![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Sal on January 31, 2001, at 23:24:56
Hello, all,
Let me share a story, if I may. When I was in elementary school, playing well together involved a game called hawks and doves. When it would snow, the neighborhood kids came out to sled down the steepest street the neighborhood. Some of the kids who had lived in the neighborhood the longest, some of those whose parents earned a bit more money, and some of the bigger kids told the rest of us who wanted to use the hill how we should play. They were the hawks.
The hawks told the doves to slide down first. The hawks would then chase after us, trying to force us off the street, into a ditch. Since the driveways that crossed the ditch had brick culverts, it didn’t take long to figure out that playing together with those kids meant the possibility of a head injury. Pretty soon, there were few doves on the hill, and few who had any problem with the game of hawks and doves.
In high school, playing well together often meant going along with the crowd. It sometimes meant standing with classmates in a gauntlet outside the cafeteria, to heckle and jab whatever target of derision was selected by a clique that had the clout to instigate such an incident. To stand apart from the crowd meant the possibility of becoming the crowd’s next chosen target. I still wonder how the teachers managed not to be there at those times.
The school staff seemed to endorse such hazing by supporting the annual senior day celebration. Seniors enjoyed the privilege of ordering freshmen to carry their books for them, to crawl on hands and knees in the foyer to clean the school seal with a toothbrush or to perform whatever other demeaning act a senior could contrive. Some carried the hazing a step further, slapping us in the back of the head as they passed in the hallway.
Some of us learned to avoid school and isolated ourselves. Eventually, some of us learned to cope, and even learned skills to counter and redirect such conflicts.
Because we learned to stand on our own, and not to let others play with our heads, we sometimes still encounter the same responses from some who learned things as kids about how to play together. Popular groups talk loudly among themselves about us. We are told we are pushing their buttons when we do not immediately recognize and adopt their unique customs. We might be called energy monsters. Someone might speak out to rebut our every word. People feign to not comprehend us. Our input is treated as irrelevant. People loudly agree to ignore us, yet soon are talking among themselves in the terms they learned from us. We are personally criticized if our viewpoint does not concur with a dominant opinion. We are blamed for what people do to us, and the way people feel about us. People presume to know our motives. We are told we are not welcome.
But some of us grew accustomed to the predictable responses. We learned that, with effort, we could help change the situation. Some of us even learned to enjoy playing together in a way that would promote tolerance of divergent viewpoints.
On television now there is a cute “Take a Bite Out of Crime” McGruff animation for school kids. The animation style is like that of a Nintendo combat game. In response to a bully’s confrontational posture and thrown fists, a kid with a skateboard sidesteps, dodges and jumps acrobatically over the head of the school bully. Kids are urged to "talk it out," which, in the cartoon, chills the bully in a cloud of blue ice.
Thanks for your attention,
Sal
Posted by willow on February 1, 2001, at 8:18:15
In reply to On playing well together, posted by Sal on January 31, 2001, at 23:24:56
> Hello, all,
>
> Let me share a story, if I may. When I was in elementary school, playing well together involved a game called hawks and doves. When it would snow, the neighborhood kids came out to sled down the steepest street the neighborhood. Some of the kids who had lived in the neighborhood the longest, some of those whose parents earned a bit more money, and some of the bigger kids told the rest of us who wanted to use the hill how we should play. They were the hawks.
>
> The hawks told the doves to slide down first. The hawks would then chase after us, trying to force us off the street, into a ditch. Since the driveways that crossed the ditch had brick culverts, it didn’t take long to figure out that playing together with those kids meant the possibility of a head injury. Pretty soon, there were few doves on the hill, and few who had any problem with the game of hawks and doves.
>
> In high school, playing well together often meant going along with the crowd. It sometimes meant standing with classmates in a gauntlet outside the cafeteria, to heckle and jab whatever target of derision was selected by a clique that had the clout to instigate such an incident. To stand apart from the crowd meant the possibility of becoming the crowd’s next chosen target. I still wonder how the teachers managed not to be there at those times.
