because of the civility rules and their implementation.
--
> Hmmm... I think there was some feeling that Dr. Bob cared more about getting new people on Twitter and wasn't as concerned with addressing the needs of older posters.
>
> I suppose that could loosely be considered sibling rivalry. Though I'd consider it more about the perception of whether or not Dr. Bob was respecting us.
>
> Respect. Concern. Responsiveness. Those are things that people need to feel valued. If he had framed it so that older posters felt respected, heard, and valued, Babblers would have felt less resentment to the process. I don't think any resentment was involved towards the actual new posters.
>
> Of course that's aside from the less interpersonal concerns of safety and privacy and the indiscriminate excerpting of our private and personal thoughts.
>
> DinahI know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that. At the same time, not feeling respected, heard, and valued by me could be consistent with feelings of competition for my love and attention and terror about one's place and where one fits. And concerns of safety and privacy could be consistent with (seeing new posters as having) murderous feelings.
Just to be clear, I didn't bring this up to be critical, I just thought it might help us understand some of the dynamics here.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2010, at 9:02:39
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
> And concerns of safety and privacy could be consistent with (seeing new posters as having) murderous feelings.
>
> Just to be clear, I didn't bring this up to be critical, I just thought it might help us understand some of the dynamics here.
>
> BobWell, crediting the possibility of murderous feelings to the newcomers *does* feel a bit less critical.
I can't imagine why I would fear murderous intent from anonymous newcomers. Unless you start advertising Babble on "Trolls Unlimited" (and I'm sure you wouldn't), why would any new poster have a murderous intent to people they don't even know? Nor would the newcomers have a relationship with you that would inspire murderous feelings, I'd assume. Newcomers to me are nothing sinister. They are potential friends.
I think I'm totally missing the point. Is this Freudian perhaps? I never did understand Freudian psychology...
Posted by Phillipa on August 20, 2010, at 19:51:36
In reply to Re: new members » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2010, at 9:02:39
Dinah I also welcome newcomers as all are unique and bring diffent topics to babble. I don't get the murdurous either? It does not make sense to me. And Love? I do not get love here. Phillipa
Posted by vwoolf on August 21, 2010, at 0:46:31
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
> I know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that.
This feels to me like a really important shift in perspective on which much could be built.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on August 21, 2010, at 8:13:39
In reply to Re: new members, posted by vwoolf on August 21, 2010, at 0:46:31
> > I know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that.
>
> This feels to me like a really important shift in perspective on which much could be built.
>
>
>Yes, I thought this was a significant statement.
pc
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2010, at 15:48:05
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2010, at 1:02:48
I was just perusing and I noticed that this is Bob's thread. He responded in two subsequent posts twice to Dinah, once to sig and once to Phillipa. So in the proposed rating system does Dinah get 2 points, sig - 1 point, Phillipa - 1 point and everyone else who responded - no points? Just curious, how does everyone feel about Bob not responding to your post? Would it be even worse if he gave others a point and not you?
Posted by obsidian on August 23, 2010, at 21:51:42
In reply to Re: The Score » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on August 23, 2010, at 15:48:05
I want 10 points for this post alone ;-)
Posted by 64Bowtie on August 25, 2010, at 8:15:57
In reply to new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2010, at 22:29:48
I was new 7 years ago now... I own my mistakes... Still I had a couple of assaults and insults along the way... Creepy folks don't seem to last in any self-help venue anyway, though... P-Docs have their opinions why that is...
Rod
Posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 13:25:35
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2010, at 16:57:09
> > > Is it because of the opposition to Twitter and Facebook links?
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > I did think this might have been part of that, yes.
>
> That wasn't my understanding of the Twitter/Facebook controversy. I thought that had everything to do with where our posts went, not who came to Babble.*I agree with Dinah.
I agree that new members are welcome.
Its just that babble was more intimate with just a feww comming and going. Large numbers of new people is hard to manage.
When thare are alot of posters it is very difficult to make sure noone is left out. Its much harder to manage a large group. It is less *personal* when a large group.
Have you ever noticed at larger parties, that people tend to break up into smaller groups?
This is not necc. to isolate anyone, its more about managability of converation.
The twitter/facebook controversy was more about that I don't want my conversations w/friends broadcast over an amplification system. I am aware eg, that when I am talking to friends in a coffeeshop, that my words may be overheard, I accept that. But I would not feel comfortable if my words were recorded and posted all over in other coffeeshops all over the place.
