![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 23 to 47 of 47. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Deb R on April 9, 2000, at 7:17:14
In reply to Re: Group Research, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2000, at 15:34:24
Dr Bob
I would be happy for this research to take place and also thought that something like that would already be happening, due to the info at the top of the page. Personally I find myself interested in the people here and strangely think of some of them as friends/mates or whatever. These are people whom I will never meet, but thats ok. Deb is my real name, but if I had thought about it I guess I would have used something more exotic!!Will always be grateful for this site.
Best wishes,
Deb
Posted by Soreteh et al on April 9, 2000, at 11:45:34
In reply to Re: Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Cam W. on April 7, 2000, at 20:47:04
>
> 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.1.Am I the only person gullible enough to start wondering if Cam really is bob? And also easily amused enough to think it is funnier and funnier if he isn't.[Why hasn't lower case bob posted on this thread? Why did Cam put a pointy nosed winking guy on a post? ]
2.If you do a study of group dynamics are you going to try and figure out who is who? I would not want someone tracing messages back to find out which ones came from the same place. I didn't give permission for that. (I thought everyone was changing names I wasn't trying to be deceptive or ashamed of anything I was posting. )S.
Posted by Cam W. on April 9, 2000, at 12:21:36
In reply to Re: Multiple Identities, posted by Soreteh et al on April 9, 2000, at 11:45:34
Soreteh - bob and I are different people. We really do have a different knowledge base, but I think both of us were messed up at the same Grateful Dead concert in the late 70's. Our philosophies seem just too close for it to be coincidence, but it is just a coincidence. I have never even been to NYC, I live in Western Canada. Check our e-mail addresses.Deep down, we both have a lust for life (somewhere inside us) and both of us believe in helping other as much as we can, with our experience. Both of us are sometimes wrong and truly regret some of the things we say, but that still does not stop us. Both of us have been so down that we have felt that there is no way out, but we survived and now realize that the lows do have an end. This is some of the experience we can share with others. Both of us are not naive enough to think that we cannot get that low again (or even lower), but we have learned to recognize and watch for warning signs. We had similar fears and thoughts growing up (but, really, doesn't everyone).
Bob quotes the classics, I quote contemporary musical lyrics. Besides, I post on this board way to much to be doing double duty. Look at the posting times and you will find that I would never sleep if I too were bob.
Perhaps bob hasn't posted because he is debating whether or not that this research is necessary or not. He could be trying to formulate something incredibly witty to say on the matter. With bob, you just don't know. - Cam W.
Posted by bob on April 9, 2000, at 14:04:19
In reply to Soreteh-(will be waste of time to therapy purists), posted by Cam W. on April 9, 2000, at 12:21:36
Cam, I couldn't have said it better myself. ;^)
... and as it turns out, since I'm several time zones away from Cam and we often are posting stuff at the same times, I often am losing sleep while he's checking in just before bedtime. All addictions have their prices.
cheers,
bob
Posted by Noa on April 10, 2000, at 9:28:50
In reply to but then again ..., posted by bob on April 9, 2000, at 14:04:19
I'm pretty sure that Cam and bob are two separate individuals, but then again, bob and I got our brains from the same bin at the baby factory.....
The question of multiple identities is a good one, though, because it is fairly apparent, I think, that from time to time, posts come up with different signatures that seem to have been authored by the same hand. I think Dr. Bob can tell if they come from the same source, computer-wise, but if someone is writing from alternate locations (like me, I now write from the library and from work-- still sticking with no home internet), it would not be possible to tell.
Philosophically, one could possibly make the argument that these cyber alter egos constitute enough of an identity on their own, and that in groups, people tend to farm out parts of their egos to other members to act on anyway, it's just that it becomes quite literal in this medium. It would only be a real issue, I think, then, if someone were purposely trying to confound the research and were working fairly consistently and diligently at this confounding effort.
Posted by kellyR. on April 10, 2000, at 15:12:48
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?
>
> BobI give you premission,& kelly is my real name.
Posted by Mark H. on April 10, 2000, at 18:28:57
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
Group dynamic research on this list, in my unprofessional opinion, would be benignly useless at worst, so why not?
Most research is flawed by failing to LISTEN. I postulate a theory, and I'm looking for support for that theory, and, lo and behold, I find evidence to support it through filtering and projection.
Having edited more than one PhD dissertation in psychology (and a couple of books in the field as well), I can attest that most "researchers" just want to get the thing over with and either published or approved by committee.
Posted by Mark H. on April 10, 2000, at 18:42:26
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
The first thing they taught us in public administration school was this:
The greatest guarantor of civil rights is bureaucratic incompetence.