>
> The school staff seemed to endorse such hazing by supporting the annual senior day celebration. Seniors enjoyed the privilege of ordering freshmen to carry their books for them, to crawl on hands and knees in the foyer to clean the school seal with a toothbrush or to perform whatever other demeaning act a senior could contrive. Some carried the hazing a step further, slapping us in the back of the head as they passed in the hallway.
>
> Some of us learned to avoid school and isolated ourselves. Eventually, some of us learned to cope, and even learned skills to counter and redirect such conflicts.
>
> Because we learned to stand on our own, and not to let others play with our heads, we sometimes still encounter the same responses from some who learned things as kids about how to play together. Popular groups talk loudly among themselves about us. We are told we are pushing their buttons when we do not immediately recognize and adopt their unique customs. We might be called energy monsters. Someone might speak out to rebut our every word. People feign to not comprehend us. Our input is treated as irrelevant. People loudly agree to ignore us, yet soon are talking among themselves in the terms they learned from us. We are personally criticized if our viewpoint does not concur with a dominant opinion. We are blamed for what people do to us, and the way people feel about us. People presume to know our motives. We are told we are not welcome.
>
> But some of us grew accustomed to the predictable responses. We learned that, with effort, we could help change the situation. Some of us even learned to enjoy playing together in a way that would promote tolerance of divergent viewpoints.
>
> On television now there is a cute “Take a Bite Out of Crime” McGruff animation for school kids. The animation style is like that of a Nintendo combat game. In response to a bully’s confrontational posture and thrown fists, a kid with a skateboard sidesteps, dodges and jumps acrobatically over the head of the school bully. Kids are urged to "talk it out," which, in the cartoon, chills the bully in a cloud of blue ice.
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> Sal
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2001, at 0:43:47
In reply to On playing well together, posted by Sal on January 31, 2001, at 23:24:56
> Some of us learned to avoid school and isolated ourselves. Eventually, some of us learned to cope, and even learned skills to counter and redirect such conflicts.
Learning to cope is good, but sometimes what works in one situation doesn't in others.
> Because we learned to stand on our own, and not to let others play with our heads, we sometimes still encounter the same responses
And it may in fact be *because* of how you learned to cope that you still encounter the same responses -- which reinforces those coping mechanisms, which leads to more of those responses, etc.
> But some of us grew accustomed to the predictable responses. We learned that, with effort, we could help change the situation. Some of us even learned to enjoy playing together in a way that would promote tolerance of divergent viewpoints.
I do think you've learned to play better, and to exercise more restraint, but unfortunately you still have a disruptive effect, so I'm going to block you again. To continue to try to "change the situation" here, please email me instead. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by dj on February 2, 2001, at 14:03:07
In reply to Re: please don't be disruptive » Sal, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2001, at 0:43:47
> I do think you've learned to play better, and to exercise more restraint, but unfortunately you still have a disruptive effect, so I'm going to block you again. To continue to try to "change the situation" here, please email me instead. Thanks,
>
> BobSo Bob, is Sal aka Name or what? Her post above does have a similar ring to Name's arguments and I don't recall a Sal from before, though I could have missed such...
dj, somewhat puzzled
Posted by Dr. Ted on February 3, 2001, at 3:47:25
In reply to Re: please don't be disruptive » Sal, posted by Dr. Bob on February 2, 2001, at 0:43:47
> And it may in fact be *because* of how you learned to cope that you still encounter the same responses -- which reinforces those coping mechanisms, which leads to more of those responses, etc.
Hmmm… That's one way to look at it...
And it may be that because of how *you* learned to cope, Robert Hsuing, that you encounter responses such as Sal’s.
