![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 56. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on September 2, 2010, at 7:42:12
In reply to Re: new members, posted by vwoolf on September 2, 2010, at 1:35:43
I don't know. I'd have to think in terms of specific examples. What would be an example of working with the unconscious?
I think I'd describe my therapy more as learning new ways to see things. Shifting my perspective.
Posted by vwoolf on September 3, 2010, at 8:49:40
In reply to Re: new members » vwoolf, posted by Dinah on September 2, 2010, at 7:42:12
>
> I think I'd describe my therapy more as learning new ways to see things. Shifting my perspective.I suppose in many cases that would be working with the unconscious - bringing to consciousness underlying motives and patterns, so that you can begin to see things in different ways.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 12:46:29
In reply to Re: new members, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 12:08:10
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Some boards are only acessable to those who have registered
>
> muffledI haven't mean to imply that anyone in particular has feelings of competition or terror. I do think that even adults sometimes like it if they fit in and don't like it if things change and then they don't anymore.
As far as boards that wouldn't be able to be seen by everyone, I'd be reluctant to rely too much on the ability of the server to keep people out. No security system is perfect. If a poster counted on a board being private, and posted sensitive material there, and then someone got by security, that could be a problem. And if anyone could get by security just by registering, how much protection would that really be? Google might not be able to register, but all it would take would be one person getting in and copying and pasting and posts could be on Google. I wouldn't want posters to rely on boards to be private if they really weren't.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 12:46:41
In reply to Re: new members » Dinah, posted by vwoolf on September 1, 2010, at 15:23:22
> Where I post now ... people can naturally gravitate to a board that then becomes their primary home place.
>
> muffledOne advantage of small boards is that their members would have more influence over how they evolved. And Babble would have more diverse boards.
> 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.
>
> vwoolf> 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 thought being rejected could lead to hurt feelings.
>
> I confess it was long enough ago that I don't recall the specifics.> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Dinah> 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.
>
> It felt as if I was just playing with ideas, and trying to be open to possibilities
>
> 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.....
>
> vwoolfThose are interesting ideas, that small boards could be used by posters who were interested in examining their interactions with others more closely, and that the fish and the observers could switch roles.
It was long ago, but the specifics are still available:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/308260.html
Small boards would be communities, too, just smaller ones. If one were "full", a poster might feel rejected, but they'd be able to start another one, so they'd still be able to have a small board experience if they wanted.
I wouldn't say small boards would be designed to bring up unconscious processes. Like the current boards, it would be up to the other members to support fragile participants where necessary and to guide the process, and it would be up to me to keep the boundaries.
Thanks for playing with and being open to this.
Bob
Posted by muffled on September 5, 2010, at 14:30:07
In reply to Re: new members, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 12:46:29
> > Some boards are only acessable to those who have registered
> As far as boards that wouldn't be able to be seen by everyone, I'd be reluctant to rely too much on the ability of the server to keep people out. No security system is perfect. If a poster counted on a board being private, and posted sensitive material there, and then someone got by security, that could be a problem. And if anyone could get by security just by registering, how much protection would that really be? Google might not be able to register, but all it would take would be one person getting in and copying and pasting and posts could be on Google. I wouldn't want posters to rely on boards to be private if they really weren't.
The boards I speak of, of course are not particularly safe, that is known. And when a poster does seem to be divulging too much info, they are usu. reminded(by other posters) about safety. Also the moderator will remove potentially harmful information if it comes to that.
It's a fine line for sure.
IMHO NOTHING is truly safe on the net, but then, thats the same IRL too....
As for cutting and pasting, then that does require more effort and so has to be a real conscious thing, as would hacking into the site.
LOL, we proly are not such an interesting lot anyways!!!! I can't imagine why anyone would bother w/us, unless it was a specific poster getting stalked.So the what might be called semi-private boards, just feel slightly more cosy than one that just can be stumbled across and read easily by one and all. If someone wants to to read, then they will have to make an effort to do so.
It's a far cry certainly from a board thats readable by anyone passing by, searchable on google, easily linked to with the click of a button....
My opinion only.
Its ever changing and evolving.
As is technology and the 'net.
Thanks.
Posted by vwoolf on September 6, 2010, at 10:29:36
In reply to Re: small boards, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 12:46:41
> Those are interesting ideas, that small boards could be used by posters who were interested in examining their interactions with others more closely, and that the fish and the observers could switch roles.
I think that there is a whole lot of untapped potential in a board like this, where there is an existing frame with boundaries, there is a whole lot of content, and a community of people who are interested in exploring themselves (for the most part). I suspect that with not too much effort one could create some quite interesting groups and explore terrain that no-one else is exploring. However I think that the crucial thing would always need to be a sense of safety and caring - within the limits of the site of course. The safe support that is provided by these boards has probably always been one of the reasons people use Babble, and why there has been such revolt around opening it up to Facebook etc.
This is the end of the 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.