![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 10:46:06
Gross incivility is easy, because I know the authorities (Dr. Bob) will handle it. Snide remarks that fly under Dr. Bob's radar are no real problem either.
I find that my main problems are the things I where I can't rely on Dr. Bob because he considers them civil academic debate, no matter how insensitively expressed. Things where posters make themselves vulnerable by expressing something important to them, and are met with "debate" on whether therapy is useless, a particular therapy is nothing more than the placebo effect, a condition is a fraud perpetrated by unscrupulous therapists, feeling anything for a therapist (never mind expressing your feelings) is inappropriate given that it is strictly a business relationship, etc. To Dr. Bob academic debate, to posters an important Relationship, Hope, or Core belief about oneself that can't easily be viewed with clinical detachment.
I know that the proper "behavior" under Dr. Bob's policy is to ignore such posters or to politely express one's own beliefs using I statements.
But I am left with the conclusion that to be vulnerable on this board, now that it has grown to a certain size perhaps, is to bring hurt on myself. And since limiting my vulnerability on this board also limits its usefulness, I am at something of a loss.
Do you have any suggestions on being self protective without being guarded to the point of making the board ineffective.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 11:42:13
In reply to Munro: Vulnerability, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 10:46:06
What Dinah has asked is really the core of most of the problems here.
There are many people here that are vulnerable. And there are varying degrees of vulnerability, depending on the poster, the topic and the current mood of the poster (just came out of a therapy session, for example)
This can also vary according to the wording of the person who replies. Two people can say exactly the same thing with good intentions, but because of the wording one is taken kindly and the other looks like an attack.
So, how to respect those who are vulnerable and not stifle those who enjoy debates? Not easy.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 11:44:49
In reply to Munro: Vulnerability, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 10:46:06
We have a button to click for 'add name of poster' and 'no message.' How about another??
This one can be 'no debate' - a signal that you don't want to debate a topic. Then if *that* is not honored, there is concrete evidence for a PBC or a block.
Posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 11:46:27
In reply to Re: I just had an idea!!!! » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 11:44:49
Easily gotten around. A new thread is started that is transparently related to the topic.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 12:05:29
In reply to Re: I just had an idea!!!! » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 11:46:27
If it's transparent, then it's still a violation. If it's translucent - well at least it's moved elsewhere so the thread you are on is uninterupted. It's a lot easier to ignore an entire thread than interuptions on the one you are on.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 12:06:58
In reply to Re: I just had an idea!!!! » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 11:46:27
It's a way of indicating your feelings without getting into a spitting match.
Posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 12:09:30
In reply to Re: Munro: Vulnerability and debate, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 11:42:13
I'm not talking about vulnerability as a weakness or oversensitivity.
I'm talking about vulnerability and openness as a strength. The purposeful giving of oneself through the offering of something precious to ourself, in the hopes that others will find it valuable as well, or will rejoice with us.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 12:27:14
In reply to Re: Just to be absolutely clear, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 12:09:30
And that type of vulnerability is wonderful. And something that shouldn't be messed with.
And by 'no debate' I wasn't including constructive criticism. I meant the type of disagreement that is meant (for whatever motives) to cause a back-and-forth type debate.
Posted by partlycloudy on August 4, 2004, at 13:39:46
In reply to Re: Just to be absolutely clear » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on August 4, 2004, at 12:27:14
I look at the message from Dr Bob at the top of the Psych board. "for support". It doesn't say, for critical debate, post here. It doesn't say, for dressing down someone's choice of modality, post here.
"Support" implies encouragement, don't you think? I think that many of us arrive here at Babble because we have trouble accepting critisism without getting overly upset - being vulnerable, as Dinah said.
Gently, gently, gently...
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 18:22:45
In reply to Here I go, jumping in again » AuntieMel, posted by partlycloudy on August 4, 2004, at 13:39:46
I agree with you, PartlyCloudy. The board does point out it is for support and education. It appears from about 97% of the posts that's the reason for the posters. I feel that a psychology board for the use of support and education is to be highly protected.
Many people including myself are on medications, in various therapies, and have been hospitalized for various mental affictions. With that in mind, it would appear that an environment conducive of supporting one's choice of modality. Also, it would appear that one's dx would not become involved in a debate of validity of proof. For many mental dxs are not made with blood tests and MRI's, but by observation and symptoms expressed by the patient.
However, if debates are classified as a supportive/educational purposes, it should be done so with a standard of conduct. Such debate would end if either poster chooses to be uncivil toward the other. If debates are started on the board, they need to be even more closely monitored due to they can become uncivil in many ways.
Posted by partlycloudy on August 4, 2004, at 19:25:12
In reply to Re: Here I go, jumping in again, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 18:22:45
I like the way you think.... I'm also certain that an equilibrium can be attained here.
Posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:34:03
In reply to Munro: Vulnerability, posted by Dinah on August 4, 2004, at 10:46:06
Hi Dinah,
I understand being vulnerable and wanting a response that is emotionally attuned to your vulnerability and isn't simply an intellectual response.
It might help to clearly state at the top of your post what you want, or are needing, from people in their responses to you and hopefully people will respect that. For example, you might simply need some understanding -- some empathy --and nothing else. Sometimes, you might want some suggestions for what other people have tried, and other times that is the last thing you want to hear. I think it would help you and others who are responding to you to state what you need each time.
Kali
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 23:08:00
In reply to Re: Here I go, jumping in again, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 18:22:45
When people are posting back and forth on a topic and someone jumps in and says drug Z is poison, treatment O is hogwash, your doc is out of touch, or your dx isn't valid. That's the problem that I see. I feel those stmts are seen as an attack. People invest a lot of money on treatments, medications, phyicians, therapists, etc. to feel better. With that in mind, this will cause anger or hurt feelings that someone is questioning their treatment plans.
I have seen this happen over and over on the med board and now more recently on psych board. I don't think people want to debate what they put a lot of money into to get better. They want support and knowledge to better themselves, but I don't think they want their treatment plans under an interrogation of proof of progress or validity.
I feel people want respect of their given choice of professional treatment plans, dx, and medication regimen. We all know this is unique as each person. We can appreciate, share, support, educate, and/or vent our feelings to each other in a safe environment. This is my thoughts.
Posted by KaraS on August 4, 2004, at 23:28:20
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see), posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 23:08:00
> When people are posting back and forth on a topic and someone jumps in and says drug Z is poison, treatment O is hogwash, your doc is out of touch, or your dx isn't valid. That's the problem that I see. I feel those stmts are seen as an attack. People invest a lot of money on treatments, medications, phyicians, therapists, etc. to feel better. With that in mind, this will cause anger or hurt feelings that someone is questioning their treatment plans.
>
> I have seen this happen over and over on the med board and now more recently on psych board. I don't think people want to debate what they put a lot of money into to get better. They want support and knowledge to better themselves, but I don't think they want their treatment plans under an interrogation of proof of progress or validity.
>
> I feel people want respect of their given choice of professional treatment plans, dx, and medication regimen. We all know this is unique as each person. We can appreciate, share, support, educate, and/or vent our feelings to each other in a safe environment. This is my thoughts.
>
>
>I agree with you to a certain extent. I have been guilty of exactly what you're talking about but sometimes I sense that the person wants that support that says "dump your doctor - your thoughts or complaints about your doctor are valid."
If the doctor really does seem terribly inept though (even if the person isn't asking for that kind of input), do you say nothing? I mean there are some terribly inept doctors out there. It's hard to know where to draw the line in terms of supporting them and allowing really bad treatment... but maybe I'm not qualified to give that advice (even if it seems very obvious to me).
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 5, 2004, at 0:34:17
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see), posted by KaraS on August 4, 2004, at 23:28:20
I would ask them, "How do you feel about your doctor right now? Do you feel he/she is giving you want you need right now? or Have you thought about seeing someone else?" We only know what they tell us. Sometimes, people really do need to switch MDs, but I wouldn't suggest slamming a doc. I think that falls under the uncivil guidelines.
Posted by KaraS on August 5, 2004, at 2:35:25
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see) to Kara, posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 5, 2004, at 0:34:17
> I would ask them, "How do you feel about your doctor right now? Do you feel he/she is giving you want you need right now? or Have you thought about seeing someone else?" We only know what they tell us. Sometimes, people really do need to switch MDs, but I wouldn't suggest slamming a doc. I think that falls under the uncivil guidelines.
That's good advice.
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2004, at 8:40:23
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see) to Kara, posted by KaraS on August 5, 2004, at 2:35:25
I think we have also seen on the various boards evidence that posters who have been acquaintd online for awhile gently suggesting to someone that what they are doing doesn't seem to be working, or why don't you try X? That, to me, is a really good and caring post. I love getting lots of suggestions here, but I tend to end up doing what feels right to me anyway. :)
Take care,
gg
Posted by Dinah on August 5, 2004, at 11:13:03
In reply to Re: Munro: Vulnerability, posted by Kali Munro on August 4, 2004, at 21:34:03
Thank you for your reply. :)
I'm afraid that Shadows may have put things more clearly than I did. I was using Dr. Bob's words more than my own. He believes that what happens is academic debate, or I believe what he said was that such statements were clinical in nature and therefore not uncivil.
What happens is things like:
Someone posts a positive experience about analysis or EMDR and a poster says on that thread or a thread nearby that EMDR or analysis is nothing but a way to line a therapists pockets and produces a link to Skepdic.com to prove it. That anyone who thinks they were helped by EMDR or analysis was only helped by the passage of time or the placebo effect.
