![[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 Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 9:28:40
I loved your last post to Fires, it was very smart and I hope he sees how ridiculous he was being. If he has real problems though, it was kinda mean, but in a very funny way.
All the same, he needs professional help, not ours, so Good for you.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 22, 2004, at 10:27:46
In reply to Gardener girl, posted by Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 9:28:40
Thanks for the feedback, Susan. I'm glad you thought it was funny, but I do worry that my humor can be biting at times. I think this was one of them. :(
Hopefully fires will get what he or she needs, either here or somewhere else.
Take care!
gg
Posted by pegasus on July 22, 2004, at 12:53:12
In reply to Gardener girl, posted by Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 9:28:40
Just a heads up: you might want to be careful with words like ridiculous. Dr. Bob might consider that to be a put down, which will earn you a "please be civil" and eventually get you blocked. We're not allowed to say accusatory or insulting things about each other, even if someone else starts it.
Hoping to keep seeing you here!
pegasus
Posted by Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 17:44:46
In reply to Re: Gardener girl » Susan47, posted by pegasus on July 22, 2004, at 12:53:12
Thank you for the heads up; I needed to hear that.
"I can't understand the rationale behind Fires' thinking."
I can't stop myself from having opinions, and I think sometimes those opinions do need to be expressed.
If someone is using the Board to let off steam, that's one thing, but in my opinion no one should accuse anyone of anything here.
Is it okay to say that? I really hope so.
I hope it is, because maybe that's a much better way of expressing myself..
Take care, and hope to talk to you again in the future.
Susan
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 0:09:10
In reply to Gardener girl, posted by Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 9:28:40
> I loved your last post to Fires, it was very smart and I hope he sees how ridiculous he was being. If he has real problems though, it was kinda mean, but in a very funny way.
> All the same, he needs professional help, not ours, so Good for you.I wasn't being ridiculous and I don't appreciate you saying that I was. Also, who are you to say that I need professional help?
Are you a professional? If not, I believe that you should cease telling others that they need professional help. And if you are a professional, you couldn't possibly render that opinion with such limited knowledge about me.
I would like to suggest that you stop offering your opinions re: who does or doesn't need professional help. Perhaps Dr. Bob can offer his opinion/direction about this matter.
Thanks
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 0:52:08
In reply to Re: Gardener girl, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 0:09:10
.............
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 10:35:25
In reply to Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 0:52:08
>>> I loved your last post to Fires, it was very smart and I hope he sees how ridiculous he was being. If he has real problems though, it was kinda mean, but in a very funny way.
> All the same, he needs professional help, not ours, so Good for you.<<I agree, Dr. Bob's intervention would be nice -- considering the above post.
Thank you
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 12:10:28
In reply to Re: Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 10:35:25
I meant "ridiculous" as in extremely suspicious of people you don't know.
Is that wrong?
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:19
In reply to Re: Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 12:10:28
Here's what you wrote"
>>I loved your last post to Fires, it was very smart and I hope he sees how ridiculous he was being. If he has real problems though, it was kinda mean, but in a very funny way.
All the same, he needs professional help, not ours, so Good for you.<<Why did/do you assume that I'm extremely suspicious of people I don't know? I believe that some here are making incorrect assumptions. I believe that it makes honest communication difficult.
Thanks
Posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 14:50:24
In reply to Re: Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 12:10:28
hello there susan, chemist here. i thought i should take the opportunity to say hello and join the rest of the crowd in welcoming you (however belatedly). i usually hang my hat on the meds board, but have been watching the world turn on this board as of late: quite a stir, wouldn't you agree? all the best, and again, welcome aboard.....chemist
Posted by B2chica on July 23, 2004, at 15:23:09
In reply to welcome, susan.... » Susan47, posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 14:50:24
Hello Susan.
good to have you here. quite belated i'm sure. i haven't been following some threads (can't read em all) but some can be misleading about the community atmosphere here just an fyi.-this site has been very helpful to me. i started with hooking up on the meds board. (chemist is great help btw), but spend most of my time in psych and social.
i've been lurking since last nov. and started posting in about....feb. i think? boy my memory is terrible.
anyway, welcome. there are a great bunch of people here and many boards to visit.