Are you trying to bloody Sal’s nose on the hood of your patrol car as you take out the unwelcome visitor? You have Sal’s e-mail info. You collected it during the registration process. All you need to do to block someone is execute a few keystrokes. You don’t have to boast about it to in your archives. You could easily *please e-mail me instead*, to discuss with them privately the terms of their banishment. Are you trying to make an example of Sal, for the benefit of the group, as you asserted in the Cyberpsych article?
> But some of us grew accustomed to the predictable responses.
> The school staff seemed to endorse such hazing
In fact, if you blocked Sal because of “how you learned to cope” how does that relate to the American’s with Disabilities Act? Did you block Sal because of an apparent disability? Perhaps you should contact the new Republican U.S. Congress; they might be friendly to an *adjustment* of the ADA.
p.s. to regular site users: This is not an effort to interfere with your use of this otherwise helpful site. Please don't take offense.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 3, 2001, at 7:34:31
In reply to Re: please don't be disruptive » Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Ted on February 3, 2001, at 3:47:25
When will you understand that this is Dr bons site, he can block who the hell he likes!!! This is *not* an public "service". I use alot fo web istes, and people are being blocked all the time, often just cos the moderator or whatever feels like it.
"This person" has caused disruption here for a while, but do you think that the rest of us should have to put up with it?? WHy should we?? Oh, I know - we could all find somewhere else. Sory, but we also like to support Dr Bob and show some thanks for setting this board up for US...
If you're not willing to see this point, and still think that this site shoudl be governed by every little pathetic american law, feel free... but to the rest of us you're getting very dull and tiresome.
Posted by Dr. Ted on February 3, 2001, at 16:18:06
In reply to ~yawns~ » Dr. Ted, posted by NikkiT2 on February 3, 2001, at 7:34:31
It would be helpful if you could direct researchers to other sites where the administration style is similar to the one here. My study indicates this site represents an extreme in administration styles for on-line self-help sites. To date, I have identified no other site that meet all of the following criteria:
> no detailed guidelines for participation are offered,
> multiple diagnoses are discussed on the same page,
> personally identifying information is permitted in posts,
> posts perceived as offensive are left in the archive as an example of what not to do,
> as an example to the group, contributors deemed unwelcome are publicly chastised for vague behavior,
> an administrator offers pseudo-therapeutic insights in the context of publicly blocking unwanted guests.Several researchers who study on-line therapeutic activities, and who study technology mediated communication are watching this site. Perhaps examples of similar sites where an administrator’s offers only minimal guidelines for participation, and where public chastisement is the preferred method for keeping things on-track would be instructive.
Posted by dj on February 3, 2001, at 17:42:55
In reply to Re: please don't be disruptive » Dr. Bob, posted by Dr. Ted on February 3, 2001, at 3:47:25
> And it may be that because of how *you* learned to cope, Robert Hsuing, that you >encounter responses such as Sal’s.
Now that post has the tone of somebodies who have posted here under various nom de plumes, particularly the reference to Robert Hsuing as such...
Posted by ksvt on February 4, 2001, at 19:57:45
In reply to Re: examples?, posted by Dr. Ted on February 3, 2001, at 16:18:06
>What's the point of your post? The overwelming majority of those people who regularly post here have no trouble understanding the bounds of civility, in spite of the supposedly awful lack of clear standards. It seems to me that in the main, the people who are so bothered by the lack of standards and other perceived deficiencies of this site, never post about anything else. They don't seem to be here to solicit emotional support or to offer it to others, or to exchange anecdotal information about different medications. Those who would rather only engage in a debate about the problems with this site very rarely take into account its benefits to many people, perhaps because you've (they've) never tried to use it in a constructive participatory manner. Sure the system may be a bit autocratic, but I'm willing to accept that when balanced against the many benefits. What purpose is served by joining in here solely to trash something? Ksvt
It would be helpful if you could direct researchers to other sites where the administration style is similar to the one here. My study indicates this site represents an extreme in administration styles for on-line self-help sites. To date, I have identified no other site that meet all of the following criteria:
> > no detailed guidelines for participation are offered,
> > multiple diagnoses are discussed on the same page,
> > personally identifying information is permitted in posts,
> > posts perceived as offensive are left in the archive as an example of what not to do,
> > as an example to the group, contributors deemed unwelcome are publicly chastised for vague behavior,
> > an administrator offers pseudo-therapeutic insights in the context of publicly blocking unwanted guests.
