![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 253 to 277 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
In reply to Re: Karma » vwoolf, posted by fayeroe on August 7, 2010, at 16:20:57
> It wouldn't bother you if the original poster found other posts on the thread helpful but not yours? How about if the original poster found every other post on the thread helpful, but not yours?
>
> It wouldn't bother you if you had one of the lower helpfulness ratings on the board of those who posted about the same number of times?
>
> DinahI can see that competitive posters might become preoccupied with how their point totals compare with those of other posters. It could trigger old feelings of being unpopular. It could be a challenge for them not to define themselves by their point totals. But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.
> I'd go so far to say that expecting compassion in return for one's compassionate acts disqualifies the act as compassionate.
>
> chujoeI'm more concerned with effects than motivations. If someone feels compassion, but posts something uncivil, I still see that as being uncivil. If they post something that's appreciated, but hope for compassion in return, I still see that as being appreciated. Some people are therapists in part because they expect to earn a living. I don't see them as lacking in compassion.
> How can this reward system not be invasive and unsafe?
>
> This discussion has become polarized and emotional because so many of us were judged and "graded" when we were children or maybe when we were married to someone who "kept" score.
>
> fayeroeI can see that the possibility of *not* being rewarded/appreciated might feel unsafe. However:
It's already the case that some posts are appreciated and others aren't, and posters seem to be able to deal with that.
Posters may underestimate how appreciated their posts will be.
Posters aren't the children of, or married to, particular other posters. If their replies aren't appreciated by certain posters, it might be worth their while to consider why they reply to them and not others.
Not being appreciated could be an opportunity for growth:
> > Replace shame with mature guilt. ... To illustrate: John feels shame that he is not the sort of person who can ever excel at his work. ... Finding the "smarts" and the courage to re-evaluate himself as "guilty" of inertia and poor training, he begins to create and achieve goals that are possible for him. ... He has moved into consciousness that his worth can be defined by realistic possibilities
http://www.psychsight.com/ar-shame.html
Bob
Posted by sigismund on August 9, 2010, at 2:59:00
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
>I can see that competitive posters might become preoccupied with how their point totals compare with those of other posters. It could trigger old feelings of being unpopular. It could be a challenge for them not to define themselves by their point totals.
Yes
>But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.No
That sort of reassurance (after requesting it) would ring (somewhat) hollow for me.
Posted by Dinah on August 9, 2010, at 6:54:34
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
May it bring Babble all the good you want, and none of the harm I fear. At least may it bring more good than harm.
I've withdrawn from this conversation, since I feel helpless in the face of it.
Posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:07:44
In reply to Re: Karma, posted by Dr. Bob on August 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
who would give me a biscuit for this post?
can i be the elephant in the pink tutu driving the wee purple convertible?
Posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:41:58
In reply to still feels like circus animal training » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:07:44
I swear it's coming clear...all of babble as a behavior modification program for civility.
the actual token dispensing system is in almost place!
weee!
(bay is losing it this morning)
Posted by violette on August 9, 2010, at 17:46:38
In reply to Re: still feels like circus animal training - II, posted by BayLeaf on August 9, 2010, at 8:41:58
I'm laughing about the circus images in my head :)
Bob-it's really the synergy between the 2 posters-what would 'measuring' one side of the equation prove after all?
Poster A finds Poster X's comment UNhelpful because poster X didn't tell him 'what he wanted to hear'. -1 point
Poster B finds Poster X's comment UNhelpful because Poster X told him 'what he wanted to hear' rather than new ideas. -1 point
Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
Poster X's rating = 0
Poster X will be rated both unhelpful and helpful for the same type of responses. And if the other variables-the other poster's opinions-contribute to the sum of Poster X's rating, it would be a result of the same effect.