For all you paranoids, the point of this is that with literally trillions of self-revelations now available on the Internet worldwide, no one is going to "trace" anything back to anyone, because no one gives a shit about what a few crazy people say here. Next to the poor, we mentally ill are the most marginalized segment of our society. Any thought that we should worry about our honesty here is just grandiosity on our part.
Posted by April A. on April 10, 2000, at 19:42:57
In reply to Oh, And Another Thing..., posted by Mark H. on April 10, 2000, at 18:42:26
> The first thing they taught us in public administration school was this:
>
> The greatest guarantor of civil rights is bureaucratic incompetence.
>
> For all you paranoids, the point of this is that with literally trillions of self-revelations now available on the Internet worldwide, no one is going to "trace" anything back to anyone, because no one gives a shit about what a few crazy people say here. Next to the poor, we mentally ill are the most marginalized segment of our society. Any thought that we should worry about our honesty here is just grandiosity on our part.
--------------------------------------------------
Although I don't consider myself crazy or mentally ill, I worry about being honest everywhere out of respect for myself and for truth itself which is greater than me. I don't think that's grandiose. I think personal privacy is important and I think it's important to stand up for it on principle. I don't feel " marginalized" because the National Enquirer isn't trying to trace back my posts for their cover;o) [attempt at humour]. I don't mind some poor grad student using my public posts for a paper. And I'm not offended if she doesn't treat them like revealed truth. A.
Posted by noa on April 11, 2000, at 8:52:18
In reply to Re: Oh, And Another Thing/ Mark H., posted by April A. on April 10, 2000, at 19:42:57
>[attempt at humour]we could abbreviate this to [AAH], a way to deal with the difficulty of expressing humor in text.
Posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2000, at 11:55:40
In reply to Re: Oh, And Another Thing/ Mark H., posted by April A. on April 10, 2000, at 19:42:57
Thank you, April. Your comments brought me back to my senses. If I had been capable of more honesty and self-insight yesterday, I would have put up a new post that said "having a tough day" rather than falling into depressive cynicism at the end of someone else's thread.
My pity-fit was set off by the series of articles in the Times about "rampage killers," the people whose frustrations and hurts and lack of self-control spill over into spectacular tragedies, like the spate of recent school and workplace shootings.
The quoted "experts" seemed to be trying to fit their favorite psychological and social theories to the phenomenon, rather than building understanding from the evidence.
With serial killers, for instance, it makes sense to interview the convicted, since the point is to discover the crime and apprehend the killer after the fact. I doubt we can do anything to prevent serial killing.
But with so-called "rampage killers," who neither conceal nor try to get away with their crimes, prevention is very much the goal. Why not interview the literally thousands of people who experience precisely the same impulses and potentially homicidal rages (perhaps every day) and yet who have succeeded in keeping themselves from acting on them? What worked for them? What support do they need? What advice might they offer that would actually help others who feel the same way and who are on the brink of taking as many people as possible out with them when they decide they cannot take any more?
Even in this discussion, it's clear I'm just binding my anxiety and hurt by attending to a topic I can do nothing about. No revealed truth here.
Again, thanks April, just for noticing and commenting -- it helped.
With warm regards,
Mark H
Posted by boB on April 11, 2000, at 17:59:49
In reply to Oh, And Another Thing..., posted by Mark H. on April 10, 2000, at 18:42:26
I appreciate your willingness to offer a diagnosis based entirely on reading a paragraph or two of someones internet postings, but for my part, my fear of persecution seems well founded. Perhaps you have not had the oppurtunity, as I have, to read the flimsy basis provided for many search warrants, nor to learn how much more intelligence is gathered by law enforcement agencies than is acted upon. Or how intelligence gathered on one person is used to track others, who one might not want to expose to risk. Muddying the waters is a reliable, tried and true strategy of self preservation, thank you.
Loose lips sink ships. The practice of making non-specific references sets a good example for people who, unlike me (myself having never even exceeded the speed limit, much less USED DRUGS) might be well served by watching their step. Get it?
Posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2000, at 20:15:14
In reply to Re: Oh, And Another Thing..., posted by boB on April 11, 2000, at 17:59:49
boB, I already apologized for my previous post, but since you persist, here are my responses:
> I appreciate your willingness to offer a diagnosis based entirely on reading a paragraph or two of someones internet postings.
Thank you, boB; you're one of the few to notice my sharp skills in that area.
>, but for my part, my fear of persecution seems well founded.
Right. Nothing to suggest paranoia there.
>Perhaps you have not had the oppurtunity, as I have, to read the flimsy basis provided for many search warrants...