So, I feel very strongly about not wanting to exclude others. In fact it can be quite wonderful to have new people come into a group and bring new perspectives. But at the same time, I understand the reality that larger groups will be less personal.
Just the way it is.
So to me, new people is wonderful. Large influxes of new people....not so good.
I also do not mind people just *listening* if they have an interest in the conversation. But at the same time....I wouldn't want masses of people *listening* just cuz they happened to be passing by. Thats why I talk in a modulated tone and don't talk loudly when having a convo ina coffeeshop.
My thots
(oh, and FYI, I did not lv babble due to the new people, but rather due to how the admin manages this site)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:12:43
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 13:25:35
> Large numbers of new people is hard to manage.
The more new people, the greater the feelings of competition for parental love and attention and the terror about one's place and where one fits?
> When thare are alot of posters it is very difficult to make sure noone is left out. Its much harder to manage a large group. It is less *personal* when a large group.
> Have you ever noticed at larger parties, that people tend to break up into smaller groups?Would you see this as a larger party? I did once have the idea of boards that only a limited number of people would be able to post on...
Bob
Posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 12:08:10
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:12:43
> > Large numbers of new people is hard to manage.
>
> The more new people, the greater the feelings of competition for parental love and attention and the terror about one's place and where one fits?
>
> > When thare are alot of posters it is very difficult to make sure noone is left out. Its much harder to manage a large group. It is less *personal* when a large group.
> > Have you ever noticed at larger parties, that people tend to break up into smaller groups?
>
> Would you see this as a larger party? I did once have the idea of boards that only a limited number of people would be able to post on...
>
> BobNo, for me anyways, no competition, no terror. In day to day IRL interactions with people, we DO get hurt or make errors oursleves, thats normal. Everybody does.
I come here as an adult, so no competition. If I don't fit in, I leave....simple as that. There are LOTS of boards on the 'net.Lately, it would seem this place is not such a large party...
Limiting the # of people who post on a board would then be showing exclusivity...
Tough call.
Where I post now, there are a number of boards more euphemistically labelled. That way people can naturally gravitate to a board that then becomes their primary home place.
Some boards are only acessable to those who have registered, and registration goes thru a confirmation process. Other boards are visible to the general public.
Its a nice mix.
Got to go.
Posted by vwoolf on August 30, 2010, at 12:17:43
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 12:08:10
> I did once have the idea of boards that only a limited number of people would be able to post on...
I find this idea interesting. If you did have closed numbers, posters would have to commit more to the group and would have to examine their behaviour much more closely. I know for example that I often feel as if I have one foot in and one foot out, and I know I can get away with it because there are other people who will respond or get involved. In a small group I would not be able to do that. I would be much more visible - to others and to myself. Would I be prepared to make that sort of commitment? I don't know.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 15:01:38
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 12:08:10
The suggestion by Dr. Bob for smaller boards was for boards that could be read by anyone, registered or unregistered, but only a small number could participate. If I remember correctly.
Posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 20:05:39
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 15:01:38
> The suggestion by Dr. Bob for smaller boards was for boards that could be read by anyone, registered or unregistered, but only a small number could participate. If I remember correctly.
>*LOL, me and my big mouth....that'd make me MENTAL(er) to not be able to respond!! ROFL!!!
Hey HI THERE DINAH!!!! :)
Posted by Phillipa on August 30, 2010, at 20:11:17
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 20:05:39
Muffled hi and agree with you. Phillipa
Posted by Free on August 30, 2010, at 20:26:17
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 15:01:38
> The suggestion by Dr. Bob for smaller boards was for boards that could be read by anyone, registered or unregistered, but only a small number could participate. If I remember correctly.
>I hate to bring this up, but isn't this what babble has become with a small number of people participating? I remember when Babble used to be so active that I could barely keep up with one board. I wonder what's happened to all those interesting people? Hope they are doing well.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 22:37:26
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Free on August 30, 2010, at 20:26:17
It's become small in practice.
But anyone is *welcome* to post. It's always their choice.
Posted by Dinah on August 30, 2010, at 22:38:07
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 20:05:39
Hi Muffled. :)
Yes, it's not something I'd like - on either side.
I hope you're well.
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.