Even if there are no negative points involved, it might have the same effect in reality: no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
In reply to Re: still feels like circus animal training - II, posted by violette on August 9, 2010, at 17:46:38
> > But that's also something other posters might be able to help them with: a poster might post that they feel unappreciated, other posters might post what they appreciate about the first poster, and the first poster might then feel more appreciated.
>
> That sort of reassurance (after requesting it) would ring (somewhat) hollow for me.
>
> sigismundSure, it might. It might depend in part on how on-target the other posters were, and on how convinced the first poster was that they were unappreciated. And it might have to happen more than once.
--
> Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
>
> Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
>
> Poster X's [point total = 2]
>
> no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
>
> I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
>
> violetteOne might conclude:
Poster C appreciates information.
Poster D appreciates sympathy.
Poster X is appreciated by others.
And so Poster X would feel good about helping others out and have tangible proof of their appreciation. Poster X could look at the points they had and think, wow, I've helped a couple people!
Bob
Posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
I've just come across a passage in a book, "The Mystery of Analytical Work" by Barbara Stevens Sullivan, that seems to fit into this debate, although I haven't really thought it through too much yet. She writes:
"Symington ..... has developed a theory that all psychopathology can be understood as a form of narcissism, where 'narcissism' implies arrogance, selfishness and an inability to love. In this approach, narcissism may look very different from the popular image of someone who thinks himself superior to the ordinary run of people. Indeed, the individual may consciously feel inferior. But regardless of the presenting symptomatology, the person's focus is on himself, rather than on himself and the group. The narcissist may even seem compassionate in his behaviour, but if his secret focus is on how virtuous and loving he is being and on the 'credits' he is racking up in heaven or in the eyes of the world for his kindness, the orientation is narcissistic rather than related."
Am i putting the spanner back in the works here? I hope not.
Posted by sigismund on August 12, 2010, at 20:15:26
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
>Symington ..... has developed a theory that all psychopathology can be understood as a form of narcissism, where 'narcissism' implies arrogance, selfishness and an inability to love
Given currently existing human relations and child rearing practices it's no surprise.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2010, at 1:38:00
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by vwoolf on August 12, 2010, at 5:53:25
> > In this approach, narcissism may look very different from the popular image of someone who thinks himself superior to the ordinary run of people. Indeed, the individual may consciously feel inferior. But regardless of the presenting symptomatology, the person's focus is on himself, rather than on himself and the group. The narcissist may even seem compassionate in his behaviour, but if his secret focus is on how virtuous and loving he is being and on the 'credits' he is racking up in heaven or in the eyes of the world for his kindness, the orientation is narcissistic rather than related.
A point system might be an issue for some people. They might, for example, become preoccupied with their point total.
You might not want to emulate someone just because they have a lot of points, just like you might not want to emulate someone just because they make a lot of money.
OTOH, it doesn't strike me as such a bad situation if a poster feels good about their point total and they have a lot of points because others often appreciate their posts.
Bob
Posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 12:42:51
In reply to Re: Appreciation, posted by Dr. Bob on August 12, 2010, at 1:56:11
> Poster C finds Poster X's comment helpful because it provided Poster C with new information he had not previously considered. +1 point
> >
> > Poster D finds Poster X's comment helpful because Poster D wants sympathy and that's what Poster X provided. +1 point
> >
> > Poster X's [point total = 2]
> >
> > no conclusion as to what is helpful and what is not.
> >
> > I guess I don't see the point or the reasoning behind this.
> >
> > violette
>
> One might conclude:
>
> Poster C appreciates information.
>
> Poster D appreciates sympathy.
>
> Poster X is appreciated by others.
>
> And so Poster X would feel good about helping others out and have tangible proof of their appreciation. Poster X could look at the points they had and think, wow, I've helped a couple people!
>
> BobBob, I haven't been here ina long time, but was looking for distraction.
Well, surely I got it here!
This point system is utterly ridiculous and seems to me another attempt to quantify something for YOUR own personal curiousity.