That's correct. Other than criminal attorneys, judges and police officers, I don't know anyone who can make that claim. In what capacity have you read the basis for "many" search warrants (or any search warrants, for that matter)?
>nor to learn how much more intelligence is gathered by law enforcement agencies than is acted upon...
Hmmmm... intelligence that is gathered but not acted upon... very dangerous stuff. Nothing to suggest paranoia there, either. Darn me for throwing labels around so loosely!
>Muddying the waters is a reliable, tried and true strategy of self preservation, thank you.
Does "muddying the waters" mean lying about who you are, what you think, and what you do? And how does that add value to a public mental health support forum?
> Loose lips sink ships...Get it?
No, I really don't, boB. What's breaking the law or lying about yourself got to do with participating in a support forum for people who are suffering from mental and emotional illnesses?
Posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 12:48:29
In reply to Re: Oh, And Another Thing..., posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2000, at 20:15:14
RE: your willingness to offer a diagnosis based entirely on reading a
paragraph or two of someones internet postings.Thank you, boB; you're one of the few to notice my sharp skills in that area.
Mark, sarcasm aside, DSM does not suggest making a diagnoses without controled testing. I have a hunch even you know the error you are commiting here, but persist for reason’s you best understand.
>, but for my part, my fear of persecution seems well founded.
Right. Nothing to suggest paranoia there.
------Mark BEGS the question)
>Perhaps you have not had the oppurtunity, as I have, to read the flimsy basis
provided for many search warrants...That's correct. Other than criminal attorneys, judges and police officers, I don't
know anyone who can make that claim. In what capacity have you read the
basis for "many" search warrants (or any search warrants, for that matter)?----------- As a journalist, I have reviewed numerous court documents. When the documents are not available as part of the file, as they often are after a case is closed, I have reviewed defendants copies of their affidavit for search warrant. In most, if not all states, criminal defendants may release information to the media at will. In addition, several books are available offering studious reviews of the basis provided for search warrants. I have read some of those books.
My position, as a journalist, is that my access to this information should not be an anyway different than any other citizen. Most citizens lack the skill or wherewithal to exercise their right. Some states grant greater privilages to working journalists.
>nor to learn how much more intelligence is gathered by law enforcement
agencies than is acted upon...Hmmmm... intelligence that is gathered but not acted upon... very dangerous
stuff. Nothing to suggest paranoia there, either. Darn me for throwing labels
around so loosely!-------------Let me rephrase that for you, Mark. Damn you for your conptemtous intentional ignorance and your hatred for those who care the least for preserving freedom of information. There is an inteligent and considered national debate regarding tactics and social effects of the war on drugs. My experience includes, as I mentioned, listening to courtroom testimony of narcotics officers, as well as discussions with investigators and defendants, and an ongoing review of related literature.
>Muddying the waters is a reliable, tried and true strategy of self preservation,
thank you.Does "muddying the waters" mean lying about who you are, what you think, and what you do?
-----------Educated citizens of a capitalist nation have a wide ranging experience with styles of speech, including marketing speech, political speech and interpersonal speech. You are likely exposed to many of these styles in media and in your personal life. But In infantile terms you are bound to understand, Mark, YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME.
And how does that add value to a public mental health
support forum?----------- You are asking me to think for you, Mark. Think for yourself.
> Loose lips sink ships...Get it?
No, I really don't, boB. What's breaking the law or lying about yourself got to
do with participating in a support forum for people who are suffering from
mental and emotional illnesses?-------------My use of psuedonyms stems from my early experiences on the internet, when I learned that my off-hand, mispelled, unedited discussions, such as this, could appear higher in search results than my edited and published work. It also stems from wanting more freedom of speech than many of my clients or employers might allow, if they thought their publication would be connected to my internet dialogue. A reknowned national news anchor recently told an interviewer, when asked what he would have liked more from his career, that he wanted more freedom to express his true insights, outside of the commercial controls of the media.
It has to do with broaching a level of honesty one can not safely countenance in a society that is at war with itself. There are a range of treatments and approaches to understanding mental and emotional conditions. Regardless of the desire of many that licensed practitioners monopolize the selection of treatments, the discussion here is an apparent effort by individuals to effectively participate in their own self care. This discussion is but one thread of that larger dialogue. I am suffering too, Mark, but my effort here is oriented toward addressing the suffering of others, by educating myself, and by comparing and contrasting my understandings with those of others.
Finally, I should point out that you are confusing law and medicine. Maybe you have some authority issues you need to sort out with your therapist, using your favorite med to “create a floor” while you unpeel your layers of emotional confusion.