Someone posts that they are thinking of giving a card to their therapist on their anniversary to express their gratitude, or is planning to tell their therapist about their loving (or sexual) feelings for their therapist. Obviously this is a sensitive topic for many, and most of us try to treat it reassuringly, with references to "In Session" and assurances that it is common enough and a well trained professional won't be unfamiliar with the phenomenon. But someone might come along and say how inappropriate that is, that it's a business relationship, that people ought to get a real life, etc. If they go farther and call the poster a stalker, they'd probably get an admin action from Dr. Bob. But if they say that a therapist might consider such actions stalking, Dr. Bob might well let it go.
Now this one involves me, while the others don't. Several people on the board have been open and vulnerable enough to disclose that they have anything from well defined ego states to DID. I made the mistake of letting a poster know that this was a sensitive topic to me, although I do not have DID, when the poster asked what MPD stood for. The poster didn't even know what MPD stood for, but said poster went to the trouble of looking up what MPD was and posting a thread about how it was a fictitious disorder induced by therapists, that patients were either misled or mistaken (to put it politely) and that it couldn't possibly exist and here are the links to Skepdic.com (and a few others) to prove it. Admittedly, the post was on a new thread, but I'm not sure it would make a difference to Dr. Bob if it wasn't. This poster also made some references to posters posting under several names because that's what people who mistakenly believe they have DID do. To my knowledge, no one on the board who has been diagnosed with DID posts under different ID's, and the suggestion seemed part of an overall attitude towards DID that Dr. Bob considered civil, but that probably was responded to with feelings of hurt or distress by people on the board who had been open and vulnerable enough to disclose something that they might not have told more than a handful of people in their lives.
Dr. Bob considers these clinical discussions. I don't really, especially if the poster has no particular desire to debate, which many really don't, because they're unwilling to concede that any other possibility exists. Some even state that openly.
(Incidentally, the accreditation question involved one poster stating that another poster was a therapist in training, and Poster X saying that he knew that there were institutions that handed out degrees for money, but that were usually caught and lost their accreditation. I'm paraphrasing a bit here. Dr. Bob apparently thought this was civil.)
So again, my conclusion is that one shouldn't be open or vulnerable on this board unless one has a thick enough skin to receive these type of replies, given that Dr. Bob considers them civil. And unless Dr. Bob is willing to enforce a rule that if you ask that people not post certain types of replies on the thread you disclosed on, you don't really even have limited protection on those threads. And my guess is that Dr. Bob would be unwilling to enforce those requests. And even if he did, the poster could just post one thread down. So I see no solution.
I'm sorry this is so long, but it saddens me that people need to be so cautious about self disclosure on a board that is effective only when people self disclose. I consider that one of the most valuable functions of Psychological Babble is to let people know just how normal it is to have these various feelings and experiences. But again, I think it's a function of Psychological Babble achieving a certain size and availability on Google. It means more posters, which is good, but the atmosphere necessarily has to change.
Posted by KaraS on August 5, 2004, at 13:33:43
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see) to Kara, posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2004, at 8:40:23
> I think we have also seen on the various boards evidence that posters who have been acquaintd online for awhile gently suggesting to someone that what they are doing doesn't seem to be working, or why don't you try X? That, to me, is a really good and caring post. I love getting lots of suggestions here, but I tend to end up doing what feels right to me anyway. :)
>
> Take care,
> gg
I think that next time I will think twice before suggesting a doctor change or at least I will phrase it as you and Shadowplayers721 have suggested.
Posted by Aphrodite on August 5, 2004, at 18:18:14
In reply to Re: Munro: Vulnerability » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on August 5, 2004, at 11:13:03
Posted by Kali Munro on August 5, 2004, at 21:04:11
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see), posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 4, 2004, at 23:08:00
>>>When people are posting back and forth on a topic and someone jumps in and says drug Z is poison, treatment O is hogwash, your doc is out of touch, or your dx isn't valid. That's the problem that I see. I feel those stmts are seen as an attack...With that in mind, this will cause anger or hurt feelings that someone is questioning their treatment plans. <<<<<
Sure, and their choice of treatment *is* being questioned and in the examples you give, I would say they are being questioned in an insensitive or rigid manner.
I'm hearing that there is a difference of opinion between some members and Dr. Bob about what is and is not civil. Some members think these kinds of comments are uncivil and Bob doesn't. So, given that, what do you do?