Posters on boards get satisfaction when people REPLY to their posts. And if they post consistently, and reply to others posts, and reply promptly in their own threads, well, then they tend to get more feedback, more satisfaction/encouragement.
The point system would just be embarassing and put pressure on people.
Just had to post this cuz I wonder at your thought processes Bob. Not that its a bad brain, its sort of fascinating. I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitively with some of these ideas you have.
Yes, this is YOUR website, but I do hope you will listen to the people that *actually* ARE the life of the site.
Stop messing with them, listen to them, and if you actually have any caring in your heart, you will back off.
My thots,
M
ps , best wishes to alla you babblers, or whats left of you.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:51:27
In reply to Re: Appreciation » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on August 29, 2010, at 12:42:51
> This point system is utterly ridiculous
>
> I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitivelyPlease don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 11:59:22
In reply to Re: please be civil » muffled, posted by Dr. Bob on August 30, 2010, at 1:51:27
> > This point system is utterly ridiculous
> >
> > I just wish you wouldn't be barging ovver other people so insensitively
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.ROFL!!!
Okey dokey.
Hmmm.
I completely don't understand the use of a point system.Hmmmm.
Hmmmm.
Hmmm.
I wish admin on this site could listen and hear what people say here. Cuz its seems like we talk and nothing changes.
OK, thats my first shot at this.....
Lemme know...
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 21:29:30
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by muffled on August 30, 2010, at 11:59:22
> I completely don't understand the use of a point system.
>
> I wish admin on this site could listen and hear what people say here. Cuz its seems like we talk and nothing changes.
>
> OK, thats my first shot at this.....
> Lemme know...Very civil, thank you. :-)
What would you like to change? I'd like to know, and will try to hear, and to listen. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'll make those changes.
Bob
Posted by Maxime on September 19, 2010, at 0:34:32
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on August 14, 2010, at 1:38:00
I don't think the point system is good idea AT ALL. I don't understand it. PB doesn't need MORE rules. How come other psych med boards run smoothly without banning people or rewards systems?
Posted by Kath on September 21, 2010, at 11:19:23
In reply to Re: thanks » muffled, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 21:29:30
> What would you like to change? I'd like to know, and will try to hear, and to listen. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'll make those changes.
>
> Bob" I wish admin on this site could listen and hear what people say here. Cuz its seems like we talk and nothing changes"
In my opinion, the whole FB, Twitter situation is a good example. My take on it is that there was a HUGE majority of people who made it crystal-clear that they did not want buttons that would quick-&-easy transfer posts from Psychobabble to Facebook & Twitter.Even so - these people's strong/ heartfelt/ sometimes-frantic/ clearly-put-forth requests were overridden. They might have been "heard" but they weren't acted on. It ended up that they weren't given the amount of weight or importance that would have resulted in their requests/wishes being respected.
Dr. Bob you asked what M would you like to change? Well, personally - I'd like it if the wishes of a HUGE number of participants here were respected. To me, in the case I mention, the wishes of a vast number of members were just ignored. I don't know how other people feel, but for me, some type of 'sorry you feel like that' & then just forging ahead against what so many wish, - when that happens, I feel dismissed & disrespected. And I guess in this case I felt used....since I knew what I posted might be used for research, but to me research does not include FB & Twitter.
So now, with the Points idea, I'm wondering if the same thing will happen. That so many people will speak up clearly & with emotional involvement about not wanting it. And it will simply end up being pushed through, because you want it to. I'm not meaning to disrepect you & I've tried hard to write this in a civil manner.
And for the record, I sincerely & profoundly beg you not to put a point system in place, for all the reasons that other people have already stated.
I hope you will listen to us with your actions.
Thank you for reading this.
Kath
Posted by muffled on September 21, 2010, at 11:47:50
In reply to Re: thanks » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on September 21, 2010, at 11:19:23
and Hi you!!!
