![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 47. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
Hi, everyone,
I've thought for a while that message boards like this were interesting examples of group dynamics. And since the interactions not only wouldn't need to be transcribed, but would come with an exact date and time, this "data" would be relatively easy to work with.
I don't think an ethical project would publish any names of participants, plus, of course, participants don't have to use their real names here.
So, I was wondering, what would you all think about something like that?
Bob
Posted by CarolAnn on April 7, 2000, at 16:03:59
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
It's okay with me. You could even use my name and ask me specific questions if you needed to! If the project happens, could we be allowed to see the results? I would be enormously interested. CarolAnn
Posted by Jeff on April 7, 2000, at 16:10:19
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I've thought for a while that message boards like this were interesting examples of group dynamics. And since the interactions not only wouldn't need to be transcribed, but would come with an exact date and time, this "data" would be relatively easy to work with.
>
> I don't think an ethical project would publish any names of participants, plus, of course, participants don't have to use their real names here.
>
> So, I was wondering, what would you all think about something like that?
>
> BobDepends...what kind of compensation are we talking here?
Jeff
Posted by gail on April 7, 2000, at 17:16:29
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Jeff on April 7, 2000, at 16:10:19
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > I've thought for a while that message boards like this were interesting examples of group dynamics. And since the interactions not only wouldn't need to be transcribed, but would come with an exact date and time, this "data" would be relatively easy to work with.
> >
> > I don't think an ethical project would publish any names of participants, plus, of course, participants don't have to use their real names here.
> >
> > So, I was wondering, what would you all think about something like that?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Depends...what kind of compensation are we talking here?
>
> JeffI think it would be theraputic and would participate using my real name. Who would fake a name like Gail.
Gail
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 18:25:09
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by CarolAnn on April 7, 2000, at 16:03:59
> If the project happens, could we be allowed to see the results? I would be enormously interested.
Well, hopefully the results would be published and therefore public. To clarify a few other points:
1. Such a project would probably analyze posts that had already been posted on the site.
2. So compensation would be difficult logistically. And my guess is that probably there wouldn't be any compensation at all.
3. Also, I might be involved with the project myself, but since this site is public, it's conceivable that I wouldn't even know about it.
Bob
PS: Gail, you crack me up! :-)
Posted by Renee N on April 7, 2000, at 18:36:10
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
I wouldn't object. I wonder though, if we knew we were being "watched", would it inhibit us or make us act differently? Maybe it would be best if you used stuff we already have written. I'd love to see the results. Have you seen similar studies done on cyber groups?
I'd personally rather see time spent on updating the pharmacology tips first.
If you do decide to do this, please keep us informed.
I don't use my real name here. I'm curious as to who does and doesn't... Renee N
Posted by ChrisK on April 7, 2000, at 19:15:49
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
Dr. Bob,
I have no problem in someone or group analyzing my input here. I hink that the dynamics would be very difficult to quantify as a whole but that is sometning left to the statisticians. I find this group to be very helpful and resourceful to the fellow posters. If the interst was group dynamics I think that no matter how far you went back in the archives you would find the most hospitable and generous people that you will ever find in any group of 'psycologocally challenge' people. We come together whether we are lurking or see names that we see every day.
I guess what I am trying to say is that (as an engineer on disability) I think that trying to quantify our group dynamics is a very daunting task because of the wide range of emotions and experiences.
I really hope you can pull it together because I do feel that as consumers we are left out of many decisions in the area of our own mental health.
Chris
Posted by Abby on April 7, 2000, at 20:35:09
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Renee N on April 7, 2000, at 18:36:10
I don't think that I'd be very happy about it, but I don't suppose that I could stop it, and I don't suppose that it would make me stop posting. It's no worse than the profiling done by many corporate sites.
Abby
Posted by michael on April 7, 2000, at 20:44:47
In reply to The ignorant research subject, posted by Abby on April 7, 2000, at 20:35:09
> I don't think that I'd be very happy about it, but I don't suppose that I could stop it, and I don't suppose that it would make me stop posting. It's no worse than the profiling done by many corporate sites.
>
> AbbyFor what it's worth, we've all implicitly agreed to that already... At the top of the psycho-babble page, just below the "previous 'new' indicators" button, is the following:
"Submitting a message grants me the right to unrestricted use of it." michael
Posted by Cam W. on April 7, 2000, at 20:47:04
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
Dr.Bob - It's your site and we freely use it (if indeed we do have "free will" - topic for another time). I believe you have a right to this information. It says as much in your disclaimer. You have my permission to use my name or you can call me "bob" (from NYC), as I think we are the same person. - Cam W.