I think when someone is being insensitive and not open to dialogue, the best response is for everyone to ignore the post i.e. not respond at all and carry on as if the post wasn't there. There is little that is more powerful than everyone not responding to someone who is being arrogant, rigid, authoritarian, or insensitive (or bullying). When the person gets a reaction from you, particularly a negative one, they feel superior or "high" because they think that they "got you" and/or that they are "right". But when they receive no response and the conversation continues as if they never said anything, they often leave, or simmer down and post more appropriately. In other words don't reward behaviour (even negatively) you deem uncivil.
I know it's hard not to respond, and you could if you wanted, but based on what I'm reading in this post, it doesn't sound like they are trying to share information or dialogue about the issue but simply state their opinions and in effect "talk at" you rather than "with" you.
It may or may not be intended as an attack on the person, although I do understand it being felt or experienced in that manner. The person could be arrogant and believe strongly they are right and must convince you of the "truth" -- but that doesn't make it any more palatable!
Kali
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 10:23:43
In reply to Re: cont.d (The problem I see), posted by Kali Munro on August 5, 2004, at 21:04:11
And I believe you've hit the root of the problem, as it as always been for me at least. I need to remember that any given poster that I don't really know hasn't much ability to hurt me. (Posters that I have grown to know and care for have the ability to hurt me, of course.) It's Dr. Bob finding it civil that adds the pain to what they say, and causes me to respond to them.
I think that a lot of the solution for me is to try to remove Dr. Bob's actions from the equations, and remember that the poster does not assume extra power over me because of Dr. Bob's administrative actions.
I don't think I can learn to completely ignore the poster, tho. :) I think a supportive word directed to the poster who may have felt hurt may outweigh the risk of encouraging the troublesome poster. I know that a simple word of support from another poster helps me feel calmer and puts the post that upset me into perspective. But I'll try harder to make the post clearly supportive, but without adding gratification to the troublesome poster. Oooh. That's a tough post to write. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on August 6, 2004, at 13:07:36
In reply to Here I go, jumping in again » AuntieMel, posted by partlycloudy on August 4, 2004, at 13:39:46
Actually, I think we agree, but are arguing semantics.
When I talk about debate as a good thing, I am talking about the kind of friendly back-and-forth type of thing about a topic (even about therapy) that uses sentences line "but don't you think.....?" I'm *not* saying that nastiness is ever a good thing. Which includes dressing down therapies, too.
I kinda think *that* type of debate falls into the "education" part of the 'mission statement.'
The thing is that I saw signs that with some friendly coaching about the ways of babble, fires had the makings of a good participant. And I'm happy to work on the coaching 'cause we seem to be able to talk to each other.
Well, we now have several days to regroup. I'd like to ask for a chance to start the coaching again. All it would take is a bit of space - then as others feel more comfortable they could join in.
Of course, there is always the possibity that I'm all wet;)
Posted by partlycloudy on August 6, 2004, at 13:40:26
In reply to Re: Here I go, jumping in again » partlycloudy, posted by AuntieMel on August 6, 2004, at 13:07:36
I agree that fires started out on the wrong foot with the board. In retrospect (don't you love that??) someone (like me) should have directed him/her to the Please Be Civil rules instead of striking back at what felt like an attack.
And I am all done with this conversation that feels like a debate. I don't debate, I run away, and here I go.
bye bye
Posted by Kali Munro on August 6, 2004, at 15:17:56
In reply to Re: Thank you again » Kali Munro, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2004, at 10:23:43
<<<<And I believe you've hit the root of the problem, as it as always been for me at least. I need to remember that any given poster that I don't really know hasn't much ability to hurt me.>>>>
That's right! You can even critique their post and them *in your head* ;), as a way to deflect any hurt feelings on your part.>>>>(Posters that I have grown to know and care for have the ability to hurt me, of course.) It's Dr. Bob finding it civil that adds the pain to what they say, and causes me to respond to them.
I think that a lot of the solution for me is to try to remove Dr. Bob's actions from the equations, and remember that the poster does not assume extra power over me because of Dr. Bob's administrative actions.<<<<<
Nicely reframed, Dinah. That sounds like a really good strategy.
>>>>>I don't think I can learn to completely ignore the poster, tho. :) I think a supportive word directed to the poster who may have felt hurt may outweigh the risk of encouraging the troublesome poster. I know that a simple word of support from another poster helps me feel calmer and puts the post that upset me into perspective. But I'll try harder to make the post clearly supportive, but without adding gratification to the troublesome poster. Oooh. That's a tough post to write. :)<<<<<
Oh, for sure, I think offering your support to the person whom you think/feel may have been hurt is a good idea. That may be just what they need to hear, and a way for you to deal with your own feelings.It's certainly tough at first but the payoff is tremendous on many levels. Besides the possibility of less tension and conflict on the board, it can be really freeing and empowering because eventually you feel like you have the choice -- the power -- to respond how you want rather than simply react (which in a way does give them power).
Nice talking this through with you, Dinah,
Kali
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.