:)
Posted by olivia12 on September 21, 2010, at 20:11:32
In reply to I have an idea for Babble, posted by Deneb on July 2, 2010, at 15:03:50
No, I disagree completely Deb--didn't read the thread of responses, but your suggestion just sounds too much like my old psych texts--a reward system or token economy that went out with the 60's version of mental health--leeches and lobotomies. I find this site to be way more evolved than that. No offense--is just IMO:) I appreciate the advice and fellowship offered here--no more, no less.
Posted by twinleaf on September 22, 2010, at 20:10:30
In reply to Re: thanks » Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on September 21, 2010, at 11:19:23
To follow on from Kath's post, the most striking thing that has happened over the last couple of years is the enormous decline in the amount of posting. From what long-term members have said, they would love to be able to post the way they used to, but they do not have the same sense of comfort and safety which they once had. The loss of active posters does not appear to have been compensated for at all by new members from Facebook/Twitter.
None of us expect that Bob will do what we think would be best, necessarily. But I think we do expect to be heard respectfully, and our views acknowleged accurately. In the case of FB/Twitter, well over a hundred people expressed their sincere concern over the increased dangers of privacy loss. These were serious concerns involving jobs and insurance. Bob did not once acknowledge that these were accurate and valid concerns, but instead told everyone that their concerns were due to a fear of the new and unknown. It is impossible to feel like a respected and valued member of the community when communications by the moderator are that poor and inaccurate. It has resulted in a major loss of trust and confidence in this site. While it is not easy to do, I think the future health of Babble depends on whether Bob is willing to look thoughtfully at how his communications are perceived. In addition to not acknowledging peoples' concerns about the social networks and the ratings system accurately and respectfully (this does NOT mean agreeing with them necessarily), there is also a lack of respect shown in the extremely long blocks, and especially in Bob's statement that there is a "punitive" element in them. Punitive elements are simply not appropriate on an internet form, and especially not on one devoted to mental health. This is also true of the civility reminders. There are posters here with more life education and education than Bob, and it is really not appropriate to tell them, or anyone, what is or is not civil, Who is to say that someone who has a different idea about what is civil is wrong, while Bob is right? . Almost every difference of opinion here will be self-correcting, given a little time and space.
To end on a positive note, Bob has created a wonderful site. It has remaiined tremendously helpful for information about treatments, and it could be very valuable once again in some of the more interpersonally sensitive forums, like Psychology and Social.
Posted by twinleaf on September 23, 2010, at 15:44:21
In reply to what might help, posted by twinleaf on September 22, 2010, at 20:10:30
I realize that I tried to address the pervasive feeling which we have of not being understood - of having the reasons for our points of view reflected back to us in an altered form, but didn't address the next difficult problem: how to react when Bob makes changes which hundreds of posters feel are not in Babble's best interests. In order to have a forum to which lots of people want to contribute, there probably needs to be roughly a majority consensus between Bob and our community about what would be best. Beginning about three years ago, there was a very extensive discussion about the blocking policy. This was followed by another even more extensive debate about Facebook/Twitter. Currently, the same thing is happening over the *reward system*. Community members have been thoughtfully expressing their views about each of these topics; they have been against each one, for clear and substantial reasons, by at least 100 to 1. As Bob proceeds to implement policies which are so unpopular, the number of posters who feel that Babble is no longer the right forum for them grows and grows. Right now, the number of posts appears to be almost at a standstill..
What would Bob lose if he set a new policy for blocking which had a maximum length of a few weeks, which did not double for repeat offenses, and which did not have a punitive element as one of its purposes? What would the loss be if he ceased micromanaging the civility guidelines, and trusted members to work out their difficulties most of the time? What would be the loss to him if the default position on Facebook/Twitter was the opposite of what it presently is? :Lastly, what loss would there be if the reward system were set aside? Not only would there be no discernable loss to him, there are tremendous potential gains. I think that adopting these new positions would create the conditions for the return of a lively and vibrant babble - a la 2007. There are so many babblers who would like to post the way they once did. And if they can once again create a strong, active community, new members will have something worthwhile to join.
