Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 1999, at 0:20:41
In reply to Re: Response to Dr. Bob, posted by Janice on January 18, 1999, at 6:03:58
> I dunno, it's your web page, and if you are
> happy with this ambiguousness, then... ???I wouldn't say I'm happy with it, but I'm willing to see how it goes.
> I've read your
> arguments; yet, there is something deep
> inside that tells me this ambiguousness is
> not right. That's just the way I feel.I'm not sure there's an obvious "right" or "wrong" here. I do, however, agree that:
> >Compelling
> >reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.Toby did give a reason, but I don't know if I would call it compelling. It reminds me of the "blank screen" approach that used to be advocated by psychoanalysts. Their idea was that the less they interfered with what patients thought (by answering their questions, for example), the more "true" the process was. I think that most psychoanalysts now, however, would acknowledge that *not* answering questions can itself interfere with the process. So whether you answer a question depends on whether you think it will be more helpful to do so or not. I assume that in this case, Toby thinks it will be more helpful, or helpful to more people, if he doesn't.
(There's no doubt that he's been helpful. The issue I'm trying to address here is whether it enables him to be *more* helpful if he doesn't answer this question.)
> This nameless, faceless environ-
> ment is an excellent opportunity for some to
> play games, mislead others.I agree, it is. But I wouldn't say Toby is being dishonest or misleading anyone. Not answering is different than lying.
> I guess I've alienated Toby; he/she will
> probably never answer any of my future
> questions :(Maybe he won't hold a grudge for *too* long. :-)
But, seriously, would you *want* an answer from him, given all this?
> I was
> expecting negative feedback, but you were
> moderate.Well, I guess I'm sort of the moderator here. :-)
> In closing, what I said previously was
> just my opinion, sorry for being
> dissonant.Don't be too apologetic. A little dissonance can actually add to a melody. :-)
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:2364
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19990101/msgs/2520.html