>
> Several researchers who study on-line therapeutic activities, and who study technology mediated communication are watching this site. Perhaps examples of similar sites where an administrator’s offers only minimal guidelines for participation, and where public chastisement is the preferred method for keeping things on-track would be instructive.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2001, at 0:53:52
In reply to Re: examples? » Dr. Ted, posted by ksvt on February 4, 2001, at 19:57:45
> >What's the point of your post?
He's not going to be able to answer here, he's blocked, too. I hope things will settle down now. For a while, at least!
If anyone would like to continue this discussion off the board, however, he posted his email address in his first post, help yourself. :-)
Bob
Posted by shar on February 5, 2001, at 1:16:13
In reply to Re: examples? » Dr. Ted, posted by ksvt on February 4, 2001, at 19:57:45
> >What's the point of your post? The overwelming majority of those people who regularly post here have no trouble understanding the bounds of civility, in spite of the supposedly awful lack of clear standards. It seems to me that in the main, the people who are so bothered by the lack of standards and other perceived deficiencies of this site, never post about anything else. They don't seem to be here to solicit emotional support or to offer it to xothers, or to exchange anecdotal information about different medications. Those who would rather only engage in a debate about the problems with this site very rarely take into account its benefits to many people, perhaps because you've (they've) never tried to use it in a constructive participatory manner. Sure the system may be a bit autocratic, but I'm willing to accept that when balanced against the many benefits. What purpose is served by joining in here solely to trash something? Ksvt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It would be helpful if you could direct researchers to other sites where the administration style is similar to the one here. My study indicates this site represents an extreme in administration styles for on-line self-help sites. To date, I have identified no other site that meet all of the following criteria:
> > > no detailed guidelines for participation are offered,
> > > multiple diagnoses are discussed on the same page,
> > > personally identifying information is permitted in posts,
> > > posts perceived as offensive are left in the archive as an example of what not to do,
> > > as an example to the group, contributors deemed unwelcome are publicly chastised for vague behavior,
> > > an administrator offers pseudo-therapeutic insights in the context of publicly blocking unwanted guests.
> >
> > Several researchers who study on-line therapeutic activities, and who study technology mediated communication are watching this site. Perhaps examples of similar sites where an administrator’s offers only minimal guidelines for participation, and where public chastisement is the preferred method for keeping things on-track would be instructive.
Posted by dj on February 5, 2001, at 11:16:18
In reply to Re: examples?, posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2001, at 0:53:52
> If anyone would like to continue this discussion off the board, however, he posted his email address in his first post, help >yourself. :-)dont_tread@dangerous_minds.com - There's an e-mail address for ya, that says it all...
Posted by Cass on February 12, 2001, at 15:37:38
In reply to On playing well together, posted by Sal on January 31, 2001, at 23:24:56
> Because we learned to stand on our own, and not to let others play with our heads, we sometimes still encounter the same responses from some who learned things as kids about how to play together. Popular groups talk loudly among themselves about us. We are told we are pushing their buttons when we do not immediately recognize and adopt their unique customs. We might be called energy monsters. Someone might speak out to rebut our every word. People feign to not comprehend us. Our input is treated as irrelevant. People loudly agree to ignore us, yet soon are talking among themselves in the terms they learned from us. We are personally criticized if our viewpoint does not concur with a dominant opinion. We are blamed for what people do to us, and the way people feel about us. People presume to know our motives. We are told we are not welcome.
Thank-you Sal, that was a wonderfully articulate description of what life is like when one truly maintains their individuality. It's rough!!!!
This is the end of the 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.