Posted by allisonm on April 7, 2000, at 21:00:13
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
It doesn't bother me, but I am not much of a contributor here.
For Renee N, I do use my real name.
allisonm
Posted by Liz on April 7, 2000, at 21:49:04
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by allisonm on April 7, 2000, at 21:00:13
I'm new to the site - it doesn't bother me. I'm just curious what prompted Dr. Bob at this particular junction in time to make this request. I've participated in many sites over time and this is the most supportive site, by far, that I've ever witnessed. (Even compared to sites where people share their recipes, for God's sake!) I used to frequent a site for pool owners that got positively nasty - unbelieveably competitive. I too would be very eager to see any product of this research, in fact I think it would be a caveat to permission.
Posted by michael on April 7, 2000, at 21:50:11
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by allisonm on April 7, 2000, at 21:00:13
> It doesn't bother me, but I am not much of a contributor here.
>
> For Renee N, I do use my real name.
>
> allisonm
Whatever you do, don't use my real name...I kind of keep this stuff under my hat, & it'd just mortify me if I thought everybody was walking around, thinking to themselves, "that poor psycho, michael..."
How could I face them on the street, in the grocery store, etc...?
Now, if only I had a more ubiquitous (sp?) name, like perhaps Gail, or Allisonm... I could just blend back into the crowd... and nobody would know it was me!
Btw, I never heard of the name 'allisonm' before - kind of neat... I bet he's the only one!
Posted by AndrewB on April 7, 2000, at 21:52:07
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Liz on April 7, 2000, at 21:49:04
Fine by me to do the research,
AndrewB
Posted by Cindy W on April 7, 2000, at 22:25:37
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by AndrewB on April 7, 2000, at 21:52:07
> Fine by me to do the research,
>
> AndrewBI agree, fine by me.
Posted by allisonm on April 7, 2000, at 22:53:17
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by michael on April 7, 2000, at 21:50:11
> Btw, I never heard of the name 'allisonm' before - kind of neat... I bet he's the only one!Thanks, but I am a she.
When my depression was pretty bad, no really bad, I started visiting and posting to this board fairly often. For the life of me I could not get my brain to think of an original and cool name like juniper or vesper or, well you get the idea, so I just used my name, which is allison.My dad has always joked that I was named after an airplane engine or a diesel engine (as in Allison airplane engines, Detroit Diesel Allison, ha-ha, not). But that's OK. I have a snail in my aquarium that I have named William, so it works both ways.
I went away for awhile, and when I came back a month or more ago I noticed that someone else had come on the site using the same name and spelling, so in an attempt to avoid confusion I added m to the end because my last name begins with m. That's it. Kinda boring, really.
Posted by Cass on April 7, 2000, at 23:21:43
In reply to to michael, posted by allisonm on April 7, 2000, at 22:53:17
For some reason, I had assumed that you (Dr. Bob) were already doing research through this site. In any case, it's fine with me.
Posted by KarenB on April 8, 2000, at 1:33:51
In reply to Potential group dynamics research, posted by Cass on April 7, 2000, at 23:21:43
No problem... but please just call me "michael."
Posted by Sherry on April 8, 2000, at 6:34:33
In reply to Potential group dynamics research, posted by Cass on April 7, 2000, at 23:21:43
For some reason, I had assumed that you (Dr. Bob) were already doing research through this site. In any case, it's fine with me.
********************************
I thought that you were probably doing research on this sight as well. I could not come up with any other reason why you would take the time to keep it going. As far as compensation goes, I feel I've been compensated enough by being a part of this wonderfully supportive, and informing forum. So research a way!
Posted by Seamus on April 8, 2000, at 10:50:49
In reply to Re: clarifications, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 18:25:09
Do I smell a PhD or post-doc in the wings?
Seamus
> > If the project happens, could we be allowed to see the results? I would be enormously interested.
>
> Well, hopefully the results would be published and therefore public. To clarify a few other points:
>
> 1. Such a project would probably analyze posts that had already been posted on the site.
>
> 2. So compensation would be difficult logistically. And my guess is that probably there wouldn't be any compensation at all.
>
> 3. Also, I might be involved with the project myself, but since this site is public, it's conceivable that I wouldn't even know about it.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Gail, you crack me up! :-)
Posted by boB on April 8, 2000, at 12:01:51
In reply to The ignorant research subject, posted by Abby on April 7, 2000, at 20:35:09
Dr. Bob,
The study you propose would be what laypeople will classify as soft science, contributing perhaps to the understanding of social psychology. Do you have a strong backround in social psychology to inform your analysis of the interactions here? I think you would need to refer to some expertise in the field of internet communication, which is (i recall, cant say where) being established at some schools. Media psychology comes into play as well.