B2c.
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 16:02:45
In reply to Re: Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 14:32:19
Do you know us? You assume we're lying, you've said yourself you think some of us are posting under different id's.
Are you okay?
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 16:05:44
In reply to welcome, susan.... » Susan47, posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 14:50:24
Thank you so much. I've been having a really rough time in therapy and quit. I also am having side-effects from my meds; they're making me anxious. That's better than being depressed, but marginally. On the other hand, I'd rather be anxious and alive then depressed and suicidal. Although, anxiety makes me feel pretty suicidal sometimes too.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 16:07:15
In reply to Re: welcome, susan...., posted by B2chica on July 23, 2004, at 15:23:09
.......
Posted by chemist on July 23, 2004, at 16:21:15
In reply to For Chemist, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 16:05:44
> Thank you so much. I've been having a really rough time in therapy and quit. I also am having side-effects from my meds; they're making me anxious. That's better than being depressed, but marginally. On the other hand, I'd rather be anxious and alive then depressed and suicidal. Although, anxiety makes me feel pretty suicidal sometimes too.
> Thanks for listening.hello there, susan...this crowd on PB is quite exceptional, and i do hope that you stick around here and social: this is a very supportive and kind group. visit the other boards as needed, as there is solace in every corner...you are in good hands here...be well, and all the best, chemist
Posted by shadows721 on July 23, 2004, at 18:06:29
In reply to Re: Yes Dr. Bob I wish you would. Where are you?, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 10:35:25
The ONLY way to deal with trolls is to LIMIT your reaction to reminding others NOT to respond to trolls.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 26, 2004, at 17:21:05
In reply to Thanks Pegasus, posted by Susan47 on July 22, 2004, at 17:44:46
> "I can't understand the rationale behind Fires' thinking."
> I can't stop myself from having opinions, and I think sometimes those opinions do need to be expressed.
> If someone is using the Board to let off steam, that's one thing, but in my opinion no one should accuse anyone of anything here.
> Is it okay to say that? I really hope so.
> I hope it is, because maybe that's a much better way of expressing myself..That was in fact much better, thanks. But just to be clear, if expressing opinions or letting off steam means accusing someone of something, I'd rather that be done elsewhere.
Further discussion of posting policies should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 17:52:18
In reply to scientific research » fires, posted by pegasus on July 26, 2004, at 17:00:30
> Hey fires,
>
> A while back I asked you not to post to me, and I said I wouldn't post to you. But the way things are going lately on the board gives me more confidence in myself and in you. So, I'd like to rescind my ban.
>
> I disagree below with some things that you said, so I'm nervous that I'll get attacked. Please know that I'm replying to you with good intentions, which are to respectfully disagree with a couple of your conclusions, and to amicably explain why I disagree. I welcome explanations of why you think my reasoning and conclusions may be wrong.
> >
> > Personal testimonies of any medical/therapy treatment don't cut it with me. I'm open minded, but I don't have a hole in my head. :)
> >
> > Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> >
> > Also, the MPD people can't refute the science supporting the scientific MPD research. They can only say that their experiences override science.
> >
>
> I think you have a lot more faith in science than I do! Speaking as a scientist, I've read lots of scientific research that has been later refuted when new evidence comes to light.
>
> Moreover, I think that a lot of things don't lend themselves well to traditional scientific study. Which doesn't mean that they aren't real phenomena. Therapy is a prime example. Love is another.
>
> The problem with therapy is that evaluating it's effectiveness requires considering the personal subjective experience of the client. Personal subjective experience isn't the type of thing that is easy to quantify, and therefore, traditional scientific research methods don't work well to examine it. Here's a link about this that you may find interesting: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/gordon.html
>
> That's just one link. This type of discussion is all over the internet. If you want more references, let me know.
>
> Personally, I believe that people's experiences can override the results of scientific research. There is so much that we don't know yet, and scientific results are so dependent on the theories that we have, and the questions that we ask. I believe that we often ask the wrong questions or ask questions in the wrong way, and so get "scientific" results that don't actually reflect reality very well. Especially in terms of wiggly things like therapy and mental health. In my opinion, listening to people's experience is not only valid, but essential, as a check on relying too heavily on the flawed system of scientific research. These experiences may even inform future research that will someday show that what they've experienced is explainable. Or not.