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 18:57:42
In reply to to conclude....., posted by twinleaf on September 23, 2010, at 15:44:21
As I am new to this group, I don't know which policies you are referring to. I personally appreciate Bob's lack of censorship/involvement--he kinda just let's us be. I have never felt ignored or attacked and have gained much from reading here. Can you give me some of your insight though? Thanks.
Posted by twinleaf on September 23, 2010, at 19:32:31
In reply to Re: to conclude....., posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 18:57:42
I was trying to address the fact that the rate of posting is probably only 5-10% of what it was several years ago, and, for many of us who were Babble members then, it seems as though those who do post are much less spontaneous and open- apparently much more wary of incurring blocks and civility warnings. Many people who posted almost daily now don't post at all because they are still upset about having their views misinterpreted and about the extremely unpopular decisions involving blocking, civility and social networking policies,
What I was saying would really only be meaningful to those of us who have been here a while. Babble really needs enthusiastic new members like you!
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 19:46:57
In reply to Re: to conclude..... » olivia12, posted by twinleaf on September 23, 2010, at 19:32:31
I don't know about any "warnings" or "blocks"--I'd feel micromanaged and be less likely to comment if I thought I'd be reprimanded! I find Dr.Bob to be refreshing and pretty liberal in what he lets happen here--in fact, I find it a bit out of the ordinary on a messege board. Still, I haven't been on here long enough to make any comparisons from then to now. Maybe this site was just hot and heavy when it started because it was new?
Posted by vwoolf on September 25, 2010, at 10:42:12
In reply to what might help, posted by twinleaf on September 22, 2010, at 20:10:30
In a post on the social board on 20th August, and I don't know how to create a link, sorry, Dr Bob wrote regarding the Facebook, Twitter debacle:
>I know that process left much to be desired, and I continue to regret that.
It was, to my mind, an important and courageous statement, and one which we should encourage Dr Bob to consider carefully. I know he cares deeply about PsychoBabble, and I think it is hard for him to see it declining like this, in part because of what he admits to have been his mistakes. It is my hope that he will eventually find a way to repair some of the damage that has been done to PsychoBabble, perhaps starting by removing the Twitter and Facebook buttons.
My personal take on the blocks and civility posts is that they are necessary and helpful in creating a frame. I think this is confirmed by the number of posters who return even after a year's block - there is something good and caring about a parent who sets consistent boundaries.
> To end on a positive note, Bob has created a wonderful site. It has remaiined tremendously helpful for information about treatments, and it could be very valuable once again in some of the more interpersonally sensitive forums, like Psychology and Social.
I couln't agree more.
Posted by twinleaf on September 25, 2010, at 19:10:16
In reply to Re: what might help » twinleaf, posted by vwoolf on September 25, 2010, at 10:42:12
Psychobabble is right at the leading edge of online communities. Posting topics and personal interactions are bound to be unexpected and stress-inducing at times, and knowing how to respond can be extremely challenging. I think we all look up to Bob as a very competent leader in these areas, and we would like very much to see him demonstrate the flexibility which being a leader in a new field necessarily requires. I think it is very reasonable, on our parts, to hope and expect that Bob will modify policies which hundreds of posters find unacceptable or even harnful. If he did this, it would be a "win-win" situation for everyone: Bob would not lose anything of importance to him or to Psychobabble, and he would gain the respect and trust of hundreds of babblers while still being able to administer the site effectively. On our parts, we would appreciate his flexibility tremendously,and would be very grateful to be rid of outmoded, unhelpful, damaging administrative policies. Many people have said here how much they would like to see these changes, and how much they would like to see the conditions of several years ago restored.. While no-one can say for sure, I think there is a very good chance that posting rates would increase a great deal if Bob made these quite modest changes. So........Bob?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
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.