![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 56. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by vwoolf on August 31, 2010, at 5:21:27
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'm curious. Why did the idea get ditched? Was nobody prepared to get into the goldfish bowl? Why was the number of participants limited if anyone could observe? What would keep participants from leaving when things got uncomfortable?
Posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:06:03
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by vwoolf on August 31, 2010, at 5:21:27
There were those of us who objected to the idea of parties we could see and hear but not join. Nothing would stop people from leaving. The idea was to limit who could join.
I must confess that the idea of exclusivity never did appeal to me, whether or not it was visible. I can't recall what rules Dr. Bob was proposing on who could invite or reject whom. I thought being rejected could lead to hurt feelings.
It would be rather like the 2000 board I think, but with less objective limits to membership. Visible and even googleable. But you couldn't reply on the membership limited board. (Though I think you would be allowed to respond to posts on the membership limited boards on, say, Social. So you could comment on the topics, just not join in the actual conversation.)
I confess it was long enough ago that I don't recall the specifics.
However, I don't remember the idea officially being dropped. He hasn't thus far implemented it.
Posted by vwoolf on August 31, 2010, at 7:33:03
In reply to Re: new members » vwoolf, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:06:03
Thanks for the explanation. As far as you can remember, was there to have been a focus for the groups, or were they just going to be like a continuation of Babble but for limited numbers? And could viewers comment elsewhere on what they were observing?
Posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:40:14
In reply to Re: new members, posted by vwoolf on August 31, 2010, at 7:33:03
> Thanks for the explanation. As far as you can remember, was there to have been a focus for the groups, or were they just going to be like a continuation of Babble but for limited numbers? And could viewers comment elsewhere on what they were observing?
I don't recall their being a focus, but I don't recall a focus being forbidden. Viewers could comment elsewhere. Civility rules would still apply as they stand now.
Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2010, at 19:42:36
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:40:14
I've heard there are private boards off babble now. And to not be able to respond but read to me is the same as being blocked. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 19:50:42
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2010, at 19:42:36
What people do away from Babble, because of friendships formed on Babble, is outside the control of anyone. As far as I know, the only board where people can currently read but not respond is 2000.
Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2010, at 22:25:27
In reply to Re: new members » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 19:50:42
Oh I know just a comment didn't know that about 2000. Don't usual go to archieves. Thanks for the heads up. Phillipa
Posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 11:01:14
In reply to Re: new members » vwoolf, posted by Dinah on August 31, 2010, at 7:06:03
> There were those of us who objected to the idea of parties we could see and hear but not join. Nothing would stop people from leaving. The idea was to limit who could join.
>
> I must confess that the idea of exclusivity never did appeal to me, whether or not it was visible.I would imagine that it would not be about exclusivity, about excluding people, but rather about having a small group of people in a sort of pressure cooker, where their interactions would be limited to other members of the group. It would show up their unconscious processes very clearly. I think it might be very interesting to participate in or observe a group like this, although not necessarily very pleasant or comfortable. Maybe catching sight of the unconscious is always uncomfortable. In the large, or perhaps less large now, unstructured group that is Babble, these processes are quite watered down, so we don't often 'see' ourselves.
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 12:47:31
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 11:01:14
That would be true in a therapy group, which wouldn't be visible to others or googleable, and would have a skilled group leader. Dr. Bob has always been clear that Babble isn't therapy, and I think he'd have to make some structural changes if he were to change that point of view.
Babble, to me, is a community, and this would be more like having a party visible to all but to which only some are allowed to participate.
It might not be a bad idea to have subgroups for special interests, with signing up required for that. The problem is that Dr. Bob's plan didn't allow people to sign up based on interest only. He was determined, or so it seemed to me, that it would involve a limit on membership.
You might be more able to see the therapeutic benefits to a closed group because we come from different therapeutic backgrounds. But I think we'd agree on the importance of having a skilled leader providing guidance if a group designed to bring up unconscious processes?
Posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 15:23:22
In reply to Re: new members » vwoolf, posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 12:47:31
> That would be true in a therapy group, which wouldn't be visible to others or googleable, and would have a skilled group leader. Dr. Bob has always been clear that Babble isn't therapy, and I think he'd have to make some structural changes if he were to change that point of view.
The fishbowl is a group technique that has a closed inner group (fish) and an outer observing group, and so is visible. Sometimes the participants switch roles and the observers become the fish, and vice versa.
I'm not sure that Babble is not therapy, although it is so in a very low-key form. I think it is the boundaries (blocks) that make it so - which Babblers find as frustrating as the boundaries in more conventional therapy. And maybe that is one of the things that distinguishes Babble from other groups.
> Babble, to me, is a community, and this would be more like having a party visible to all but to which only some are allowed to participate.
But all would be part, just in different capacities - at least, that is how I imagine it. I have no idea what Dr Bob had in mind.
It might be something completely different.> It might not be a bad idea to have subgroups for special interests, with signing up required for that. The problem is that Dr. Bob's plan didn't allow people to sign up based on interest only. He was determined, or so it seemed to me, that it would involve a limit on membership.
I think that is the nature of the fishbowl.
>
> You might be more able to see the therapeutic benefits to a closed group because we come from different therapeutic backgrounds. But I think we'd agree on the importance of having a skilled leader providing guidance if a group designed to bring up unconscious processes?I'm not sure what therapeutic background you assume I am representing here. I wasn't aware that I was representing any. I didn't think what I was saying fitted into any paradigm, but maybe I am just not thinking clearly enough. It felt as if I was just playing with ideas, and trying to be open to possibilities rather than rejecting a priori any idea of change.
But now that you mention it, and I hadn't thought it through before, it would need a skilled leader who could intervene to support more fragile participants where necessary, and guide the process in some way, and keep the boundaries. I'm not sure that Dr Bob would want to take on that sort of role.....
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 16:28:34
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 15:23:22
I just meant that if I remembered correctly you'd spoken of a more traditional therapist than my own? I might be remembering incorrectly.
My therapist doesn't work all that much with the unconscious. At least not that I can tell. So I'm not all that familiar with ideas involving the unconscious.
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 16:33:23
In reply to Re: new members » vwoolf, posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 16:28:34
> My therapist doesn't work all that much with the unconscious. At least not that I can tell. So I'm not all that familiar with ideas involving the unconscious.
Although he did point out the time before last that I seem to be leaving things behind (cell phone, purse, etc.) when I leave lately. :)
Posted by vwoolf on September 2, 2010, at 1:35:43
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 16:33:23
> My therapist doesn't work all that much with the unconscious. At least not that I can tell. So I'm not all that familiar with ideas involving the unconscious.
That's funny! You've caught me in the unconscious grips of a depth psychology paradigm.
I actually didn't realise that it was possible to do psychology, except in the strictest behavioural sense, without dealing with the unconscious contents of the mind. Perhaps, as you say, it is just something you don't actually name with your therapist. Or am I wrong? I'm not quite sure how therapy would work without it.
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.