>
> Also, I want to explain that I am not anti-science. I think scientific research has contributed a lot, and I've participated in a fair amount of it myself. I just also believe that it is limited, and easily misinterpreted.
>
> pegasus
>Wow. Long article -- which I admit I only skimmed. First, If things don't lend themselves to "traditional scientific study" they certainly won't be any more easily studied by any other type of "science."
To quote Michael Shermer, a wel known skeptic:
"The second popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded to certain beliefs comes from a misunderstanding of skepticism and science. Skeptics and scientists are not necessarily “closed-minded” (though they may be since they are human). They may once have been open-minded to a belief, but when the evidence came up short they rejected it. There are already enough legitimate mysteries in the universe for which evidence provides scientists fodder for their research. To take the time to consider “unseen” or “unknown” mysteries is not always practical. When the non-skeptic says, “you’re just closed-minded to the unknown forces of the universe,” the skeptic responds: “We’re still trying to understand the known forces of the universe.”
Re: Listening to patient's experiences. Yes we should listen,but we don't need to except the experiences without proof. Examples: People have claimed to have been abducted by aliens. People have claimed to have been cured of all types of illnesses by "faith healers." Some say that they can communicate with the dead.
Imagine if therapists blindly excepted the tales of paranoid schizophrenics!
I'm out of time. BTW, you don't have to say that you respectfully disagree with me. I asssume that all disagreements with me are respectful until proven otherwise.
bye
Posted by pegasus on July 26, 2004, at 18:32:40
In reply to Re: scientific research, posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 17:52:18
Whoa, I'm confused about how this reply ended up in this thread. But whatever, I'm happy to talk about this here.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but it does sound to me as though you are overgeneralizing. For example, I agree that one shouldn't take the statements of hallicinating schizophrenic at face value. Perhaps we shouldn't take anyone's comments about their personal experience at face value. But we can respectfully consider them. We can believe that there is some possibility that those experiences are true. We can evaluate other evidence (i.e., sympoms of schizophrenia) when deciding whether to allow the possibility of those experiences reflecting reality. That's all I was advocating. I'm not advocating blindly accepting things that people say.
Requiring scientific research or "proof" to support a phenomenon before we believe that it might be real seems like a very stiff criterion to me. I think if we demand that, then we'll end up not recognizing lots of things that might be really happening. Sometimes there just isn't "proof", and it's up to us to choose whether we'll acknowledge possibilities, rather than only certainties. The lack of proof doesn't prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist. If you don't want to acknowledge possibilities, that's up to you. Personally, I would find acknowledging only certainties to be very limiting, and that's how I read your Michael Shermer quote.
You said "If things don't lend themselves to "traditional scientific study" they certainly won't be any more easily studied by any other type of "science." I would strongly disagree with this statement. There are other paradigms of study. For example, case studies. The article I cited got into that a bit at the end, but not much.
Also, I would suggest that if something can't be studied, it may still be a real phenomenon, worthy of our attention. To me, "proof" is not a reasonable gold standard for what is worthy of consideration. Maybe that's where we fundamentally disagree.
pegasus
Posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2004, at 8:46:52
In reply to Re: scientific research, posted by pegasus on July 26, 2004, at 18:32:40
<< Requiring scientific research or "proof" to support a phenomenon before we believe that it might be real seems like a very stiff criterion to me. I think if we demand that, then we'll end up not recognizing lots of things that might be really happening.
That's the chicken and the egg problem, isn't it. Or a catch-22. Columbus requires proof that the world is round before he takes his trip. Trying to take a trip is the only way to supply the proof.
I guess Columbus *could* wait for someone else to supply the proof - but if everyone thinks that way it won't get done. And Europe would be mighty dang crowded.
Posted by Ilene on July 27, 2004, at 12:28:35
In reply to Re: scientific research, posted by pegasus on July 26, 2004, at 18:32:40
There are practical reasons for wanting proof that psychotherapy will help you. You could be wasting large amounts of time and money, and opening yourself up to emotional manipulation.
Therapy was never very useful to me. I think my particular difficulties are biological. I might try therapy again, however.