As for your contempt for journalists who attempt to understand the causes of the recent increase in mass killings, which you seem to so plainly understand, I add this: Any honest study of the phenomenon will include an account of psychopharmaceuticals prescribed to these killers, and a review of the full range arguments concerning the role of drugs in their brash behavior.
Posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2000, at 13:18:53
In reply to Heavy, tired sigh...., posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 12:48:29
boB, Thank you for your intelligent and well written response. You and I are on the same side of these issues, I suspect. I apologize for having offended you with my ill-chosen humor. I greatly value your contributions to this forum and particularly the time you took to give me a measured and considerate answer to my concerns.
If I haven't completely burned down the bridges between us, how about starting over?
With sincere appreciation, Mark H.
Posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 13:43:04
In reply to Re: Heavy, tired sigh...., posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2000, at 13:18:53
Cool, Mark,
Any idea on how I can get a script for antibiotics without waiting a week and a half to see a low cost doc?
my teeth are killing me - a apparent heart infection as evidenced by mid-chest rash, feverishness in mid chest some pain in area, etc, = now bleeding from an open root canal, i mean pulpectomy, impaired mental function, ringing in the ears -
If I can hold out a few weeks, a might get a new job for about 50 percent more wages and can afford a dentist. I could use my health plan on an emergency room visit and blow off the $250 deductible, or I could just take the same kind of chances people take when they climb Everest - one in four chance of dying.
Anyway, thanks for the compassionate reply.
Posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2000, at 14:05:52
In reply to tired=, posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 13:43:04
Bob,
Please check your email. I just sent you a message off-forum.
In case you see this first, please get to the emergency room or at least call the person who did your root canal. Get an emergency phone-in for antibiotics at the minimum; if it has involved your heart, they may want you on IV antibiotics. And don't let them give you cheap weenie antibiotics, either!
Oh man, I'll be praying for you!!
Mark H.
Posted by a on April 12, 2000, at 16:19:44
In reply to Re: tired=, posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2000, at 14:05:52
Mark,
You are a great guy. Way to go!> Bob,
>
> Please check your email. I just sent you a message off-forum.
>
> In case you see this first, please get to the emergency room or at least call the person who did your root canal. Get an emergency phone-in for antibiotics at the minimum; if it has involved your heart, they may want you on IV antibiotics. And don't let them give you cheap weenie antibiotics, either!
>
> Oh man, I'll be praying for you!!
>
> Mark H.
Posted by Cam W. on April 12, 2000, at 20:58:26
In reply to tired=, posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 13:43:04
That's what I like about his board!
Posted by Brenda on April 12, 2000, at 21:02:51
In reply to tired=, posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 13:43:04
> Cool, Mark,
>
> Any idea on how I can get a script for antibiotics without waiting a week and a half to see a low cost doc?
>
> my teeth are killing me - a apparent heart infection as evidenced by mid-chest rash, feverishness in mid chest some pain in area, etc, = now bleeding from an open root canal, i mean pulpectomy, impaired mental function, ringing in the ears -
>
> If I can hold out a few weeks, a might get a new job for about 50 percent more wages and can afford a dentist. I could use my health plan on an emergency room visit and blow off the $250 deductible, or I could just take the same kind of chances people take when they climb Everest - one in four chance of dying.
>
>
> Anyway, thanks for the compassionate reply.boB - Please see a doc right away or go to some health care clinic. I don't know where you live - but there must be something. That upcoming job surely won't pan out if you're too sick to dazzle them. Again, please don't wait to see what happens. The kind of infection you're describing can be serious.
Be well - and let us know how you are. BTW - your correspondence with/between Mark is actually very interesting. Again, be well. B.
Posted by Forthfore on April 13, 2000, at 0:37:06
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
Group dynamics? Vague term. What specifically are you thinking about in terms of group dynamics?
Obviously it's your project, but I think much more interesting is the content itself.
I think it would be enlightening to see tabulated data on what diagnoses, medications, side effects, understanding of all these issues, reactions to dr's and therapists, etc...people are spontaneously mentioning on this board
....than it would be to see how people use boards like this for support. How they flame each other, etc. All of which we can pretty much guess.In fact, I've wished that someone would do it for ASDM for a long time. However skewed the sample - there's more data there than you can shake a fist at.
> 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 Carolyn on April 19, 2000, at 14:43:30
In reply to Potential group dynamics research here, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2000, at 15:02:36
I would love to participate in your research. I am as interesting as they come and have so much knowledge except how to fix myself!!
Carolyn
This is the end of the 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.