Beyond finding the appropriate expertise to focus and analyze the data, I would wonder what dynamic of the group you would study, and to what you would compare the study. We could find a wide variety of sites where group dynamics are at play. I would really encourage you to look at Neil Slade's discussion board, because there, the group dynamic is somewhat authoritarian and seems to be an example of influence (Neil's) in decision making (the decision by people to say they are happy when they do what Neil says). I referenced his board on an earlier post (Amygdala clicking). Anomynity allows a wide range of behaviours in internet dialogue, which probably reveals a strong element of crowd or group behaviour.
I know of another site that generated a cascade of blank, sarcastic postings requesting Nude Spice Girl Pictures. That was in interesting phenomenon. (www.skepticult.org) The discussion board, for some reason, was pulled or hacked or something.
My suggestion, considering your expertise, would be that your do research to correlate neurochemical and other neurological states with behaviours and with group behaviours. I would also encourage you to explain neurobiological realities to lay people in a way that might resolve some of the anxiety many of us feel over what is really the normal range of human feelings.
You nemesis,
boB
Posted by Dr.Soreteh on April 8, 2000, at 12:02:04
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I've thought for a while that message boards like this were interesting examples of group dynamics. And since the interactions not only wouldn't need to be transcribed, but would come with an exact date and time, this "data" would be relatively easy to work with.
Group dynamics???? Have you been kidnapped by a gang of social scientists? Are they yapping and yapping yet? [just kidding-do with me what you will]Dr. Soreteh
Man of Science
Posted by Noa on April 8, 2000, at 14:02:41
In reply to Re: Say it ain't so Doc, posted by Dr.Soreteh on April 8, 2000, at 12:02:04
It is fine with me, too. I had thought about this a couple of times, when we were having especially "eventful" group dynamics, but even the more subtle stuff is worth looking at. Interestingly, even though we have the safety of anonymity, and the group boundaries are very open, with no guarantee of consistent membership, and are not constrained by time and space considerations, it seems to me, as a participant, that a lot of the dynamics here are very similar or analogous to what happens in flesh-and-blood groups.
It would also be interesting to see if our knowing about possible research going on here is going to change any of the dynamics.
I have a question about informed consent. Do you need to obtain it in this context? Is your statement at the top of the page that our submissions become your domain sufficient? When you poll us, as you are doing now, does our okaying research only apply to ourselves, and not to those who don't agree (ie, you would not use their posts in the research)?
I think this board, or others,would also be interesting to a psycholinguist. For example, analyzing all the conflicts that occur out of misinterpreted text, or how people attempt, succeed, or fail at conveying humor in text.
Anyway, I think if there is a grad student or two out there who wants to do the work, go for it. It would be nice, though, if you could somehow share findings with us directly, rather than our having to go hunt down some journal article somewhere.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2000, at 15:34:24
In reply to Re: Group Research, posted by Noa on April 8, 2000, at 14:02:41
> Interestingly, even though we have the safety of anonymity, and the group boundaries are very open, with no guarantee of consistent membership, and are not constrained by time and space considerations, it seems to me, as a participant, that a lot of the dynamics here are very similar or analogous to what happens in flesh-and-blood groups.
Exactly right!
> I have a question about informed consent. Do you need to obtain it in this context?
Hmm, interesting question. I think the bottom line is that it would be up to the particular "institutional review board" (human subjects committee). Ours has guidelines, but I don't have them right here, but I'll try to remember to check. My guess is that consents probably wouldn't be necessary because the posts are public. Like if you wanted to study letters to Dear Abby, you probably wouldn't need consents.
One discussion of these issues, at:
http://www.concentric.net/~astorm/eth-abs.html
focuses more on how results are reported than on whether consents are necessary.
> When you poll us, as you are doing now, does our okaying research only apply to ourselves, and not to those who don't agree (ie, you would not use their posts in the research)?
Right now, I just wanted to raise this possibility and see where people generally stood. This wouldn't constitute informed consent, since you're not being informed of benefits, risks, etc.
> It would be nice, though, if you could somehow share findings with us directly, rather than our having to go hunt down some journal article somewhere.
Yes, of course, that wasn't how I should've responded before, sorry.
Bob
Posted by Phil on April 8, 2000, at 16:40:16
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
I think it's a great idea.
Phil
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.