I'm also disturbed by how dependent some people are on their therapists.
Posted by pegasus on July 27, 2004, at 14:42:45
In reply to Re: scientific research, posted by Ilene on July 27, 2004, at 12:28:35
Yes, absolutely, it's nice to have proof, if you can get it. I'm just saying that if you limit yourself to pursuing treatments that are "proven" to be effective, then you might miss something that would be effective that hasn't been proven. Which is a shame if the treatments that do have proof don't happen to work in your particular case. Because it's notoriously difficult to study psychological treatments (because of the internal and subjective nature of most of the processes and results), most available treatments don't have scientific proof to back them up.
Also, as a scientist, I'd like to point out that scientific proof is a rare and elusive beast. Most research is limited in scope and applicable only to the narrow conditions included in the particular study. Most research only points in particular directions, rather than proving anything.
Personally, I've had great results with types of treatments that do not have scientific proof backing them up. And yet, I think we all need to make that call for ourselves. If you think it's best to rely only on proven treatments, then that is definitely what you should do, and I wholeheartedly support that. Just realize that there may be valid reasons for others to make other decisions.
pegasus
Posted by partlycloudy on July 27, 2004, at 14:57:45
In reply to Re: scientific research » Ilene, posted by pegasus on July 27, 2004, at 14:42:45
I would like to frame this post, if I may. It's beautifully put.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 27, 2004, at 15:27:14
In reply to Re: scientific research » Ilene, posted by pegasus on July 27, 2004, at 14:42:45
> Yes, absolutely, it's nice to have proof, if you can get it. I'm just saying that if you limit yourself to pursuing treatments that are "proven" to be effective, then you might miss something that would be effective that hasn't been proven. Which is a shame if the treatments that do have proof don't happen to work in your particular case. Because it's notoriously difficult to study psychological treatments (because of the internal and subjective nature of most of the processes and results), most available treatments don't have scientific proof to back them up.
>
> Also, as a scientist, I'd like to point out that scientific proof is a rare and elusive beast. Most research is limited in scope and applicable only to the narrow conditions included in the particular study. Most research only points in particular directions, rather than proving anything.
>
> Personally, I've had great results with types of treatments that do not have scientific proof backing them up. And yet, I think we all need to make that call for ourselves. If you think it's best to rely only on proven treatments, then that is definitely what you should do, and I wholeheartedly support that. Just realize that there may be valid reasons for others to make other decisions.
>
> pegasusWell put. Hear! Hear!
If I may be so bold as to extend your comments....We have no objective proof of pain. We have no objective proof of major depression. We have no objective proof of fatigue. We have no idea if different individuals are even talking about the same thing when we they use those terms. Declaring a disorder or a treatment to be subjective may well be a true statement, but that does not make such a declaration, in order to dismiss or trivialize the experience of anybody else, fair, valid, or responsible.
Lar
Posted by fires on July 27, 2004, at 16:56:37
In reply to Re: scientific research » Ilene, posted by pegasus on July 27, 2004, at 14:42:45
> Yes, absolutely, it's nice to have proof, if you can get it. I'm just saying that if you limit yourself to pursuing treatments that are "proven" to be effective, then you might miss something that would be effective that hasn't been proven. Which is a shame if the treatments that do have proof don't happen to work in your particular case. Because it's notoriously difficult to study psychological treatments (because of the internal and subjective nature of most of the processes and results), most available treatments don't have scientific proof to back them up.
>
> Also, as a scientist, I'd like to point out that scientific proof is a rare and elusive beast. Most research is limited in scope and applicable only to the narrow conditions included in the particular study. Most research only points in particular directions, rather than proving anything.
>
> Personally, I've had great results with types of treatments that do not have scientific proof backing them up. And yet, I think we all need to make that call for ourselves. If you think it's best to rely only on proven treatments, then that is definitely what you should do, and I wholeheartedly support that. Just realize that there may be valid reasons for others to make other decisions.
>
> pegasusI tried many meds over the last 20 years for "off-label" uses, so there was no proof that they worked for what I had -- but they did not defy current scientific knowledge.
Some of the "New Age" theapies are contrary to science as we know it.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | 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.